The Impact of Teachers’ Self-evaluations through Rubrics versus Supervisors’ Observation on their Performance in Setting Group-work Activities

Subject Areas : Journal of Teaching English Language Studies

Bahram Bagheri ¹ , Elaheh Safari Pakrou ²

1 - Department of English, Garmsar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Garmsar, Iran
2 - Department of English, Garmsar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Garmsar, Iran

Received: 2017-09-20 Accepted : 2017-10-30 Published : 2017-12-01

Keywords: Self-regulation, Feedback, Observation, Self-Evaluation, Rubrics,

Abstract :

As a tool for self-evaluation and also self-regulation, rubrics can be very useful in equipping the language teachers with an assessment device. Moreover, teachers need feedback for their professional development, but how feedback is provided is a challenging question. This study was an attempt to find the effectiveness of self-evaluation through rubrics on setting up group work activities by EFL teachers as compared with the effect of supervisors’ evaluation in this regard. Additionally, EFL teachers’ attitudes with respect to the efficacy of rubrics in setting up group work activities were examined. To this end, 10 female EFL teachers with 2 years of experience were selected and further divided into two groups. One group used rubrics for setting up group work activities and the other used post-observation feedback. Their performances were video recorded and rated by two raters. The results of statistical analysis indicated that the group of teachers who used rubrics to set up group work activities and evaluate their performance significantly outperformed the group of teachers who received post-observation feedback. Teachers’ responses to the attitude questionnaire also showed that overall teachers held a positive attitude towards the use of rubrics to self-evaluate their own performance.

References:

Airasian, P., &Gullickson, A. (1997). Teacher self-evaluation tool kit.ThousandOaks,
California: Corwin Press.
Alonso-Tapia, J., &Panadero, E. (2010). Effect of self-assessment scripts on self-regulation
and learning.InfanciayAprendizaje, 33(3), 385–397.
Andrade, H., &Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and achievementthrough selfassessment.
Theory into Practice, 48(1), 12–19.
Andrade, H., Du, Y., & Wang, X. (2007). Putting rubrics to the test: A study of the effects of
rubric-referenced self-assessment on students’ writing. Paper presentedat the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association,Chicago, IL.
Andrade, H., Du, Y., & Wang, X. (2008). Putting rubrics to the test: The effect of a model,
criteria generation, and rubric-referenced self-assessment on elementary school
students’ writing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 27(2), 3–13.
Bejarano, Y. (1987).A Cooperative Small-Group Methodology in the Language Classroom,
TESOL Quarterly, 21:483-504.
Bridges, E. (1990). Evaluation for tenure and dismissal. In J. Millman& L.Darling Hammond
(Ed.),the new handbook of teacher evaluation (147-157). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Brown, H.D. (2001).Teaching by Principle: An Interactive Approach toLanguage Pedagogy,
2nd ed.(Essex: Longman)
Cardno, C. (1999). Appraisal policy and implementation issues for New Zealand schools. The
International Journal of Educational Management, 13, 87–97.
Danielson, C (2009).Talk about teaching! Leading professional conversations. Thousand
Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Danielson, C. &McGreal, T. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice.
(Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: Ahandbook (pp. 337-
353).
JOURNAL OF TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES, Vol. 6, NO. 2, Autumn 2017
35
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to
equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Davis, R. (1997). ‘Group Work is NOT Busy Work Maximizing Success ofGroup Work in
the
L2 Classroom’, Foreign Language Annals, 30:265-279.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in
Second
Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fushino, K. (2010). Causal Relationships between Communication Confidences, Beliefs
About
Group Work, and Willingness to Communicate in Foreign Language, TESOL
Quarterly,44:700-724.
Goodrich, H. (1997). Understanding rubrics. Educational Leadership, 54(4), 14-17.
Hafner, J. C., & Hafner, P. M. (2003).Quantitative analysis of the rubric as an assessment
tool: An empirical study of student peer-group rating. International Journal of
Science Education, 25(12), 1509–1528.
Halonen, J. S., Bosack, T., Clay, S., & McCarthy, M. (with Dunn, D. S., Hill, G. W., IV,
McEntarffer, R., Mehrotra, C., Nesmith, R., Weaver, K. A., & Whitlock, K.). (2003).
A rubric for learning, teaching, and assessing scientific inquiry in psychology.
Teaching of Psychology, 30, 196–208.
Harris, B. (1986).Developmental Teacher Evaluation. Newton, MA: Allyn andBacon.
Hess, N. (2001). Teaching Large Multilevel Classes, Cambridge Handbooks forLanguage
Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M.H and Porter, P.A. (1985). Group Work, Interlanguage Talk, andSecond Language
Acquisition.TESOL Quarterly, 19:207-228.
Marincovich, M. (1999). Using student feedback to improve teaching. In P.Seldin
(Ed.),Evaluating faculty performance: A practical guide toassessing teaching
research and service (pp. 45–67). Bolton, MA: Anker.
Marincovich, M. (1998). Teaching teaching: The importance of courses onteaching in
TAtraining programs. In M. Marincovich, J. Prostko, & Frederick Stout, (Eds.), The
Professional Development of Graduate TeachingAssistants, 145-162. Boston: Anker
Pub Co.
JOURNAL OF TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES, Vol. 6, NO. 2, Autumn 2017
36
Moss, P. (2010). Thinking systemically about assessment practice. In M.M.Kennedy (Ed.),
Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook (pp. 355-374). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Panadero, E., &Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formativeassessment
purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9(0), 129–144.
Papay, J.P. (2012). Refocusing the debate: Assessing the purposes and tools of Teacher
assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook (pp. 69-132). San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Reddy, Y, M, & Andrade, H (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education.
Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education. 35(4), 435–448.
Smith, C. (2008). Building effectiveness in teaching through targeted evaluationand response:
Connecting evaluation to teaching improvement in higher education. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 517–533.
Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. J. (2005). Introduction to rubrics: An assessment toolto save
grading time, convey effectivefeedback, and promote student learning Sterling, VA:
Stylus.
Stronge, J. H., Richard, H. B., &Catano, N. (2008). Qualities of effective principals.
Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Tucker, P.D. and Stronge, J.H. (2005). Linking Teacher Evaluation and StudentLearning.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.