A Metaevaluation Study On The Assessment of Teacher Performance in

The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment 75
December 2009, Vol. 3
A Metaevaluation Study on the Assessment of Teacher Performance in

an Assessment Center in the Philippines
Carlo Magno
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
Abstract
The present study conducted a metaevaluation of a teacher performance system used in
the Performance Assessment Services Unit (PASU) of De La Salle-College of Saint
Benilde in Manila Philippines. To determine whether the evaluation system on teacher
performance adheres to quality evaluation, the standards of feasibility, utility, propriety, and
accuracy are used as standards. The system of teacher performance evaluation in PASU
includes the use of students rating called the Student Instructional Report (SIR) and a
rating scale used by peers called the Peer Evaluation Form (PEF). A series of guided
discussions was conducted among the different stakeholders of the evaluation system in the
college such as the deans and program chairs, teaching faculty, and students to determine
their appraisal of the evaluation system in terms of the four standards. A metaevaluation
checklist was also used by experts in measurement and evaluation in the Center for
Learning and Performance Assessment (CLPA). The results of the guided discussion
showed that most of the stakeholders were satisfied with the conduct of teacher
performance assessment. Although in using the standards by the Joint Committee on
evaluation, the results are very low. The ratings of utility, propriety, and feasibility were fair
and the standard on accuracy is poor. The areas for improvement are discussed in the
paper.
Introduction
It is a primary concern among educational institutions to assess the teaching

performance of teachers. Assessing teaching performance enables one to gauge the
quality of instruction represented by an institution and facilitate better learning
among students. The Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges and
Universities (PAASCU) judges a school not by the number of hectares of property
or buildings it owns but rather by the caliber of classroom teaching and learning it
can maintain (O‘Donnell, 1996). Judging the quality of teacher performance
actually depends on the quality of assessing the components of teaching. When
PAASCU representatives visit schools, they place a high priority on firsthand
observation of actual faculty performance in the classroom. This implies the value
of the teaching happening in an educational institution as a measure of the quality
of that institution. Different institutions have a variety of ways of assessing teacher
performance. These commonly include classroom observation by and feedback
from supervisors, assessment from peers, and students‘ assessment, all of which
should be firmly anchored on the school‘s mission and vision statements.
The De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde (DLS-CSB) uses a variety of
assessment techniques to come up with a valid evaluation of a teacher‘s
performance. As an institution that has adopted the learner-centered psychological
principles, any assessment technique it uses, as mentioned in the school‘s mission,
―recognizes diversity by addressing various needs, interests, and cultures. As a
community of students, faculty, staff, and administrators, we strengthen our
© 2009 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

relationships through transformational experiences guided by appreciation of

individual worth, creativity, professional competence, social responsibility, a sense
of nationhood, and our faith. We actively anticipate and respond to individual,
industry, and societal needs by offering innovative and relevant programs that foster
holistic human development.‖ The processes in teacher performance evaluation of
instructors, professors and professionals of the college is highly critical since it is
used to decide on matters such as hiring, rehiring, and promotion. There should be
careful calibration and continuous study of the instruments used to assess teachers.
The process of evaluation in the college was established since the start of
the institution in 1988. Since that time, different assessment techniques have been
used to evaluate instructors, professors, and professionals. The assessment of
teachers is handled by the Center for Learning Performance and Assessment
(CLPA), which is primarily responsible for instrument development,
administration, scoring and the communication of assessment results to its
stakeholders. Currently, the instructors and professors are assessed by students
using the Student Instructional Report (SIR), the Peer Evaluation Form (PEF), and
academic advising. The current forms of these instruments have been in use in the
last three years.
At the present period, there is a need to evaluate the process of evaluating
teacher performance in DLS-CSB. Through a metaevaluation study, it may be
determined whether the processes meets the Joint Committee Standards for
Evaluation. The Joint Committee Standards set a ―common language to facilitate
communication and collaboration in evaluation.‖ It is very helpful in a
metaevaluation process since it provides a set of general rules for dealing with a
variety of specific evaluation problems. The processes and practices of the CLPA in
assessing teaching performance needs to be studied whether it meets the standards
of utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy. The metaevaluation technique involves
the process of delineating, obtaining, and applying descriptive information and
judgmental information about the standards of utility, feasibility, propriety, and
accuracy of an evaluation in order to guide the evaluation and to publicly report its
strength and weaknesses (Stufflebeam, 2000).
This study on metaevaluation addresses the issue of whether the process
used by the CLPA on evaluating teaching performance in DLS-CSB meets the
standards and requirements of a sound evaluation. Specifically, the study will
provide information on the adequacy of the SIR, peer assessment and student
advising on following areas: (1) items and instructions of responding; (2) process of
administering the instruments; (3) procedures practiced in assessment; (4) utility
value from stakeholders; (4) accuracy and validity of responses.
Models and Methods of Teacher Evaluation
Generally, teacher evaluations may be summative or formative. The

instruments used for summative evaluation are typically checklist-type forms that
provide little room for narrative, and take note of observable traits and methods
that serve as criteria for continued employment, promotions, and the like (Isaacs,
2003). On the other hand, formative evaluations are geared toward professional

development. In this form of evaluation, teachers and their administrators meet to

try to trace the teacher‘s further development as a professional (Bradshaw, 1996).
Another model is differentiated supervision which is a flexible model of
evaluation that works from the premises that teaching is a profession, and as such,
teachers should have a certain level of control over their development as
professionals (Glatthorn, 1997). This model allows ―for the clinical model of
evaluation, cooperative options that allow teachers to work with peers, and self-
directed options guided by the individual teacher‖ (Isaacs, 2003). The model allows
professional staff and supervisors/administrators options in the process applied for
supervision and evaluation. The supervision program is designed to be
developmentally appropriate to meet the needs of each member of the professional
team. The three processes in the Differentiated Supervision Model are: (1)
Focused Supervision, (2) Clinical Supervision, and (3) Self-Directed Supervision.
The method of collaborative evaluation was developed (Berliner, 1982;
Brandt, 1996; Wolf, 1996) with the core of the mentor/administrator-teacher
collaboration. Whether new or experienced, a teacher is aided by a mentor.It
―requires a more intensive administrative involvement that may include multiple
observations, journal writing, or artifact collections, plus a strong mentoring
program‖ (Isaacs, 2003). At the end of a prescribed period, the mentor and mentee
sit down to compare notes on the data gathered over the observation period.
Together, they identify strengths, weaknesses, areas for improvement, and other
such points. In this model, there are no ratings, no evaluative commentaries and no
summative write-ups (Isaacs, 2003).
Another is the multiple evaluation checklist which uses several instruments
other than administrator observations. Here, the peer evaluation, the self-
evaluation, and the student evaluation meet in varying combinations to form a
teacher‘s evaluation (Isaacs, 2003).
Self-evaluation also plays an important role in the evaluation process. It
causes the teacher to think about his or her methods more deeply, and causes him
or her to consider the long-term. It is also said to promote a sense of responsibility
and the development of higher standards (Lengeling, 1996).
Then there is the most commonly-used evaluation, the student evaluation
(Bonfadini, 1998; Lengeling, 1996; Strobbe, 1993; Williams & Ceci, 1997). They
are the easiest to administer and they provide a lot of insights about rapport-
building skills, teacher communication, and effectiveness. However, as Williams
and Ceci (1997), according to Isaacs (2003) have found that a change in a content-
free variable in teaching (they conducted a study in which the only variable
modified was the teaching style—teachers were told to be more enthusiastic and
attended a seminar on presentation methods) was enough to cause a great
magnitude of increase in teacher ratings, student evaluations have to be viewed with
caution. Another reason is one of the findings of the study by Bonfadini (1998), he
found that, upon asking students to rate their teachers according to four
determinant areas, (a) personal traits, (b) professional competence, (c) student-
teacher relationships, and (d) classroom management, the least used determinant
was professional competence. Conclusion: students may tend to look more at the
packaging (content-free variables) rather than that which empirically makes a good

teacher—so viewing student-based information, says Isaacs (2003), should be done

with care.
In the field of teacher evaluation, the growing use of the portfolio is slowly
softening the otherwise sharp edges of the standardized instrument (Engelson,
1994; Glatthorn, 1997; Shulman, 1988; Seldin, 1991).
National standards are also used as method for teacher evaluation. It is
based on the instigation of a screening board other than the standard licensure
committee, something that has no counterpart in the Philippines. The creation of
the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (1998) was prompted by
the report A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century generated by the 1986
Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, which in turn was prompted by
the 1983 A Nation at Risk report (Isaacs, 2003). It is the mission of the NBPTS to:
…establish high and rigorous standards for what experienced teachers

should know and be able to do, to develop and operate a national,
voluntary system of assessment and certification for teachers, and to
advance educational reforms for the purpose of improving student learning
in America's schools‖ (Isaacs, 2003).
The National Board Certification was meant as a complement to, but not a
replacement for, state licensure exams. While this latter represents the minimum
standards required to teach, the former stands as a test for more advanced
standards in teaching as a profession. Unlike the licensure examinations, it may or
may not be taken; it is voluntary. As such, some schools offer monetary rewards for
the completion of the test, as well as opportunities for better positions (i.e. certified
teaching leadership and mentor roles) (Isaacs, 2003).
Metaevaluaton: ―Evaluation of an evaluation‖
In 1969, Michael Scriven used the term metaevaluation to describe the
evaluation of any evaluation, evaluative tool, device or measure. Seeing how so
many decisions are based on evaluation tools (which is typically their main purpose
for existence in the first place—to help people make informed decisions), it is no
wonder that the need to do metaevaluative work on these evaluation tools is as great
as it is (Stufflebeam, 2000).
In the teaching profession, student evaluation of teachers stands as one of
the main tools of evaluating. However, as earlier stated, while it is but fair that
students be included in the evaluative process, depending on the evaluation process
and content, it may not be very fair to teaching professionals to have their very
careers at the mercy of a potentially flawed tool.
The Process of Metaevaluation
How does one go about performing a metaevaluation? Stufflebeam (2000,)

identified certain steps:
1. Determine and Arrange to Interact with the Evaluation's Stakeholders.

Stakeholders can refer to anyone whose interests might be affected by the

evaluation under the microscope. These may include teachers, students, and
administrators.
2. Staff the Metaevaluation with One or More Qualified Metaevaluators.
Preferably, these should be people with technical knowledge in psychometrics and
people who are familiar with the Joint Committee Personnel Evaluation Standards.
It is sound to have more than one metaevaluator on the job, so that more aspects
may be covered objectively.
3. Define the Metaevaluation Questions. While this might differ on a case-
to-case basis, the four main criteria ought to be present: propriety, utility, feasibility,
and accuracy.
4. As Appropriate, agree on Standards, Principles, and/or Criteria to Judge
the Evaluation System or Particular Evaluation
5. Issue a Memo of Understanding or Negotiate a Formal Metaevaluation
Contract. This will serve as a guiding tool. It contains the standards and principles
contained in the previous step and will help both the metaevaluators and their
clients understand the direction the metaevaluation will take.
6. Collect and Review Pertinent Available Information
7. Collect New Information as Needed, Including, for Example, On-Site
Interviews, Observations and Surveys
8. Analyze the Findings. Put together all the qualitative and quantitative data
in such a way that it will be easy to do the following step.
9. Judge the Evaluation's Adherence to the Selected Evaluation Standards,
Principles, and/or other criteria. This is the truly metaevaluative step. Here, one
takes the analyzed data and judges the evaluation based on the standards that were
agreed upon and put down in the formal contract. In another source, this step is
lumped with the previous one to form a single step (Stufflebeam, 2000).
10. Prepare and Submit the Needed Reports. This entails the finalization of
the data into a coherent report.
11. As Appropriate, Help the Client and Other Stakeholders Interpret and
Apply the Findings. This is important for helping evaluation system under scrutiny
improve by ensuring that the clients know how to use the metaevaluative data
properly.
The Standards of Metaevaluation
There are four standards of metaevaluation: propriety, utility, feasibility, and

accuracy.
Propriety standards were set to ensure that the evaluation in question is
done in an ethical and legal manner (P1 Service Orientation, P2 Formal Written
Agreements, P3 Rights of Human Subjects, P4 Human Interactions, P5 Compete
and Fair Assessment, P6 Disclosure of Findings, P7 Conflict of Interest, P8 Fiscal
Responsibility). They also check to see that all welfare of all stakeholders in
considered (Widmer, 2004).
Utility standards stand as a check for how much the evaluation in question
caters to the information needs of its users (Widmer, 2004). They include: (U1)
Stakeholder Identification, (U2) Evaluator Credibility, (U3) Information Scope and

Selection, (U4) Values Identification, (U5) Report Clarity, (U6) Report Timeliness
and Dissemination, and (U7) Evaluation Impact.
Feasibility standards make sure that the evaluation ―is conducted in a
realistic, well-considered, diplomatic, and cost-conscious manner‖ (Widmer, 2004).
They include: (F1) Practical Procedures, (F2) Political Viability, and (F3) Cost
Effectiveness.
Finally, accuracy standards make sure that the evaluation in question
produces and disseminates information that is both valid and useable (Widmer,
2004). They include: (A1) Program Documentation, (A2) Context Analysis, (A3)
Described Purposes and Procedures, (A4) Defensible Information Sources, (A5)
Valid Information, (A6) Reliable Information, (A7) Systematic Information, (A8)
Analysis of Quantitative Information, (A9) Analysis of Qualitative Information,
(A10) Justified Conclusion, (A11) Impartial Reporting, and (A12) Metaevaluation.
It should be noted that the aforementioned standards were developed
primarily for the metaevaluation of the evaluation of education, training programs
and educational personnel.
Forms of Teacher Evaluation in the Context
The present study conducted a metaevalution of a system of teacher

performance. The teacher performance is composed of two major parts: The
Student Instruction Report (rated by students) and the Peer Evaluation Form (rated
by faculty peers).
The Student Instructional Report. The Student Instructional Report (SIR)

currently used by the College of Saint Benilde originated from the SET form used
by De La Salle University. It has been revised over the years—instructions have
been changes, certain things were omitted from the manual. The items used to day
are pretty much what they were in 2000, and the instructions more or less the same
as those written in 2003. The SIR is administered in the eighth week of every
term, the week directly after the midterms week. The evaluands of the form are
teachers; the evaluators, are their students, and other stakeholders are the chairs
and deans, who use the data generated by the SIR for administrative decisions. The
results are presented to the teachers after the course cards are given. By definition
then, it is a form of summative evaluation. There is currently no data that speaks of
its value as a method of formative evaluation.
Peer Evaluation Form. The Peer Evaluation Form (PEF) is used by faculty
members in observing the performance of their colleagues. The PEF is designed to
determine the extent to which the CSB faculty has been exhibiting teaching
behaviors along the areas of: teacher‘s procedures, teacher‘s performance, and
students‘ actions as observed by their peers.
The PEF is used by a peer observer if the teacher is new in the college and
due for promotion. The peer discuss with the faculty evaluated the observation and
rating given. The faculty signs the form after the conference proper.

Method
Guided Discussion
The Guided Discussion is the primary method of data-gathering for all

groups concerned. As stated above, the represented groups include the teachers,
the chairs and/or deans, the CLPA-PASU staff directly involved in the evaluation
process, the evaluation measurement expert team and the students.
As suggested by Galves (1988), there are five to seven (5-7) participants for
every guided discussion (GD) session. The participants for the GD were chosen by
the deans of the respective schools involved. The groups included are teachers,
chairs and/pr deans, the CLPA-PASU staff, a team of evaluation measurement
experts from CLPA and students.
Separate GD sessions for each of the schools of the college were conducted
they have different needs. The scope of this study is to ―assess and evaluate" the
current practices undertaken in the SIR and PEF system of administration, scoring,
and interpretation. In the GD sessions that were conducted, the participants are co-
evaluators considering that they all employ the same PEF and the same SIR items
and standards of practice.
Each of the four criteria set by the Joint Committee Standards for
Evaluation was used as a guide in the discussion. The Teachers‘ group is set to
discuss and evaluate the propriety aspect; the Chairs/Deans group, the utility aspect;
the CLPA-PASU Staff group, the feasibility aspect; the team of experts, the
accuracy aspect.
Before any of the GD sessions, the list of guide questions for each group
was sent to the chosen participants for a pre-screening of the topics to be discussed
at least ten days before the scheduled GD session for that group. The participants
are given the liberty to request that other topics be added to the discussion or that
certain topics be scratched out.
The modified guide containing the set of questions to be covered is
presented to the participants. Three researchers play specific roles as prescribed by
Galves (1988): The guide shall ask the questions and guide the discussion, the
recorder records of the points raised per question and any questions the
participants may care to ask (using a medium visible to the whole group), and the
observer of the process is tasked to keep the discussion on track, regulate the time
per topic, and prevent anyone from monopolizing the discussion. The guide
initiated the discussion by presenting the new set of questions, at which point the
participants were given another opportunity to add or subtract topics for discussion.
Once the final set of questions has been decided upon and recorded by the
recorder, responses were gathered and discussed by the group.
One key feature of the GD method is that a consensus on the issues under
a topic must be reached. When all the points were raised, the group was given the
chance to look over their responses to validate or invalidate them. Whatever the
group decides to keep will be kept; what it chooses to strike out gets stricken out.
The side-along evaluation done by the observer may be done at regular
points throughout the discussions as decided by the group (i.e. after each topic)

and/or when he or she deems it fit to interrupt (i.e. at points when the discussion
goes astray, or the participant spend too much time on one point)
A similar procedure was followed for the Student group. The purpose the
students‘ discussion is to get information of their perspectives of the evaluation
process and their perception of their role as evaluators.
At the end of each discussion, the participants were asked to give their
opinion about the usefulness and feasibility of having this sort of discussion every
year to process their questions, comments, doubts, and suggestions. This provides
data for streamlining the metaevaluative process for future use.
Extant Data, Reliability, and Validity Testing
The average ratings of the teachers within the last three school years (AY
2003-2004 and 2004-2005) were used to generate findings on how well the results
could discriminate the levels of good teaching and needs improvement teaching.
The Cronbach‘s alpha was used to determine the internal consistency of the old
teacher performance instrument.
The average of the scores for the three terms was computed for each school
year, generating three average scores. These scores were compared to each other to
check the reliability across time.
Metaevaluation Checklist
A checklist was used to determine whether the evaluation meets the

standard of utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy. There were seven experts in
line with measurement and evaluation who were invited to evaluate the system used
by the CLPA in assessing teachers‘ performance on both Student Instructional
Report (SIR) and Peer Evaluation Report (PEF). The metaevaluators first used a
30-item checklist adopted from the Joint Committee Standards for Evaluation. The
metaevaluators were guided by information from the GD session notes (as
transcribed by the recorder) and other extant data.
Instrumentation
For the GD sessions, a guide lists was used. The guide is composed of a set
of questions under each standard that is meant to evaluate the evaluation system.
The questions in the GD are the pre-written. In the data-gathering method, these
are still subject to change, both in the fielding of the questions prior to the GT
sessions and on the day of the GT session itself.
The Metaevaluation Checklist by Stufflebeam (2000) was used to rate the
SIR and PEF as an evaluation system. It is composed of ten items for each of the
subvariables under each of the four standards (see appendix B). The task is to
check the items in each list that are applicable in the current teacher performance
evaluation system done by the center. Nine to ten (9-10) items generates a rating of
excellent for that particular subvariables; 0.7-0.8), a very good; 0.5-0.6, good; 0.3-
0.4, fair; and 0-0.2, poor.

Data Analysis
The data obtained from the GD was analyzed using the qualitative
approach. The important themes from the notes produced in the GD were
extracted based on the appraisal components for each area of metaevaluation
standard. For utility appraisal themes referring to stakeholder identification
(persons affected by the evaluation should be identified), evaluator credibility
(trustworthiness and competence of the evaluator), information scope and selection
(broad selection of information/data for evaluation), values identification
(description of procedures and rationale of the evaluation), report clarity
(description of the evaluation being evaluated), report timeliness (findings and
reports distributed to users), and Evaluation impact (the evaluation should
encourage follow-through by stakeholders) were extracted. For propriety the
appraisal themes extracted are on Service orientation (designed to assist and
address effectively the needs of the organization), formal agreement (Obligation of
formal parties are agreed to in writing), rights of human subjects (evaluation is
conducted to respect and protect the rights of human subjects), and human
interaction (respect human dignity and worth). For feasibility the themes extracted
are on practical procedures, political viability, fiscal viability, and legal viability. The
qualitative data were used as basis in accomplishing the metaevaluation checklist for
utility, feasibility, and propriety.
For the standards on accuracy on accuracy, the existing documents of
processes, procedures, programs, policies, documentations, and reports were made
available to the metaevaluators in order to accomplish the metaevaluation checklist
in this area.
In the checklist, every item of the metaevaluation standard that was checked
were divided into 10 and averaged according to the number of metaevaluators who
accomplished the checklist. Each component is then interpreted whether the
system reached the typical stands of evaluation. The scores are interpreted as 0.9 to
1.0, Excellent; 0.7 to 0.8, Very Good; 0.5 to 0.6, Good; 0.3 to 0.4, Fair; 0.1 to 0.2,
Poor.
Results
Utility
Under utility there are four standards evaluated: Stakeholder identification,

information scope and selection, values identification, functional reporting, follow-
up and impact, and information scope and selection. Themes and clusters formed
in evaluating the utility of the teacher performance evaluation system.
For the standard on stakeholder identification, the strands were clustered
into four themes: Mode of feedback, approaches to feedback, sources of feedback,
and time of giving feedback. For the deans and chairs, the mode of feedback took
the form of ―one on one basis, informal approach, post-conferences, meetings, and
note is given when urgent.‖ The approaches in giving feedback were both
developmental (suggestions to further improve the teaching skills) and evaluative

(Standing of the faculty). The sources of feedback come from the students through
the SIR, student advising, e-mail from students and parents, and peers (senior
faculty, chairs, deans). Feedback is given ―if the rating is high (3.75 and above);
sometimes no feedback is given; when the results of the SIR are low; if the faculty is
new to the college; and those who have been teaching for a long time and getting
low ratings.‖
For values identification, the strands were clustered into three themes:
Needs, actions taken, and value of the instrument. According to the participants,
the needs included ―Results (that) are (not) too cumbersome for deans to read; A
print out of the results should be given; the time taken to access the results turns off
some teachers from accessing them; Students having difficulty answering the SIR;
Students don‘t see how teaching effectiveness is measured and; Create a particular
form for laboratory classes.‖ The action taken theme included ―removing items that
are valid and another computation is done and; Other evaluation criteria is done.‖
The themes of the instrument value showed that for the instrument to be valuable,
―there should be indicators for each score; there should be factors of teaching
effectiveness with clear labels; identify what the instrument measures; there needs to
be a lump score on learner-centeredness and; there are other success indicators that
are not reflected in the SIR.‖
For functional reporting, two clusters emerged: Decisions and functions.
The decisions made by the teacher evaluation include promotion, loading with
course, retaining part-time faculty, deloading a faculty, permanency, and training
enhancement. The functions of the teacher evaluation are ―used for improvement
the faculty; the administrators come up with a list of faculty that will be given
teaching load based on SIR reports and; The PEF constricts what needs to be
evaluated more.‖
The follow-up and impact included both qualitative and quantitative. The
qualitative aspect of the instruments included suggestions to ―give headings/labels
for the different parts; Come up with dimensions and subdimensions; Devise a way
to reach the faculty (yahoo, emails etc.); The teachers and students should see what
aspects to improve on; and there should be narrative explanations for the figures.‖
The quantitative aspect of the report included ―faculty doesn‘t understand the
spreading index; Conduct a seminar explaining the statistics; Come up with a
general global score; Each area should be represented with a number; and a verbal
list of strengths and weaknesses of the faculty.‖
Two clusters were identified for information scope and selection:
Perception and action. In the perception the faculty ―looks at evaluation as
something negative because the school uses the results.‖ For the suggested actions
―come up with CLPA kit explaining the PEF and SIR; check on the credibility on
the answers of students; and SIR needs to be simplified for the non-hearing
students.‖

Table 1
Rating for Utility
Utility Mean Rating Interpretation

Stakeholder Identification 0.59 Good
Evaluation Credibility 0.65 Good
Information Scope and selection 0.78 Very Good
Values Identification 0.66 Good
Report Clarity 0.52 Good
Report Timeliness and dissemination 0.29 Poor
Evaluation Impact 0.35 Fair
Note. Excellent (.9-1), Very Good (.7-.8), Good (.5-.6), Fair (.3-.4), Poor (0-.2)
The ratings for utility using the metaevaluation checklist showed that in
most of the item areas, the performance of the teacher evaluation processes are
good. In particular, the area on information scope and selection is very good.
However, report timeliness is poor and evaluation impact is fair and should thus be
improved.
Propriety
The standards on propriety include service orientation, formal evaluation

guidelines, conflict of interest, confidentiality, and helpfulness. Clusters and themes
were formed from the GD.
For service orientation, the clusters formed were on the results, examiner,
and responding. According to the participants, they were ―not satisfied because the
results come very late.‖ There is a need to ―prepare hard copies of the results‖
because ―most faculty members could not access the results‖ and the ―PEF
qualitative results are not seen online.‖ The participants appraisal of the examiners
include being ―friendly, sometimes late, new staff have difficulty administering the
form because they could not handle deaf students, and they are not able to answer
the questions of students.‖ In responding to the SIR it was mentioned that ―there
should be orientation to students.‖
For the formal evaluation guidelines, the three areas specified were the
students, frequency of meetings, and observation visits. For the students, it was
mentioned that ―they get tired of answering many SIR (forms) within the day.‖ In
terms of the frequency of meetings, there are ―no guidelines for modular classes
and team teaching; and ―no SIR for on-the-job training classes and the teacher
cannot be promoted.‖ In the observation visits, it is needed to ―make clear who will
call the teacher when the SIR is finish; the observer can‘t make other visits; the PEF
guidelines do not give instructions what the observer will do; it is not practical for
the observer to go through the whole process of preobservation, observation and
post observation.‖
No clusters were formed for the conflict of interest. The themes extracted
were ―CLPA do not give in to requests; not too many queries about the SIR;
because the LC is adopted by the college, more value is given to the SIR; and SIR
is not fully explained to the teacher.‖

For confidentiality, majority of the participants agree that ‗the information

kept by the center is very confidential.‖
For the area on helpfulness the themes identified were ―the comments are
read rather than the numbers; it‘s the comments that the teachers look at; the
numerical results need a more clear explanation; and comments need to be broken
down into specific factors.‖
Table 2
Rating for Propriety
Propriety Mean Rating Interpretation

Service Orientation 0.53 Good
Formal Agreement 0.70 Very Good
Rights of Human subjects 0.62 Good
Human Interaction 0.57 Good
Complete and Fair Assessment 0.38 Fair
Disclosure of Findings 0.50 Good
Conflict of Interest 0.48 Fair
Physical Responsibility 0.40 Fair
Note. Excellent (.9-1), Very Good (.7-.8), Good (.5-.6), Fair (.3-.4), Poor (.1-.2)
Most of the ratings for propriety using the metaevaluation checklist were
pegged at good. A very good rating was obtained for formal agreement. A fair rating
is obtained in the areas of complete and fair assessment, conflict of interest, and
physical responsibility.
Feasibility
The standards on feasibility include practical procedures, political viability,

fiscal viability, and legal viability. Clusters and themes for the standards of feasibility
were formed.
For practical procedures, the clusters formed were on the understandability
of the instructions, difficulty with the comments and suggestions part, difficulty with
the instrument as a whole. These clusters show that while there are standardized
procedures for every run of the SIR, there is a difficulty following them because
―generally, the students do not understand the instructions.‖ The comments and
suggestions (part four) part of the instrument appears to be a particularly
problematic part—here too, the instructions do not seem to be clear to the students:
―It is obvious they do not understand the instructions because they do not complete
the sentence.‖ Other than this, some students are not sure whether ―they are
required to answer or it is optional.‖ Others don‘t feel safe answering this part
because they are afraid their professors will get back at them for whatever they
write. Ultimately, observed the participants, ―the instrument (itself) is complicated,
not only the instructions.‖
For political viability, eight issue clusters were formed. These were time
issues in administration, time issues of teachers, rescheduling issues, frequency of
evaluation, anticipating name changes, identifying and anticipating teacher-related

issues, anticipating student needs, and concerns about utility. The time issues in
administration mentioned administration problems regarding the first-thirty-minutes
policy observed by the Center. The time allotment is generally too short for the
whole administration procedure from giving instructions to the actual answering of
the instrument. Teachers also have issues regarding the same policy. Some refuse
to be rated in the first thirty minutes, preferring to be rated in the last thirty.
Another issue regarding the policy is the refusal of some teachers to be evaluated in
the first thirty minutes. There are faculty members who ―dictate that the last 30
minutes will be used for evaluation‖. There are others who ―complain about the
duration of the SIR administration‖, even if ―the guidelines (distributed in the
eighth week of the term, the week before the evaluation) indicated first 30
minutes.‖
Though discouraged by the Center, rescheduling still does happen during
the evaluation period. Usually it is because ―some of the faculty members (or their
students) do not show up‖. Similarly, there are times when some students do come,
but their numbers do not meet the fifty percent quota required for each section‘s
evaluation. Another common reason for rescheduling are schedule conflicts with
other activities: ―(the) Young Hoteliers‘ Exposition and some tours and retreats
have the same schedule as the SIR‖.
The next issue ―cluster‖ formed is regarding the frequency of evaluation;
teachers question whether there is a need to evaluate every term. Although there is
only one strand, it is important enough to be segregated as it gives voice to one of
the interest groups‘ major concerns.
The next cluster forms the biggest group, the cluster that talks about
identifying and anticipating the needs of the one of the major interest
groups/stakeholders of the whole evaluation system: the teachers themselves. Their
needs range from the minor (―We need to request for the updated list of the faculty
names early in the term, a list including the faculty members who changed their
surnames with computer center.‖) to the major, and a lot in between. Among this
last include the need to make sure that teachers are aware of their evaluation
schedules and the Center‘s policies, to come up with ways to deal with the teachers
during the actual administration, and to equip them with the know-how to access
their online results.
Just as teachers, the evaluatees, have needs, so do their evaluators, their
students. By not taking care of the students‘ needs and/or preferences, the Center
risks generate inaccurate results. Thus, the Center should ―compile the needs of
students and present it (the SIR) to (the) students in an attractive form. (CLPA
should) drum up the interest of students in the evaluation.‖
Last under the feasibility area are issues on utilization. There appears to be
a need to make the utilization clearer to the stakeholders, especially the teachers.
For the area on cost effectiveness, the clusters formed were human
resources, material resources, and technology. The human resources of the Center
are ―well-utilized‖. The staff feels that despite special cases when they find it
difficult to go home because of the late working hours, they feel well compensated,
in part because of the meals served. As to material resources, ―the SIR process is
well-supported by the College‖ and so, everything is generally provided. There are
special cases where the evaluation setting makes administration difficult. For

instance, ―sometimes it‘s hard to administer in the far buildings,‖ especially in the
food labs located in far places. Finally, under the theme of technology, the Center
proved well-equipped enough to handle the pen-and-paper instrument‘s processing.
However, it may be some time before the process become paperless; if the memos
would be delivered online, instead of personally, as is currently done, some of the
faculty would ―not get the memo on time‖ because ―the faculty members do not
have their own PCs‖. Then, an attempt was made to administer the instrument
online. A problem that was noted in this regard was ―kaunting respondents with
online evaluation‖ (very few respondents are gathered with the online evaluation).
Other than that, ―if all classes come together for on-line the computers hang.‖
For legal viability, only one theme was developed, standardizing the
evaluation setting. ―There is a common script‖ to keep the instructions standardized
and, although ―During college break some classes are affected with the noise (of
college break activities)‖, the ―classroom is generally conducive in answering‖.
Table 3
Rating for Feasibility
Feasibility Rating Interpretation

Political Viability 0.23 Poor
Practical Procedure 0.68 Good
Cost effectiveness 0.50 Good
For the three areas of feasibility, a good raring was obtained for practical
procedure and cost effectiveness and poor for political viability.
Accuracy
The standards of accuracy were rated based on the reliability report of the
instrument since SY 2003-2004 to 2005-2006. The trend of the mean performance
of the means of the faculty from 2003-2006 was also obtained.
Table 4
Internal Consistency of the items for the SIR from 2003 to 2006
School Year
2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006
1st Term 0.873 0.875 0.881
2nd Term 0.888 0.892 0.894
3rd Term 0.892 0.885
Summer 0.832 0.866
The reliability of the SIR form is consistently high since 2003 to 2006. The
Cronbach‘s alpha obtained are all in the same high level across the three terms and
across three school years. This indicates that the internal consistency of the SIR
measure is stable and accurate across time.

Figure 1 shows a line graph of the means in the SIR each term across three
school years.
Figure 1
Data Trend from the Last Three Years
4.40
4.30
4.20
Part I
Mean
4.10
Part 2
4.00
Part 3
3.90
3.80
3.70
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Term
The trend in the means show that the SIR results increase at a high level
during summer terms (4th). The high level of increase can be observed from the
spikes in the 4th term in the line graph for the three part of the SIR instrument.
The means during the first, second, and third term are stable and it rapidly increase
for the summer term.
Table 5
Rating for Accuracy
Accuracy Rating Interpretation

Program documentation 0.03 Poor
Content Analysis 0.00 Poor
Described Purposes and Procedures 0.25 Poor
Defensible Information Sources 0.50 Good
Valid Information 0.23 Poor
Reliable information 0.35 Fair
Systematic information 0.85 Very Good
Analysis of Quantitative information 0.25 Poor
Analysis of Qualitative information 0.00 Poor
Justified conclusions 0.00 Poor
Impartial reporting 0.38 Fair
Metaevaluation 0.08 Poor
The ratings for accuracy using the metaevaluation checklist were generally
poor in most areas. Only systematic information was rated as very good, only

defensible information sources was rated as good, and both reliable and impartial
reporting were fair.
Table 6
Summary Ratings for the Standards
Standard Rating Percentage Interpretation

Feasibility 4.5 25% Fair
Accuracy 8.75 0% Poor
Propriety 15.17 25% Fair
Utility 13.5 25% Fair
In the four standards as a whole, feasibility (25%), propriety (25%), and

utility (25%) are met fairly and accuracy (0%) is poor for the entire teacher
performance evaluation system of the center. The poor accuracy is due to zero
ratings on content analysis, qualitative information, and justified information. The
three standards rated as fair did not even meet half of the standards in the
metaevaluation checklist.
Figure 1
Outcome of the Standards
Standard Outcome
Utility
Propriety
Accuracy
Feasibility
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Discussion
The overall findings in the metaevaluation of the teacher evaluation system

at the Center for Learning and Performance Assessment show that it falls below the
standards of the Joint Committee on Evaluation. The ratings of utility, propriety,
and feasibility were fair and the standard on accuracy is poor.
In the standard of utility the report timeliness and dissemination is poor.
This is due to the lack of timely exchanges with the full range of right-to-know

audiences. In order to improve the timely exchanges, the Center needs to conduct
consistent communications with different offices that they are serving.
For propriety, the rating is only fair because low ratings were obtained for
complete and fair assessment, conflict of interest, and fiscal responsibility. To
improve complete and fair assessment, there is a need to assess and report the
strengths and weaknesses of the procedure, use the strengths to overcome
weaknesses, estimate the effects of the evaluation‘s limitations on the overall
judgment of the system. In line with conflict of interest, there is a need to make the
release of evaluation procedures, data and reports for public review. For physical
responsibility, there is a need to improve adequate personnel records concerning
job allocations and time spent on the job, and employ comparisons for evaluation
materials.
In standards of accuracy, majority of the ratings were poor, including
program documentation, content analysis, described purposes and procedures,
valid information, analysis of qualitative and quantitative information, justified
conclusion and metaevalaution. For program documentation the only criteria met
was the technical report that documents the programs‘ operations; all other nine
criteria were not met. For content analysis, all criteria were not met. In described
purposes and procedures, only the record of the client‘s purpose of evaluation and
implementation of actual evaluation procedures were met. All other eight criteria
were not met. For valid information, there is a need to focus evaluation on key
ideas, employ multiple measures to address each idea, provide detailed description
of the constructs assessed, report the type of information each employed
procedures acquires, report and justify inferences, report the comprehensiveness of
the information provided by the procedures as set in relation to the information
needed, and establish meaningful categories of information by identifying regular
and recurrent themes using qualitative analysis. In the analysis of qualitative and
quantitative information, there is a need to conduct exploratory analysis to assure
data correctness, choose procedures appropriate to the system of evaluating
teachers, specify assumptions being met by the evaluation, report limitations of each
analytic procedures, examine outliers and verify correctness, analyze statistical
interactions, and using displays to clarify the presentation and interpretation of
statistical results. In the areas of justified conclusions and metaevaluation, all criteria
were not met.
In the standards of feasibility, political viability needs to be improved. For
political viability, the evaluation needs to consider ways to counteract attempts to
bias or misapply the findings, foster cooperation, involve stakeholders throughout
the evaluation, issue interim reports, report divergent views, and affirm a public
contract.
Given the present condition of the SIR and PEF in evaluating faculty
performance based on the qualitative data, there are still gaps that need to be
addressed in line with the evaluation system. The stakeholders are more or less not
yet aware of the detailed standards on conducting evaluations among their faculty
and what is verbalized in the qualitative data is only based on their personal
experience and the practices required of the evaluation system. By contrast, the
standards on evaluation would specify more details that need to be met in the
evaluation. Some areas in the evaluation are interpreted by the stakeholders as

acceptable based on the themes of the qualitative data but more criteria need to be
met in a larger range of evaluating teachers. It is recommended for the Center for
Learning and Performance Assessment to consider the specific areas found wanting
under utility, propriety, feasibility, and especially accuracy to attain quality standards
in their conduct of teacher evaluation.
References
Bonfadini, J. (1998). Should students evaluate their teachers? Rural Living, 52(10),
40-41.
Berliner, D. (1982). Recognizing instructional variables. In D.E. Orlsoky (Ed.),
Introduction to Education (pp. 198-222). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Bradshaw, L. (1996). Alternative teacher performance appraisal in North Caroling:
Developing guidelines. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
400 255)
Egelson, P. (1994, April). Collaboration at Richland School District Two: Teachers
and administrators design and implement a teacher evaluation system that
supports professional growth. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 376 159)
Glatthorn, A. (1997). Differential instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for the
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Galves, R.E. (1986). Ang ginabayang talakayan: Katutubong pamamaraan ng sama-
samang pananaliksik [Guided discussion: Ethnic approach in research].
Unpublished manuscript, Psychology Department, University of the
Philippines
Hummel, B. (2006). Metaevaluation: An online resource. Retrieved September 6,
2006, from http://www.bhummel.com/Metaevaluation/index.html
Isaacs, J.S. (2003). A study of teacher evaluation methods found in select Virginia
secondary public schools using the 4x4 model of block scheduling.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
Lengeling, M. (1996). The complexities of evaluating teachers. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 399 822)
O‘Donell, J. (1990).
Scriven, M. (1969). An introduction to meta-evaluation. Educational Products
Report, 2, 36–38.
Seldin, P. (1991). The teacher portfolio. Bolton, MA: Anker.
Shulman, L. (1988). A union of insufficiencies: Strategies for teacher assessment in
a period of educational reform. Educational Leadership, 46(3), 36-41.
Strobbe, C. (1993). Professional partnerships. Educational Leadership, 51(42), 40-
41.
Stufflebeam, D.L. (2000). The methodology of metaevaluation as reflected in by
the Western Michigan University Evaluation Center. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 14(1), 95.

The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (1998). The national
certification process in-depth. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.nbpts.org/nbpts/standards/intro.html
Williams, W. & Ceci, S. (1997). ―How am I Doing?‖ Change, 29(5), 12-23.
Widmer, T. (2004): The Development and Status of Evaluation Standards in
Western Europe. New Directions for Evaluation, 10(4), 31-42.
Author Notes
Special Thanks to my research Assistant Ms.Nicole Tangco for helping me gather

data and consolidate the report. Also the staff, heads, and coordinators of the
Center for Learning and Performance Assessment (CLPA) for participating in the
study. For the Director‘s office of the CLPA and the Performance Assessment
Services Unit for the funding.
About the Author
Dr. Carlo Magno is presently a faculty of the Counseling and Educational

Psychology Department at De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines. He teaches
courses in measurement and evaluation, advance statistics, and advance
psychometric theory. He has conducted studies and engaged in projects about
teacher performance assessment.

A Metaevaluation Study On The Assessment of Teacher Performance in

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Metaevaluation Study On The Assessment of Teacher Performance in

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment 75

December 2009, Vol. 3

A Metaevaluation Study on the Assessment of Teacher Performance in

It is a primary concern among educational institutions to assess the teaching

© 2009 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

relationships through transformational experiences guided by appreciation of

Models and Methods of Teacher Evaluation

Generally, teacher evaluations may be summative or formative. The

© 2009 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

development. In this form of evaluation, teachers and their administrators meet to

© 2009 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

teacher—so viewing student-based information, says Isaacs (2003), should be done

…establish high and rigorous standards for what experienced teachers

The Process of Metaevaluation

How does one go about performing a metaevaluation? Stufflebeam (2000,)

1. Determine and Arrange to Interact with the Evaluation's Stakeholders.

© 2009 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

The Standards of Metaevaluation

There are four standards of metaevaluation: propriety, utility, feasibility, and

© 2009 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Forms of Teacher Evaluation in the Context

The present study conducted a metaevalution of a system of teacher

The Student Instructional Report. The Student Instructional Report (SIR)

© 2009 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

The Guided Discussion is the primary method of data-gathering for all

© 2009 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Extant Data, Reliability, and Validity Testing

A checklist was used to determine whether the evaluation meets the

© 2009 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Under utility there are four standards evaluated: Stakeholder identification,

© 2009 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

© 2009 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Utility Mean Rating Interpretation

The standards on propriety include service orientation, formal evaluation

© 2009 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

For confidentiality, majority of the participants agree that ‗the information

Propriety Mean Rating Interpretation

The standards on feasibility include practical procedures, political viability,

© 2009 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

© 2009 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Feasibility Rating Interpretation

© 2009 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Accuracy Rating Interpretation

© 2009 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Standard Rating Percentage Interpretation

In the four standards as a whole, feasibility (25%), propriety (25%), and

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

The overall findings in the metaevaluation of the teacher evaluation system

© 2009 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

© 2009 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

© 2009 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

Special Thanks to my research Assistant Ms.Nicole Tangco for helping me gather

About the Author

Dr. Carlo Magno is presently a faculty of the Counseling and Educational

© 2009 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

You might also like