Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Teachers' perceptions of an effective teacher evaluation system and its key components in China
(USC Thesis Other)
Teachers' perceptions of an effective teacher evaluation system and its key components in China
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Teachers’ Perceptions of an Effective Teacher Evaluation System and Its Key
Components in China
Yunkui Zhang
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
August 2024
© Copyright by Yunkui Zhang 2024
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Yunkui Zhang certifies the approval of this dissertation
Dr. Larry Picus
Dr. Rob Filback
Dr. Cathy Krop, Committee Chair
iv
Abstract
This quantitative study focused on exploring effective teacher evaluation practices
and associated professional development needs for teachers in China. Conducted in four
middle schools of the JE Group in Dalian, Liaoning province, and guided by motivation
theories, the study aimed to support the implementation of a more comprehensive and
responsive teacher evaluation system. Teachers' perceptions on their current evaluation
experiences, desired evaluation practices, and professional development requirements were
surveyed. Key findings indicated that teachers perceived the current evaluation system as
inadequate, especially in terms of context and standards. They preferred a multifaceted
approach with specific instruments and informal feedback, emphasizing teacher involvement, differentiated evaluation models, and evaluator training. The study also revealed teachers' professional development needs in areas such as individualized learning, student behavior
and classroom management, and cross-curricular teaching skills. Recommendations call for
an enhanced evaluation system that is objective, fair, useful, and comprehensive, ensuring
refined contextual attributes, clearly defined criteria, multiple evaluation sources, opportunities for professional growth, evaluator training and teacher involvement. Overall, this study highlights the significance of a teacher evaluation system that nurtures teacher
growth and responds to teachers' needs, which ultimately leads to improved educational
quality and student performance. It also underscores China's education reforms that
increasingly look to move away from the singular focus on test scores to the promotion of the
comprehensive and healthy growth of students. It serves as a call for stakeholders to rethink
teacher evaluation for the betterment of teachers and students in China. Keywords: teacher evaluation, professional development, cognitive evaluation theory, goal-setting theory, intrinsic motivation, Teacher Evaluation Profile, teacher effectiveness
v
Acknowledgments
With this doctoral dissertation coming to an end, I feel deep gratitude to all those who
have provided me with support and guidance throughout this remarkable journey. First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my dissertation
chair, Dr. Cathy Krop. Her insightful instructions and expertise throughout the study has
inspired me to make this journey successful. I am also indebted to the other two members of
my dissertation committee, Dr. Larry Picus and Dr. Rob Filback, for their constructive
feedback. Their support and suggestions have substantially enhanced the quality of this
research.Moreover, I would like to thank the faculty and staff of USC Rossier School of
Education for providing me with the necessary resources and support to carry out this
research. Meanwhile, I am grateful to my Cohort 11 peers for their companionship during the
study. Our moments of support for each other have made this experience both meaningful and
enjoyable. Last but not the least, I would like to acknowledge the unconditional support of my
family. Their love and encouragement have offered me strength during this challenging yet
rewarding process. I am blessed to have all of you. Again, I will be forever grateful for your guidance, support and love.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract.....................................................................................................................................iv
Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents......................................................................................................................vi
List of Tables............................................................................................................................ ix
List of Figures...........................................................................................................................xi
Chapter One: Introduction......................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem...............................................................................................3
Purpose of the Study...................................................................................................... 4
Significance of the Study...............................................................................................6
Definitions..................................................................................................................... 8
Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Literature Review..............................................................................................11
Teacher Evaluation Systems........................................................................................ 11
Purposes of Teacher Evaluation .......................................................................11
Problems of Current Teacher Evaluation Systems...........................................14
Defining Effective Teachers.............................................................................16
Teacher Evaluation in China ............................................................................19
Teacher Evaluation Frameworks and their Key Components......................................29
Frameworks for Effective Teacher Evaluation ................................................ 30
Teacher Evaluation Instruments.......................................................................34
Teacher Evaluation Standards and Criteria ......................................................38
Design and Implementation of Effective Teacher Evaluation Systems.......................39
Characteristics of Effective Evaluation Systems............................................. 39
Procedures of Designing an Effective Evaluation System.............................. 42
vii
Difficulties in Implementing Teacher Evaluation Systems..............................46
Theoretical Framework and Teacher Performance and Evaluation Cycle ...................47
Chapter Three: Methods.......................................................................................................... 53
Organization Overview................................................................................................53
Population and Sample ................................................................................................ 54
Data Collection and Instrumentation........................................................................... 55
Instrumentation................................................................................................ 57
Data Analysis............................................................................................................... 58
Validity and Reliability................................................................................................ 59
Ethics........................................................................................................................... 61
Role of Researcher.......................................................................................................62
Chapter Four: Findings............................................................................................................ 64
Overview of Participants............................................................................................. 65
Findings....................................................................................................................... 68
Research Question 1 ........................................................................................ 68
Research Question 2 ........................................................................................ 81
Research Question 3 ........................................................................................ 97
Conclusion................................................................................................................. 103
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations for Practice ..............................................105
Discussion of Findings...............................................................................................105
Research Question 1 Discussion of Findings................................................ 105
Research Question 2 Discussion of Findings................................................ 109
Research Question 3 Discussion of Findings.................................................114
Recommendations for Practice .................................................................................. 117
Recommendation 1.................................................................................... 119
viii
Recommendation 2.................................................................................... 122
Recommendation 3.................................................................................... 124
Recommendation 4.................................................................................... 127
Limitations and Delimitations................................................................................... 130
Recommendations for Future Research .....................................................................133
Conclusion................................................................................................................. 134
References..............................................................................................................................137
Appendix A............................................................................................................................ 146
ix
List of Tables
Table 1. Numbers of Schools, Students and Teachers according to Educational Level
in Mainland China in 2022 20
Table 2. Number and Share of Students in Private Institutions according to
Educational Level in Mainland China in 2022 23
Table 3. Three Periods of China’s Teacher Evaluation System Development 25
Table 4. Categories and Features of Teacher Evaluation Models in China 27
Table 5. Matching Instruments (Measures) to Specific Purposes 37
Table 6. Development and Implementation of Comprehensive Teacher Evaluation
Systems 43
Table 7. Frequency Distribution of Participants (N = 191) 67
Table 8. Participants’ Mean Overall Rating of the Quality of Teacher Evaluation (N
= 191) 69
Table 9. Participants’ Mean Overall Rating of the Impact of Teacher Evaluation on
Professional Practices (N = 191) 72
Table 10. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Teacher Attributes (N = 191) 75
Table 11. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Evaluator Attributes (N = 191) 76
Table 12. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Attributes of Evaluation Procedures (N = 191) 77
Table 13. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Feedback Attributes (N = 191) 78
Table 14. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Evaluation Context Attributes (N = 191) 79
Table 15. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Criteria and Standards in Teacher Planning and
Preparation (N = 191) 83
Table 16. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Criteria and Standards in Teacher Classroom
Environment (N = 191) 84
Table 17: Teachers’ Perceptions of the Criteria and Standards in Instruction (N = 191) 85
Table 18. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Criteria and Standards in Professional
Responsibilities (N = 191) 86
Table 19. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Criteria and Standards in Student Growth (N =
191) 86
Table 20. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Teacher Evaluation Instruments Considered
(N = 191) 88
x
Table 21. Means and Standard Deviations for Self-Evaluation by Years of Experience 91
Table 22. Means and Standard Deviations for the Frequency of Informal Evaluations
by Years of Experience 92
Table 23. Means and Standard Deviations for Communication with Families by the
Role of Homeroom Teacher 93
Table 24. Means and Standard Deviations for Student Behavior Management by the
Role of Homeroom Teacher 93
Table 25. Means and Standard Deviations for Parent Rating by the Role of
Homeroom Teacher 94
Table 26. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Teachers Involvement, Differentiated Models
and Evaluator Credential in the Process of Constructing the Evaluation
System (N = 191) 95
Table 27. Teachers’ Preferred Professional Development Activities (N = 191) 102
Table 28. Summary Table of the Key Findings Aligned with the Research Questions 103
Table 29. Key Findings and Recommendations 118
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1. The Structure of China’s Education System from ISCED 0 to ISCED 3 22
Figure 2. Isoré (2009)’s Conceptual Framework for Teacher Evaluation 30
Figure 3. Comprehensive Teacher Evaluation Framework 32
Figure 4. OECD Interconnected Teacher Evaluation Framework 33
Figure 5. Framework for Teacher Performance and Evaluation Cycle 51
Figure 6. Ranking of Teachers’ Professional Development Needs at High and
Moderate Levels (N = 191) 99
1
Chapter One: Introduction
Teacher performance is widely believed to directly influence students’ learning
outcomes (Goe et al., 2011; Stronge et al., 2008; Stronge, 2010; Sanders & Rivers, 1996;
Wright et al., 1997), and, thus, professional teachers are essential to all education systems. As
a result, policymakers are increasingly referring to different means of evaluation and
supervision for individual teachers as a means of enhancing the overall performance of
teachers and, ultimately, students and schools. To promote teacher effectiveness, a critical
question for policymakers and researchers is how to identify and evaluate teacher
effectiveness and how to establish a teacher performance evaluation system with validity and
reliability (Darling-Hammond, 2009; Isoré, 2009). There can be significant challenges to the design and implementation of effective
teacher evaluation systems. The National Education Association (2010) contended that
frequently, teacher evaluation models are entrenched in a summative system focused
primarily on rewards and punishments, which commonly aims to assess the performance of
individual teachers, categorize and hierarchically rank teachers, provide incentives to the top
performers, and impose sanctions on those who fare poorly. However, this simplified method
fails to account for the intricate nature of teaching and neglects the genuine objectives of
teacher evaluation, leaving teachers frustrated. While teacher evaluation systems often place
significant emphasis on a single metric, typically students' test scores or standardized test
results, they fail to capture the full scope of a teacher's impact (Borg, 2018). Teaching
involves fostering critical thinking, creativity, social-emotional skills, and passion for
learning, among other competencies, which are difficult to quantify through standardized
tests alone. Another significant issue with teacher evaluation systems is the lack of
differentiation (Campbell et al., 2004; Derrington & Brandon, 2019), which means that
teachers are often evaluated using the same criteria and methods regardless of their subject
2
area, teaching context, or level of experience. This one-size-fits-all approach ignores the
unique challenges and opportunities faced by teachers in different settings. Many Asian countries, such as China, have been using student achievement measures
as an important part of their teacher evaluation systems for a long time. The traditional
teacher evaluation in China has been labeled as a “one-dimension evaluation for all practical
purposes” (Liu & Teddlie, 2003, p. 252). Despite the numerous education reforms China has
undergone, as well as the recently proposed policy by the administrative department that test
results cannot be the only assessment tool for students, teachers, and schools, teacher
evaluation still encounters great obstacles when it comes to the transformation of the
mindsets of all stakeholders in China (Li & Xin, 2022; Liu et al., 2018). Accurate and reliable feedback is an important resource to enhance teachers’ motivation and to provide teachers with opportunities to receive support and professional
learning to improve their practice. However, data from the Teaching and Learning
International Survey (TALIS; OECD, 2009a) indicated that 22% of teachers never received
any evaluation or feedback from their principal, and 28.6% never received feedback from
other teachers or members of the school management team. Overall, 13.4% of teachers had
never received any feedback of their performance in the school from any source in OECD
countries. In the case of China, a lack of timely feedback on evaluation results and guidance
for improving teaching competence makes teacher evaluation ineffective and inefficient. Surveys have shown that some schools do not provide any feedback on the results of the
evaluation (Li & Xin, 2022). Consequently, guiding teachers to improve teaching practice
based on the evaluation results is unlikely to happen. The purpose of this study was to understand how teachers in China would like to be
evaluated in order to develop a more effective teacher evaluation system that supports the
3
country's education reforms that increasingly look to move away from the singular focus on
test scores to the promotion of the comprehensive and healthy growth of students. Statement of the Problem
Teacher evaluation has various purposes, which are mainly categorized into two main
purposes. The professional development purpose, also referred to as formative evaluation, aims to improve teaching practice and student learning. The accountability or quality
assurance purpose, also referred to as summative evaluation, focuses on holding teachers
accountable for their performance and ensuring teaching quality. Therefore, effective teacher
evaluation could improve teachers’ practice, enhance their professional development and hold
teachers accountable to a broad range of student outcomes (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). However, four main failings of current teacher evaluation systems have been
highlighted and discussed by various researchers: (1) Teacher effectiveness is defined
variably in different contexts and by different groups of people; (2) The effect of teacher
evaluation is vague and difficult to measure; (3) Teacher evaluation systems have not
accurately measured teacher performance because they have failed to discriminate between
effective and ineffective teachers; and (4) Teacher evaluation systems have not been
successful in developing teacher professional skills and effectiveness (Danielson & McGreal, 2000; Marzano, 2012; OECD, 2013a; Weisberg et al., 2009). Current systems for evaluating teachers “too often fail to improve teacher practice and
enhance student growth and learning” (National Education Association, 2010, p. 2). Moreover, the core purpose of teacher evaluation should focus more on strengthening the
knowledge, skills, motivation, and classroom practices of teachers, which promote student
growth and learning while also inspiring great teachers to remain in the classroom (National
Education Association, 2010). By identifying individual teacher’s strengths and weaknesses, teachers and school leaders can make more informed choices about the specific professional
4
development activities that best meet teachers’ needs in the context of the school’s priorities
(OECD, 2009a). But, “current evaluation systems have largely failed to identify teachers’ professional growth needs and failed to provide the support and professional learning
opportunities required to meet those needs” (National Education Association, 2010, p. 2). China has been using student achievement as a key measurement of their teacher
evaluation system for a long time (Liu et al., 2018). Liu and Teddlie’s (2003) summary of the
limitations of the traditional teacher evaluation system in China included its discrimination
against teachers in the evaluation system, the evaluation’s purpose being designed for
rewards, punishment and promotion, but not for teachers’ professional development, and
students’ test scores playing a dominant role in teacher evaluation systems. According to
OECD (2013b), teachers in China are evaluated based on four aspects of their performance:
professional integrity or values; capability, including skills and competencies; diligence; and
their students’ achievement. The emphasis in these evaluations tends to fall on teachers’ professional integrity and students’ learning results. The problem investigated in this study is
related to the larger problem of teacher evaluation, and its ineffective presence or
underdevelopment in many schools across China. Purpose of the Study
This study aimed to support the implementation of effective teacher evaluation and
related professional development needs for teachers in China. Specifically, the study
examined teachers’ perceptions of the current teacher evaluation system adopted in four
middle schools under the JE Group (JEG) in the city of Dalian and how teachers would like
to be evaluated and supported based on their needs. JEG is a large-scale K-12 private
education provider in the city of Dalian, which operates five kindergartens, two primary
schools, four middle schools and one high school, with a total of over 600 teachers and over
7,000 students. The mission of JEG is to provide the best K-12 education for students in
5
Dalian and inspire students to succeed with its emphasis on a student-centered approach and
holistic education. All of the schools adopted the old model of teacher evaluation designed by
JEG, which was heavily focused on a single measure—student test scores. Since the implementation of the Double Reduction Policy in China in 2021, the
perspectives on education among educators, parents, and society at large have been
undergoing favorable transformations, with an increased focus on holistic student
development, quality education, and fostering both physical and mental wellness (Guo, 2022;
Xinhuanet, 2021; Zhang, 2023). Schools started to place greater importance on enhancing the
quality, efficiency, and innovative methodologies of in-class instruction (Lu, 2022; Xinhuanet, 2021). Meanwhile, many parents have altered their previous practices of pressuring their
children into extensive studying and enrolling them in numerous after-school tutoring
sessions. Furthermore, a significant number of Chinese parents have increasingly recognized
the importance of embracing a parenting philosophy that prioritizes children’s health
(Xinhuanet, 2021). A new system for teacher evaluation in China’s K-12 schools has risen in urgency and
the need for more attention. Schools under JEG were no exception. Under this social
background, all principals of the schools and the senior members of JEG’s leadership team, including the president, were confronted with the problem of the lack of a comprehensive
teacher evaluation mechanism to assess teacher efficacy and effectiveness. Further, the
school-based teacher evaluation system was not intended to provide constructive feedback to
teachers being evaluated. Additionally, no professional development programs aligned with
the teacher evaluation and feedback, and teachers’ real needs, were designed and provided. Therefore, this quantitative study surveyed middle school teachers to provide
evidence and data for the design and implementation of an effective school-based teacher
evaluation system for schools under JEG for the interests of all stakeholders in the long term.
6
Failure in the design and implementation of a new teacher evaluation system would
undoubtedly hinder the development of professionalism in teaching and subsequently
negatively affect student learning for those schools. A theoretical framework serves as the foundation for a research study and “the
orientation or stance that you bring to your study” (Merriam, 1998, p. 45). In this study, the
theoretical foundations guiding the study were two important theories of motivation, namely
cognitive evaluation theory and goal-setting theory. Cognitive evaluation theory, which has
been considered a sub-theory of self-determination theory, was presented by Deci and Ryan
(1985) to specify the factors in social contexts that produce variability in intrinsic motivation. Goal-setting theory, developed by Locke and Latham (1990, 2002), emphasized the impact of
goals on intrinsic motivation and the level of performance under specific circumstances. This quantitative study addressed the following research questions:
1. What are the profiles of how teachers in the four middle schools under the JEG in China
experience teacher evaluation?
2. How would the middle school teachers of JEG like to be evaluated, including
instruments, criteria and standards, and frequency?
3. What are teachers’ professional development needs to excel within a newly designed
teacher evaluation system in the four middle schools under JEG?
Significance of the Study
This study has significance related to improving practice through multiple avenues. First, most of the existing research on effective teacher evaluation is heavily U.S. based. However, China has a very different landscape and a lack of research on teacher evaluation
specifically conducted in the context of China. This study adds to the literature by bringing
the topic of teacher evaluation into the current social context and greater focus in China. New
education reforms in China have generated a need to focus on effective teacher evaluation.
7
While it is generally acknowledged that there are failures in current teacher evaluation
systems—including a focus on student academic achievement, lack of use for improvement
in schools, and a mismatch with current reforms and the ability to enhance teacher practices
and student learning outcomes—research has not been sufficiently conducted to understand
these in depth in China. Further, there are not any empirical studies which provide sufficient
data and evidence for researchers and practitioners. Thus, more empirical studies are needed
to investigate teacher evaluation more comprehensively, such as “examining the relationship
between orientation, content, method of teacher evaluation and teachers’satisfaction, organizational identification, self-efficacy, and students’ achievements” (Li & Xin, 2022, p. 315). Furthermore, examining effective teacher evaluation in China can also add new
knowledge to the teacher evaluation research worldwide (Liu & Zhao, 2013). In addition, teacher voices in China have not been involved historically in school
decision making, including in discussions of teacher evaluation procedures. This study sought
to provide empirical data and fill this gap in understanding how teachers were currently
evaluated and how this aligned with research-based best practices, how teachers in this
context wished to be evaluated, and what their professional development needs were to excel
within a newly designed evaluation system. Using this knowledge, this study aimed to
support the design and implementation of an effective teacher evaluation and development
system in schools in China to enhance student learning. This research can also help set the
stage for greater teacher involvement and voice in decision making more broadly in China
and elsewhere. At an immediate level, this study will be used to improve practice in the four middle
schools under JEG, reinventing what has become an outdated and ineffective teacher
evaluation system under the circumstances of recent educational reforms in China, including
the Double Reduction Policy in 2021. This study’s significance is multifaceted, including the
8
contribution to the organization’s goals and mission, the benefits for teachers, as well as the
long-term significance to improving learning and outcomes for JEG students. At the
organizational level, the study will provide convincing evidence for the senior leadership
team of JEG and the principals of the four middle schools to design and implement a more
comprehensive and effective school-based teacher evaluation system, with new processes, criteria and instruments to promote in those schools. It also contributes to the welfare of both
teachers and students as the stakeholders in the educational process. In particular, an effective
teacher evaluation system designed based upon teachers’ perceptions and involvement will
improve teacher practice and thereby enhance student growth and learning by promoting
professional development opportunities to meet teachers’ professional growth needs, and
increasing teachers’ intrinsic motivation through enhanced competence and autonomy. This
could provide a model for other schools in China also working to improve their teacher
evaluation systems. Under recent educational reforms in China, this study demonstrates what an effective
teacher evaluation system could look like in this context and in support of whole student
development. Definitions
The following is an overview of key terms as defined in this study. Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET). A theory that specifies the factors in social
contexts that produce variability in intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan,1985). The theory is a
sub-theory of self-determination theory. Double Reduction Policy. In July 2021, The General Offices of the CPC Central
Committee and The State Council issued Opinions on Further Reducing the Homework
Burden and off-campus Training Burden of Students in Compulsory Education. The Double
Reduction Policy takes an essential step to fulfill the fundamental task of fostering people’s
9
standard of living, by promoting the quality of teaching and learning at school settings, as
well as by promoting a comprehensive and healthy growth of students in primary and
secondary schools (Wang et al., 2022). Extrinsic Motivation. Extrinsic motivation contrasts with intrinsic motivation and
refers to doing something because it leads to a separable outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Gaokao. The national university entrance examination that students take after
completing upper secondary school in China. Admissions to undergraduate programmes are
based on students’ Gaokao scores (OECD, 2016). Goal-setting Theory. A theory of motivation that emphasizes the impact of goals on
the intrinsic motivation and performance under the circumstances (Locke & Latham, 2002). Intrinsic Motivation. Doing an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather than for
some separable consequence. When intrinsically motivated an individual acts for the fun or
challenge entailed rather than external prods, pressures, or rewards (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Professional Development. A principal purpose of teacher evaluation. It is also
defined as a formative purpose for enhancing the professional skills of teachers (Danielson &
McGreal, 2000). Quality Assurance or Accountability. The other principal purpose of teacher
evaluation. It is often defined as a summative purpose for making consequential decisions
(Danielson & McGreal, 2000). Teacher Evaluation. The process of evaluating the effectiveness of teachers. OECD
(2015) defines it as “the evaluation of individual teachers to make a judgment about their
work and performance using objective criteria” (p. 502). Zhongkao. The national upper secondary education entrance examination that assigns
students to different senior secondary schools in China (OECD, 2016). Conclusion
10
Chapter One of this study presented an overview of the current state of teacher
evaluation practices and the importance of investigating the attributes of effective teacher
evaluation systems to improve teaching practices for all teachers, specifically in the context
of China. The chapter presented the problem of practice associated with understanding
effective teacher evaluation, highlighted the purpose of study, identified the significance of
the study, and presented the research questions. Chapter One also included an explanation of
the theoretical foundations guiding the study as well as the definitions of key terms in the
study. The rest of study is organized as follows. Chapter Two provides a review of literature
related to the teacher evaluation process, including teacher evaluation systems, frameworks
and key components of teacher evaluation and the design of comprehensive, effective teacher
evaluation systems. Chapter Two also presents the theoretical framework of this study. Chapter Three focuses on the methodology used in the study such as the population and
sample, data collection procedures and instrumentation, data analysis, validity and reliability, role of researcher and ethics. Chapter Four highlights the analysis of the data gathered with
respect to each research question of this study and presents key findings. Finally, Chapter
Five provides a discussion of the findings, recommendations for practice, limitations and
delimitations, and areas for further study.
11
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Teachers are the most important school-level factors in student achievement, and their
performance is key to improving education outcomes (OECD, 2013a). Effective teacher
evaluation is widely recognized as a fundamental component of successful education systems
(Borg, 2018). To enhance teacher effectiveness, a critical question for policymakers as well as
education experts is how to identify and evaluate teacher effectiveness and how to establish a
teacher performance evaluation system with validity and reliability (Darling-Hammond, 2009;
Isoré, 2009). This is particularly critical in China where policy changes look to enhance
student development beyond academic achievement, and teachers’ historically have been
largely evaluated based on student test scores. Chapter Two will begin with a review of literature related to teacher evaluation
systems, including the purposes of teacher evaluation and challenges of current systems. The
literature review will then turn to teacher evaluation frameworks and their key components, in which various frameworks, instruments, standards and criteria will be discussed. Following
the illustration of teacher evaluation frameworks, the design and implementation of effective
teacher evaluation systems will be presented with the interpretation of characteristics of
effective evaluation systems, procedures of its design, and difficulties in implementation. Last, this chapter ends with the demonstration of the theoretical framework and teacher
performance and evaluation cycle as the theoretical foundation of the research. Teacher Evaluation Systems
A range of different teacher evaluation approaches are used by countries worldwide. This includes evaluation that completes a probationary period; evaluation as part of an annual
performance management process; on-going evaluation; and evaluation for promotion and
reward schemes (OECD, 2013a). Different approaches can meet certain goals and purposes. Purposes of Teacher Evaluation
12
The purpose of a specific teacher evaluation system is one key to choosing the
appropriate foundation upon which that system can be built. There is an array of purposes for
evaluating teachers. Possible purposes are suggested by The Personnel Evaluation Standards
of the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1988) and include: (1) to
evaluate entry-level educators before certifying or licensing them to teach; (2) to identify
promising job candidates; (3) to assess candidates' qualifications to carry out particular tasks;
(4) to guide decisions on employment; (5) to assess performance of educators for tenure and
promotion; (6) to determine recognition and awards for meritorious contributions; (7) to
assist faculty and administrators in identifying strengths and needs for improvement; (8) to
plan meaningful staff development activities; (9) to develop remediation goals and activities;
and, when necessary, (l0) to support fair, valid, and legal decisions for termination. Additionally, Wheeler and Scriven (1997) summarized 14 different purposes of
teacher evaluation systems, including hiring, assigning, salary decisions, reduction in force, performance evaluation, retirement exemption, pre-tenure retention/termination, licensing, credentialing, tenure, awards/recognition, post-tenure retention/termination, self-assessment, promotion/career ladder, and mentoring appointment. Holistically, Stronge (2013) concluded
that the primary purposes of any worthy teacher evaluation system include: (1) to contribute
to the successful achievement of the goals and objectives defined in the educational plan for
the school or school system; (2) to provide a basis for instructional improvement through
productive teacher appraisal and professional growth; (3) to improve the quality of instruction
and other key job responsibilities by assuring accountability for teacher performance; and (4)
to share responsibility for evaluation between the teacher and the evaluator in a collaborative
process that promotes self-growth, instructional effectiveness, and improvement of overall
job performance.
13
According to Isoré (2009), the list of purposes designed by these researchers could be
divided into two broad categories. One category of purposes aimed at ensuring that teachers
perform at their best to promote student learning outcomes. The other category sought to
improve the teacher’s own teaching practice by identifying both strengths and weaknesses for
further professional development. These two approaches referred to evaluation of different
natures, respectively, summative and formative. In other words, if the ultimate goal of education systems was to provide optimized
learning for all students, and given that teacher performance and practice was the most
important factor in the process, then the purpose of teacher evaluation might be deemed
quality assurance or accountability (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). This particular purpose
reflects a commitment to the important professional goals of competence and quality
performance. This accountability function is typically considered to be summative and related
to the judgment of the effectiveness of educational services (Stronge & Tucker, 2020). On the other hand, if the teacher evaluation is conducted to improve the teacher’s
practice itself, this professional development function generally is considered formative in
nature and suggests the need for continuous professional growth and development. In this
way, the development purpose is linked with the personal growth dimension and involves
helping teachers realize, reflect upon, and enhance their teaching practices (Stronge & Tucker, 2020). The relative value of these two aspects of teacher evaluation significantly differs
based on the interests of distinctive stakeholders. Specifically, policymakers are often
inclined to value the summative purposes, those of quality assurance, while educators argue
that teacher evaluation should be designed to serve for professional development and the
improvement of teaching (Danielson & McGreal, 2000; OECD, 2013a).
14
However, real life situations show a different picture from the ideal purpose for
teacher evaluation. Just as The National Education Association (2010) argued, teacher
evaluation policy usually put too much emphasis on a rewards-and-punishment framework
that aimed to: “1) measure the effectiveness of each teacher, 2) categorize and rank teachers, 3) reward those at the top, and 4) fire those at the bottom” (p. 2). However, this approach falls
short of considering the intricate nature of teaching and disregards the authentic goals of
teacher evaluation. The core purpose of teacher assessment and evaluation should be to
strengthen the knowledge, skills, dispositions, and classroom practices of professional
educators. This goal serves to promote student growth and learning while also inspiring great
teachers to remain in the classroom. This belief corresponds with the findings of a survey of
approximately 3,000 teachers conducted by Marzano in 2012. The vast majority of
respondents stated that the teacher evaluation should be used for both measurement and
development, but that development should be considered the more important purpose. The two purposes—professional development and accountability—are often
perceived to be mutually exclusive, which induces problems in practice. Therefore, in order
for teacher evaluation to be most effective and beneficial, a joint effort must be made to
establish a logical link between the two purposes (Stronge & Tucker, 2020). Problems of Current Teacher Evaluation Systems
While the purposes of the teacher evaluation system have been researched in great
depth, the problems occurring in reality have never failed to seek the attention of educational
experts. Over time, four major failures of current teacher evaluation systems have been
analyzed and emphasized by a number of researchers: (1) Teacher effectiveness is defined
variably in different contexts and by different groups of people; (2) The effect of teacher
evaluation is vague and difficult to measure; (3) Teacher evaluation systems have not
accurately measured teacher performance because they have failed to discriminate between
15
effective and ineffective teachers; and (4) Teacher evaluation systems have not been
successful in developing teacher professional skills and effectiveness (Danielson & McGreal, 2000; Marzano, 2012; OECD, 2013a; Weisberg et al., 2009). Danielson and McGreal (2000) further identified six main areas of deficiency in
teacher evaluation systems including “outdated, limited, evaluative criteria,” “few shared
values and assumptions about good teaching,” “lack of precision in evaluating performance,”
“limited administrator expertise,” “hierarchical, one-way communication,” and “no
differentiation between novice and experienced (pp. 8-12). A combination of these factors
results in a culture of passivity and protection. Consequently, teachers are unlikely to be
honest about any problem they may encounter, concerned that problems will be depicted as
deficiencies on the final evaluation document. Such an atmosphere is not a safe place for risktaking and problem-solving among teachers, and professional inquiry will no longer be part
of the culture encompassing evaluation. Moreover, due to a lack of honest respect of teachers
towards administrators’ expertise, the former group may not see a need to learn from the
evaluation process, having little incentive to admit to difficulties that may only be held
against them (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). Further, the National Education Association (2010) argued that current systems for
evaluating and supporting teachers too often failed to promote teacher practice or enhance
student learning outcome and comprehensive growth. Reasons behind this are simple: Annual
observations are often performed by school principals who have not gone through adequate
professional training prior to conducting classroom observations, and thus are incapable of
providing teachers with constructive, actionable feedback. Meanwhile, the application of
evaluation checklists often turns out to be futile when the checklists are not originally
designed to describe good practice. Furthermore, current evaluation systems have, to a large
extent, failed to address the needs of teachers’ professional development as well as to provide
16
professional learning opportunities required to meet those needs. In order to solve the above
problem, researchers appeal for the necessity of developing ways to revise and transform
teacher evaluation systems to ensure that all students have effective, highly skilled teachers
(National Education Association, 2010). Defining Effective Teachers
The term teacher effectiveness has been defined inconsistently in the literature, and
there is no agreed-upon definition of teacher effectiveness. Despite many earlier efforts to
develop one, recently, however, several researchers have worked to clarify relevant factors. With regard to teacher evaluation, teacher effectiveness is often used interchangeably
with two other terms, teacher quality and teacher performance. However, there are certain
distinctions between these terminologies. Hinchey (2010) referred to teacher quality in terms
of teacher characteristics such as education, certification/licensure experience, and beliefs, which could be perceived as the attributes the teacher brings to the classroom, including
specialized knowledge. Teacher performance, in a different way, refers to what a teacher does, both inside and outside the classroom, and involves such elements as classroom interaction
with students and collaborative activities with parents and others in the school community. Teacher effectiveness, instead, refers to teachers’ influential power on student learning and
involves such elements as student test scores and student motivation. Teacher effectiveness
can be considered the result of a teacher’s activities, encompassing a wide variety of
outcomes, including student learning. Admittedly, academic achievement is critical, but
defining teacher effectiveness only in those terms ignores other essential ways that teachers
influence students as well as the school community (Hinchey, 2010). Goe (2007) saw a bigger picture of teacher quality, the examination of which
concentrated on four distinctive categories of indicators: teacher qualifications, teacher
characteristics, teacher practices, and teacher effectiveness, which empirically captured the
17
primary variables examined in research studies on teacher quality published between 2000
and 2007. In Goe’s (2007) study, teacher quality was the greater concept and teacher
effectiveness was only a category of the teacher quality indicator. The definition of teacher
effectiveness was defined in a narrow sense as a value-added assessment of the extent to
which teachers in the classroom contributed to their students’ learning, as indicated by
higher-than-predicted increases in student achievement scores. Teacher effectiveness, in its narrowest sense, refers to a teacher’s ability to improve
student learning measured by standardized achievement tests. Despite one important aspect of
teaching ability, it is not a comprehensive and robust standard of teacher effectiveness. Darling-Hammond (2009) summarized a comprehensive list that consists of the following
qualities of teacher effectiveness:
● High general intelligence and verbal competence that assist teachers to organize and
interpret ideas, as well as to observe and think diagnostically. ● Specialized content knowledge—reaching a threshold level to what is to be taught. ● Knowledge of content pedagogy, in particular how to use hands-on learning
techniques and how to develop higher-order thinking skills. ● An understanding of learners and their learning and development—including how to
assess and scaffold learning, how to support students with learning differences or
difficulties, and how to support the learning of language and content for those not
proficient in the language of instruction. ● Adaptive expertise that allows teachers to make judgments and respond to students’ needs in a given context. (p. 2)
Campbell et al. (2004) argued that teacher effectiveness is the impact that classroom
factors, such as teaching methods, teacher expectations, classroom organization, and use of
classroom resources, have on students' performance. Campbell et al. attempted to explore a
18
theory of teacher effectiveness that is differentiated, rather than generic, along five
dimensions: range of work activity, curriculum subject, pupil background, pupil personal
characteristics, and organizational context of teaching. They raised a definition that teacher
effectiveness is “the power to realize socially valued objectives agreed for teachers’ work, particularly, but not exclusively, the work concerned with enabling students to learn” (p. 4). Four matters flow from this definition: the contexts and conditions in which students are
enabled to learn differ; students differ; the degree to which objectives for learning are
achieved can differ; and the values underlying learning and effectiveness can differ. For these
reasons, it is important to work towards a concept of effectiveness which is differentiated
(Campbell et al., 2004). Given that teachers’ roles involve much more than simply providing subject-matter
instruction, Goe et al. (2008) believed it was appropriate to consider a broader and more
comprehensive definition of effective teachers consisting of five points and formulated by
evaluating discussions of teacher effectiveness in the research literature as well as in policy
documents, standards, and reports. They summarized the five-point definition of effective
teachers as consisting of the following:
● Effective teachers set high standards for all students and help students in their
learning, as measured by value-added or other test-based growth measures, or by
alternative measures. ● Effective teachers contribute to positive academic, attitudinal, and social outcomes for
students such as regular attendance, on-time promotion to the next grade, on-time
graduation, self-efficacy, and cooperative behavior. ● Effective teachers use diversified resources to plan and structure engaging learning
opportunities; monitor student progress via formative assessment, adjusting
instruction when needed; and evaluate learning using multiple sources of evidence.
19
● Effective teachers contribute to the development of classrooms and schools that value
diversity and civic-mindedness. ● Effective teachers cooperate with other teachers, administrators, parents, and
education professionals to ensure student success, particularly the success of students
with special needs and those at high risk for failure. (p. 8)
It is evident that this definition is intended to focus measurement efforts on multiple
components of teacher effectiveness. Considering its comprehensiveness and scientificity, this study uses Goe’s five-point definition of effective teachers as the aspects of teacher
qualities for an effective teacher evaluation. Teacher Evaluation in China
The People’s Republic of China (hereafter “China”) is the world’s most populous
country, with a population of over 1.43 billion in 2020 (Leading Group of the State Council
for the Seventh National Population Census, 2021). Correspondingly, China has the largest
education system and the largest population of school-aged children in the world (OECD, 2016, 2020a). As an important means of ensuring the quality of education and safeguarding
the welfare of all Chinese students, an effective teacher evaluation system has long been a
topic of great concern among educational researchers and experts (Li & Xin, 2022). Education System in China
According to China’s Ministry of Education (2023), there were overall approximately
529.3 thousand educational institutes at all levels, with over 18.44 million teachers and nearly
293 million students in mainland China in 2022. Table 1 presents detailed information on the
numbers of schools, students and teachers at various educational levels. Schools at
compulsory education levels, which include elementary schools and junior secondary schools, have the largest size of student body, and thus largest teaching staff number.
20
Table 1
Numbers of Schools, Students and Teachers according to Educational Level in Mainland
China in 2022
Level of Education
No. of Schools
(in thousand)
No. of Students
(in thousand)
No. of Teachers
(in thousand)
Pre-school institutions 289.2 46,275.5 3,244.2
Elementary schools (grade 1 to 6) 149.1 107,000.0 6,629.4
Junior secondary schools (grade 7 to
9)
52.5 51,206.0 4,025.2
Senior secondary schools (grade 10
to 12) 15.0 27,138.7 2,133.2
Secondary vocational schools (grade
10 to 12) 7.2 13,392.9 718.3
Special education schools (all
levels) 2.3 918.5 72.7
Higher education institutions 3.0 46,550.0 1,977.8
Note. Adapted from Statistical Bulletin on National Education Development in 2022, by
Ministry of Education, 2023. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/sjzl_fztjgb/202307/t20230705_1067278.html
In China, the basic education system consists of early childhood education, compulsory education (primary education and junior secondary education) and senior
secondary education (OECD, 2016). According to UNESCO (2011), the International
Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) was developed and widely used as an
instrument for assembling and presenting data from different education systems in a
comparable and uniform way. ISCED provides a statistical framework for classifying the type
and levels of education and qualifications alongside education programs. The basic education
system in China corresponds to ISCED 0 to ISCED 3. China’s education system has implemented nine-year compulsory education for all
school-aged children since 1986, with the implementation of the revised version enacted in
21
2006 (Ministry of Education, 2006). The law has established a comprehensive system, and
described rules for schools, teachers, teaching and learning, as well as education financing
and the legal responsibilities of social sectors (OECD, 2016). The statutory age for children to begin receiving compulsory education is six years
old. Every student needs to complete six years of primary education (ISCED 1) and three
years of lower secondary education (ISCED 2). After completing lower secondary schooling, students are required to take the lower secondary graduation examination or upper secondary
school entrance examination (Zhongkao) in order to enroll in upper secondary education
(ISCED 3; OECD, 2020a). The upper secondary education includes two major learning tracks:
academic education programs and vocational education programs. Generally, four types of
schools are offered for different students under the framework of vocational programs: (1)
regular specialized schools; (2) adult specialized schools; (3) vocational secondary schools;
and (4) crafts schools (OECD, 2020a). Traditionally, high performers always enter academic upper secondary schools. After
three years of schooling in upper secondary schools, students sit for the national university
entrance examination (Gaokao) to enter higher education institutions (Li & Xin, 2022). In
China’s education system, Zhongkao and Gaokao “not only have a huge impact on students’ academic career and future life, but also influence the evaluation of education quality at
schools” (Li & Xin, 2022, p. 294). Figure 1 provides a picture of the structure of China’s
education system. Public education has a dominant share in China’s education system. Private education, as an indispensable part in the education sector, has also played a vital role. In 2022, there
were 52,827,200 students in private schools at all levels, accounting for 18.05 percent of the
total number of students nationwide. Table 2 shows the number and share of students in
China’s private institutions at different educational levels in 2022.
22
Figure 1
The Structure of China’s Education System from ISCED 0 to ISCED 3
Note. Adapted from Benchmarking the Performance of China’s Education System, PISA, by
OECD, 2020a, p. 37. Copyright 2020 by OECD Publishing
Private schools in China have greater autonomy in curriculum, teaching, and
administration than public schools. However, government policies still have significant
guidance on private schools, particularly in textbooks, national curriculum and national
examinations (Li & Xin, 2022). Like public schools, the private schools at elementary, junior
secondary, and senior secondary have to follow China’s National Curriculum Framework and
the National Curriculum Standards in various subject areas designed by the Ministry of
Education (MOE, 2020; MOE, 2022).
23
Table 2
Number and Share of Students in Private Institutions according to Educational Level in
Mainland China in 2022
Level of Education Number of Students Percentage (%)
Pre-school institutions 21,267.8 40.3%
Elementary and junior secondary schools 13,568.5 25.7%
Senior secondary schools 4,977.9 9.4%
Secondary vocational schools 2,762.4 5.2%
Higher education institutions 9,248.9 17.5%
Others 1001.7 1.9%
Total 52,827.2 100%
Note. Adapted from Statistical Bulletin on National Education Development in 2022, by
Ministry of Education, 2023. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/sjzl_fztjgb/202307/t20230705_1067278.html
History and Development of Teacher Evaluation in China
Liu and Teddlie (2003) originally divided the history of teacher evaluation in China
into two periods. The first period was called traditional teacher evaluation, lasting from the
late 1970s to 2001. Ying & Fan (2001) concluded that the traditional teacher evaluation
system in China had four components: (1) morality, (2) diligence, (3) ability, and (4) student
performance. Similarly, according to OECD (2013b), teachers were traditionally evaluated
against four aspects of their performance: professional integrity or morality; capability, such
as skills and competencies; diligence; and their students’ test scores. According to Jiang
(2001), a traditional model was used to evaluate teacher effectiveness in five major domains, including teaching objectives, teaching content, teaching methods, teaching process or skill, teaching effects.
24
The traditional teacher evaluation in China is labeled as a “one-dimension evaluation
for all practical purposes” (Liu & Teddlie, 2003, p. 252). Researchers have summarized the
limitations of the traditional teacher evaluation in China, including: discrimination among
teachers in the evaluation system; the evaluation’s purpose being designed for rewards, punishment and promotion, but not for teacher professional development; and students’ test
scores playing a dominant role in the evaluation system (Liu & Teddlie, 2003; Liu & Zhao, 2013). The second period started from 2001 in the context of new curriculum reform (Liu
and Teddlie, 2003). Like most countries, the teacher evaluation system in China changed
aligned with educational reforms. In 2001 and 2009, two major educational reforms were
introduced. In 2001, the new teacher curriculum was pilot-tested in China. The new
curriculum reform intended to change the traditional system that overemphasized knowledge
delivery and passive learning, and to shift China’s focus from exam-driven education to
quality-driven education (Ministry of Education, 2001). As a result, the teacher evaluation
system had also changed with the implementation of the reform. The teacher evaluation
system motivated by the new curriculum reform was proposed to demonstrate new features
(Liu & Teddlie, 2005). The reform emphasized changing test-driven and summative
evaluations to formative purpose, in order to improve teaching practices and student learning
(Ministry of Education, 2001). Accordingly, teacher evaluations started to put an emphasis on
improving professional development, test scores, and teacher ethics, as well as requiring
multiple evaluators to participate in the process of teacher evaluation (Liu & Teddlie, 2003;
Liu & Teddlie, 2005). Cai and Lin (2006) took a step in summarizing the criteria of teacher
evaluation in China, which included six dimensions: (1) occupation morality, (2) job
dedication, (3) assistance and collaboration, (4) teaching effectiveness, (5) teaching value, and (6) teacher-student interaction inside or outside class.
25
The year 2009 marked the beginning of a third period of teacher evaluation in China
as teacher performance pay was implemented, which called for a new system for evaluating
teachers (Li & Xin, 2022; Liu & Zhao, 2013). On December 21, 2008, the State Council of
China issued a document entitled Guidelines to the Implementation of Performance Pay in
Compulsory Schools (State Council, 2008). It regulated that starting from January 2009, China would use a new payment system for teachers teaching in compulsory education to
ensure that teachers were paid based on their performance. In 2008, the Ministry of Education
(2008) also issued a document entitled Guidelines to Teacher Performance Evaluation in
Compulsory Schools, which pointed out the importance, principles, contents, methods, applications, and administration of teacher performance evaluation (Ministry of Education, 2008). These two policies directed the practices of teacher performance pay and performance
evaluation in Chinese K-9 public schools. In 2012, the State Council of China (2012)
developed “Suggestions of the State Council on Strengthening the Building Up of the Ranks
of Teachers” emphasizing that an integrated teacher evaluation system should focus on
teachers’ ethics, capability, teaching performance, and contribution to school, involving the
participation of school, students, teachers, and the public. It is forbidden to use student
enrollment rates and testing scores to evaluate teachers as the only source for evaluation
(State Council of China, 2012). This policy suggested the importance of including multiple
indicators of teacher performance and multiple evaluators in the evaluation. Additionally, it
indicated that teacher performance evaluation should not be completely based on students’
test results. Table 3 displays the three periods of China’s teacher evaluation system
development. Table 3
Three Periods of China’s Teacher Evaluation System Development
26
Period Reform background Related evaluation systems
Early stage of China’s
teacher evaluation system
(Late 1970s – 2001)
Administration of teaching
force needs to be enhanced
after the cultural revolution
1. Initial form of teacher
evaluation
2. Evaluation of teacher
qualifications
3. Teachers’ professional
title evaluation
Teacher evaluation in the
context of the new
curriculum reform (2001
– 2009)
As a new round of curriculum
reform begins, teachers’ professional development
needs to be promoted
Periodic teacher evaluation
Teacher evaluation along
with the performancerelated pay reform (since
2009)
The government implemented
a performance-related pay
system in the health, culture, and education sectors. The
system in the education
sector aims to raise teachers’ salaries and stimulate their
vitality
1. Performance-related
teacher evaluation
2. Classroom teaching
evaluation
Note. Adapted from An Overview of the Teacher Evaluation System in China, by G. Li, and T. Xin, 2022, In J. Manzi, Y. Sun and M. R. Garcia (Eds.), Teacher Evaluation around the World:
Experiences, Dilemmas and Future Challenges (pp. 293-319). Springer, pp. 296. Copyright
2022 by Springer. Contemporary Teacher Evaluation in China
According to Li and Xin (2022), in China’s contemporary teacher evaluation system, there are five prevalent categories of teacher evaluation. All teachers of basic education must
undergo teacher qualification evaluation before teaching at a school and engage in
performance evaluation and teachers’ professional title evaluation, annually. Also, outstanding teachers should, out of voluntary choice, receive evaluation for awards and work
excellence titles multiple times a year. Furthermore, varied standards for classroom teaching
evaluation exist in different schools. Table 4 shows the variety of teacher evaluations models
in China with regard to categories, evaluators, evaluation methods and criteria.
27
Table 4
Categories and Features of Teacher Evaluation Models in China
Categories of
Teacher Evaluation Evaluators Evaluation Methods Criteria
Evaluation of
Teacher
Qualifications
Municipal administrative
departments for education
(1) National teacher
qualification certificate
tests
(2) trial lecture
(1) Basic capability which is
essential to education and
teaching. (2) proficiency in Mandarin
(3) physical and mental
fitness
Teachers’ Professional Title
Evaluation
Municipal administrative
departments for education
A panel will evaluate the
applicant based on
(1) application form
(2) presentation of
teaching plans
(3) answering questions
(1) Educational level
(2) length of service
(3) teaching ability
(4) proficiency in educational
theories, (5) skills on teaching research
(6) teaching effectiveness
Evaluation for
Awards and Work
Excellence Titles
District, municipal, provincial and national
administrative departments
for education
School nominees are
selected based on
(1) peer evaluation
(2) principal evaluation
(3) supporting documents
(1) Teachers’ professional
titles
(2) Length of service
(3) previously earned awards
(4) educational philosophy
(5) effective teaching
methods
(6) outstanding results in
teaching
Performance
Evaluation
School level Multiple methods (1) workload
(2) teaching performance
(especially students’ test
scores and promotion rate)
(3) teacher ethics
(4) work attitude
(5) attendance
(6) being a homeroom teacher
(7) length of service
(8) academic qualifications
(9) publications and research
projects
(10) parents’ evaluation
Classroom Teaching
Evaluation
School level (1) Peer evaluation
(2) review meetings after
classroom observation
(1) Learning: preparation
before class, listening, interaction, self-directed
learning, goal attainment
(2) instruction: teaching
design, presentation, dialogue, student guidance, and teaching tact
(3) curriculum nature:
goals, content, implementation, evaluation, and resource
(4) classroom culture:
facilitating thinking, democracy, encouraging
innovation, caring about
students, and uniqueness of
teaching and learning
28
Note. Adapted from An Overview of the Teacher Evaluation System in China, by G. Li, and T. Xin, 2022, In J. Manzi, Y. Sun and M. R. Garcia (Eds.), Teacher Evaluation around the World:
Experiences, Dilemmas and Future Challenges (pp. 293-319). Springer, pp. 302-307. The effectiveness of the current teacher evaluation system is demonstrated in five
aspects based upon empirical findings in recent years: (1) Teacher evaluation improved the
overall teachers’ credentials; (2) Teacher evaluation provided stronger motivations for
teachers; (3) Teacher evaluation optimized school teacher personnel management; (4) Teacher
evaluation promoted teachers’ professional development; and (5) Teacher evaluation provided
reference for teachers’ professional development growth (Li & Xin, 2022). In 2020, the Chinese central government issued the Overall Plan for Deepening
Educational Evaluation Reform in the New Era, a policy on education evaluation reform that
addressed the need to improve teacher evaluation to promote the nurturing of younger
generations (Central Committee of the CPC & State Council, 2020). Overall, the reform
aimed at setting up a system to enhance teachers’ commitment to educating students by
comprehensively cultivating them rather than merely imparting knowledge (Li & Xin, 2022). In 2021, the Chinese government implemented the historical Double Reduction Policy
as its pillar policy in the educational sphere. The Double Reduction Policy was an important
measure to implement the government’s education policy. It was of great significance for
fulfilling the fundamental task of fostering people’s standard of living, by fundamentally
improving the quality of school education and teaching, as well as by promoting a
comprehensive and healthy growth of young students. The policy referred to a reduction in
the amount of school homework and to a reduction in the burden of after-school training
programs (Wang et al., 2022). The Chinese government not only simply reduced after-school
classes but also emphasized the importance of education at school, and more specifically, the
29
quality of education at school. Therefore, teacher effectiveness and teacher evaluation have
drawn more attention since the implementation of the Double Reduction Policy. Still, certain problems exist in the current evaluation mechanism concerning the
evaluation content and indicators, evaluation methods and tools, and the use of evaluation
results. These problems have created barriers to making the best use of teacher evaluation (Li
& Xin, 2022). Li and Xin summarized five problems or obstacles in China’s teacher
evaluation system: 1. The systems commonly employed have strayed from their initial
purpose of providing support for school administration and enhancing teachers' professional
growth; 2. The impact of evaluation on individuals has been reduced to a handful of
quantitative, result-driven metrics, overlooking the fundamental goals of education; 3. The
implementation lacks a diversity of evaluation methods, failing to show the comprehensive
efforts teachers invest in teaching process; 4. Despite the plethora of teacher evaluation
models, there has been minimal success in motivating teachers to enhance their teaching
techniques; and 5. The repetition of evaluations has imposed a heavy burden on teachers, consuming vast amounts of time and energy, ultimately leading to burnout due to increased
non-teaching responsibilities. In a nutshell, more research and practical work are required in the future to clarify the
core and distinguishing features of developmental teacher evaluation in China, as well as to
investigate how it can be effectively implemented (Liu & Teddlie, 2005, p. 269). Teacher Evaluation Frameworks and their Key Components
It is critical to understand the complex range of features or components associated
with teacher evaluation. The history of teacher evaluation frameworks could be dated back to
the last century, when Stiggins and Duke (1986) made their early efforts in their case studies
of effective evaluation, and identified five attributes which are critical to a successful
evaluation system: respectively, the attributes of the teacher, the evaluator, the procedures
30
used to gather data on teacher performance, the feedback given to the teacher, and the
evaluation context. This section analyzed three major frameworks for teacher evaluation and
key components such as instruments, standards and criteria. Frameworks for Effective Teacher Evaluation
There are various frameworks for teacher evaluation systems available in the
literature. Isoré (2009) developed a conceptual framework concerning primary and secondary
education that highlighted key features of teacher evaluation systems. As shown in Figure 2, the framework consists of six key components in a teacher evaluation system: agencies and
stakeholders involved; the scope of the evaluation and teachers evaluated; evaluators; criteria
and standards for evaluation; methods and instruments; and uses of teacher evaluation. The framework differentiates the summative or formative purposes of teacher
evaluation. It also consists of “the diverse criteria and instruments commonly used to assess
teacher effectiveness as well as the actors generally involved in the process and potential
consequences for teachers’ professional life” (Isoré, 2009, p. 3). Figure 2
Isoré (2009)’s Conceptual Framework for Teacher Evaluation
31
Note. Adapted from Teacher Evaluation: Current Practices in OECD Countries and a
Literature Review, by M. Isoré, 2009, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 23, p. 32. Copyright 2009 by OECD Publishing. Santiago and Benavides (2009) provided a similar but more complicated framework
for teacher evaluation with six components. As shown in Figure 3, the six components were:
unit assessed; capabilities to assess and to use feedback; evaluation technology; aspects
assessed; purposes; and agents involved. The objective of the framework was “to ensure that
teacher evaluation contributes to the improvement of student outcomes through enhanced
teaching performance and improved teaching practices” (p.3).
32
Figure 3
Comprehensive Teacher Evaluation Framework
Note. Adapted from Teacher Evaluation: A Conceptual Framework and Examples of Country
Practices, by P. Santiago, and F. Benavides, 2009, OECD Publishing, Paris, p. 5. Copyright
2009 by OECD Publishing. As a third major framework for teacher evaluation, OECD (2013a) provided “a
conceptual framework summarizing the components involved and the way they interconnect”
(p.273). The objective of the framework is to “ensure that teacher appraisal contributes to the
improvement of student outcomes through improved teaching practices and teacher
professional learning” (p. 273). This framework discusses teacher evaluation based on four
broad considerations: governance, capacity, procedures, and use of results.
33
Figure 4
OECD Interconnected Teacher Evaluation Framework
Note. Adapted from Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on
Evaluation and Assessment, by OECD, 2013a, p. 275. Copyright 2013 OECD Publishing. Different frameworks have their own approaches to evaluate teacher effectiveness. It
is important that the components and features of any framework are interconnected, and thus
cannot be adopted alone. The three frameworks all stress the capabilities of evaluators
regarding assessing teachers and using feedback. Meanwhile, instruments and criteria and
standards are invariably pointed out as crucial components of the evaluation process. Fundamentally, the goal is that teacher evaluation should provide a way for improvement of
teaching performance and thereby better student outcomes as the common belief. However,
34
in any framework, the procedures of the teacher evaluation system are debated and discussed
in the literature by different stakeholders, including policymakers, practitioners, researchers, even parents and students. The next sections will discuss the important components of the
teacher evaluation procedures, including teacher evaluation instruments, criteria and
standards. Teacher Evaluation Instruments
Since the way of gathering evidence about a particular teacher may influence the
assessment results, the choice of instruments is of chief importance in designing and
implementing systems to evaluate teacher performance (Isoré, 2009). Various methods in
teacher evaluation are useful for measuring teacher effectiveness and providing information
about what makes teachers effective. Instruments that directly assess what teachers do in
classrooms include classroom observations, principal evaluations, teacher testing, peer
evaluation, analysis of classroom artifacts, teaching portfolios, teacher self-evaluation or selfreports of practice, student ratings, and student outcomes (Borg, 2018; Goe et al., 2008; Isoré, 2009). Classroom Observations
Classroom observation is a widely used tool to measure teacher effectiveness. It
provides direct evidence of what teachers do and is thus a key component of teacher
evaluation systems. Observations can serve both formative and summative purposes and, depending on the level of formality involved, may be conducted by school principals or vice
principals, peers and external evaluators (Borg, 2018). Depending on the evaluator and the
context, the usefulness and informativeness of the evidence collected may differ (Isoré, 2009). Principal Evaluations
Principal evaluation is another widely adopted instrument of teacher evaluation (Goe
et al., 2008). Principals possess critical knowledge about school contexts and information of
35
the students and their teachers, and thus are considered to be effective evaluators in teacher
evaluation. The format of principal evaluation varies by schools—it can be a formal
observation using a validated instrument or an informal drop-in visit (Goe et al., 2008). Peer Evaluations
Peer evaluation is the process through which a teacher is evaluated by a colleague
rather than by a school leader or external evaluator. It is based on the belief that teachers are
competent and properly trained to assess the effectiveness of their peers (Borg, 2018). Classroom Artifacts
Classroom artifacts, such as lesson plans, teacher assignments, assessments and
student work can be analyzed to assess and measure teacher effectiveness. The classroom
artifacts “can provide insight into the types of opportunities to learn that students are
presented with on a day-to-day basis” (Goe et al., 2008, p. 28). Teacher Portfolios “Portfolios are a collection of materials compiled by teachers to exhibit evidence of
their teaching practices, school activities, and student progress” (Goe et al., 2008, p.30). Teacher portfolios are distinct from classroom artifacts. The portfolios are intended to
demonstrate fulfillment of certain predetermined standards and are often designed to promote
teacher reflection and improvement in addition to being used for evaluation (Goe et al., 2008). Teacher Self-evaluation or Self-reports of Practice
“Self-evaluation is the process through which individuals assess their own
competence. In teaching, it is recognized as an important part of a teacher’s professional
development and can also contribute to teacher evaluation” (Borg, 2018, p. 30). It makes
teachers feel involved in the evaluation process and acknowledges their status as
professionals through the responsibility allocated to them (Borg, 2018; OECD, 2013a). Student Ratings
36
Student opinions of a teacher are an important factor in any teacher evaluation system
because students have the most interactions with teachers (Goe et al., 2008). However, student ratings of teachers are not always considered a valid and reliable measure of teacher
effectiveness “because of potential biases that may affect their ratings and lack of knowledge
about the full context of teaching” (Goe et al., 2008, p. 40). Teacher Testing
It is prevalent to test prospective teachers as a means of gaining a license. Using teacher tests
to assess teachers’ general and subject-related competencies is a relevant component of
teacher evaluation (Borg, 2018). In some countries, teachers’ curricular knowledge and
pedagogical skills are assessed through written tests (Isoré, 2009). Student Outcomes
Student outcomes are widely used in some countries as a source of evidence to assess
teacher effectiveness. As the most direct form of student learning, test scores may reflect
teaching performance, especially when measured in value-added improvement rather than in
absolute terms. In China, students’ test scores have been a dominant form of evidence in
teacher evaluation (Liu & Teddlie’s, 2003). Student outcomes, such as test scores, have been the most debated measures of
teacher effectiveness. Even though value-added models (VAMs) have become increasingly
common as a method of determining teacher effectiveness, they cannot adjust for the full
range of factors that affect student outcomes. VAMs rely on “statistical controls for past
achievement to parse out the small portion of student gains that is due to other factors”
(Darling-Hammond, 2012, p. 8). Research (Darling-Hammond, 2012) shows that student
academic achievement is influenced by multiple factors other than any individual teacher , including:
37
● School factors such as class sizes, curriculum materials, instructional time, availability of specialists and tutors, and resources for learning (books, computers, science labs, and more);
● Home and community supports or challenges;
● Individual student needs and abilities, health, and attendance;
● Peer culture and achievement;
● Prior teachers and schooling, as well as other current teachers;
● Differential summer learning loss, which especially affects low-income children;
● The specific tests used, which emphasize certain learning content but rarely measure
achievement well above or below grade level. (p. 8)
Different teacher evaluation instruments can meet specific purposes. Goe (2008)
discussed the purposes of evaluation of teacher effectiveness and matched them with some of
the key evaluation instruments, as shown in Table 5. Table 5
Matching Instruments (Measures) to Specific Purposes
Purpose of Evaluation of Teacher Effectiveness Value- Added
Classroom
Observation Analysis of
Artifacts Portfolios Teacher Self- Reports Student
Ratings Other Reports Find out whether grade-level or instructional
teams are meeting specific achievement goals. X
Determine whether a teacher’s students are meeting achievement growth expectations. X X
Gather information in order to provide new
teachers with guidance related to identified
strengths and shortcomings. X X X X
Examine the effectiveness of teachers in lower elementary grades for which no test scores
from previous years are available to predict student achievement (required for value- added models). X X X X
Examine the effectiveness of teachers in
nonacademic subjects (e.g., art, music, and
physical education). X X X X
Determine whether a new teacher is meeting
performance expectations in the classroom. X X X X X
Determine the types of assistance and support a
struggling teacher may need. X X X X
Gather information to determine what
professional development opportunities are needed for individual teachers, instructional
teams, grade-level teams, etc. X X X X
Gather evidence for making contract renewal X X X
38
and tenure decisions. Determine whether a teacher’s performance qualifies him or her for additional compensation or incentive pay (rewards). X X
Gather information on a teacher’s ability to work
collaboratively with colleagues to evaluate needs of and determine appropriate instruction
for at-risk or struggling students. X X X
Establish whether a teacher is effectively
communicating with parents/guardians. X X
Determine how students and parents perceive a
teacher’s instructional efforts. X
Determine who would qualify to become a mentor, coach, or teacher leader. X X X X X
Note. “X” indicates appropriate measures for the specific purpose. Adapted from A
Practical Guide to Evaluating Teacher Ef ectiveness, by Little, Goe, & Bell, 2009, Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, p. 16. Copyright 2009
National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Teacher Evaluation Standards and Criteria
An effective teacher evaluation system needs reference standards to evaluate teachers
relative to what is considered as effective teaching (Santiago & Benavides, 2009). According
to Santiago and Benavides, the main reference standards for teacher evaluation typically are:
● Teacher professional profiles (general profile of competencies for teachers), including
specialized profiles for particular types of teachers (e.g., level of education, subject). ● A set of general and professional duties of teachers, including job descriptions. ● At the level of the school, the school development plan, the internal regulations and
the annual activity plan. (p. 13)
Various researchers (Isoré, 2009; OECD, 2013a; Santiago & Benavides, 2009) also
stress the importance of teacher evaluation criteria, regarding its existence as the essential
foundation for effective evaluation practice constantly applied by competent evaluators. In
this case, developing explicit guidelines for expectation from professional practice is
requested. Meanwhile, teacher evaluation procedures require establishing evaluation criteria
to identify the level of teachers’ effectiveness on each of the aspects evaluated. This typically
39
implies the development of indicators and/or standardized forms to record teacher
effectiveness (Santiago & Benavides). Additionally, the weighting of the different aspects
evaluated can also function as a criterion “in order to compute an overall quantitative rating, in case it is part of the teacher evaluation model” (Santiago & Benavides, 2009, p. 14). Research on teacher evaluation frameworks and their key components help to lay a
solid foundation based upon empirical studies. Identifying specific evaluation instruments as
well as setting up clear standards and criteria are essential in the procedures of teacher
evaluation. Teacher evaluation features and components cannot be adopted in isolation. All
the features and components of a teacher evaluation system interconnect with each other
(OECD, 2013a; Santiago & Benavides, 2009). Therefore, all features and components need to
be taken into consideration in guiding educational practitioners in the practices of design and
implement teacher evaluation and thus ensure the effectiveness of teacher evaluation outcome. Design and Implementation of Effective Teacher Evaluation Systems
To design and implement an effective teacher evaluation system, individual
components cannot be discussed alone; the process as a whole, including all features and
components, need to be studied. All the features and components of a teacher evaluation
system interconnect with each other. Ignorance of any component or feature can significantly
affect the effectiveness of a teacher evaluation system (Santiago & Benavides, 2009). This
section discusses the characteristics of effective evaluation systems, the procedures of
designing effective evaluation systems, and difficulties in implementing effective teacher
evaluation systems. Characteristics of Effective Evaluation Systems
Various researchers (Duke & Stiggins, 1986; Stiggins & Duke, 1988; Stiggins &
Nickel, 1989), in their studies of effective teacher evaluation systems, illustrated five
categories of attributes which are essential to a teacher evaluation system. They listed the
40
attributes of the teacher, the evaluator, the procedures used to gather data on teacher
performance, the feedback given to the teacher, and the evaluation context. These attributes
are as follows: for the Teacher attributes they include instructional competence, personal
expectations, openness to suggestion, orientation to change, subject knowledge, experience;
for the Evaluator attributes they include credibility, persuasiveness, patience, trust, track
record, modeling; for Procedures attributes they include performance and criteria standards, data collection procedures; for Feedback attributes they include specificity of feedback, frequency of feedback, descriptive or judgmental feedback, timing of feedback, feedback
related to performance standards; and for Context they include time spent on evaluation, resources available for evaluation (Duke & Stiggins, 1986; Stiggins & Duke, 1988; Stiggins
& Nickel, 1989). Further, Borg (2018) identified the characteristics of effective evaluation systems as
follows:
● Effective teacher evaluation involves the coherent specification of purposes, processes, stakeholders, and use of results. ● Effective teacher evaluation can serve both formative and summative purposes, and
these may call for different approaches to the assessment of teacher effectiveness. ● Effective teacher evaluation will be based on explicit criteria about what teachers
should know and be able to do at particular points in their career. ● In effective teacher evaluation systems, evaluation should draw on multiple sources of
evidence over time and from different evaluators. No one single source of evidence
will be used to capture teacher effectiveness in a dominant way. ● Effective teacher evaluation systems involve stakeholders in decisions about the
development and implementation of the systems.
41
● Effective teacher evaluation systems discriminate between more and less effective
teachers. ● Effective teacher evaluation supports the professional development of teachers and
contributes to more effective teaching and learning. ● Evaluator training is an essential component of an effective teacher evaluation system. The evaluators (school leaders, inspectors, teachers, students and even parents) should
possess the knowledge and skills they need to contribute in an appropriate manner to
the process of assessing teacher effectiveness. (p. 8; pp. 35-37)
Derrington and Brandon (2019) in their review of literature, identified a number of
differences in the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of evaluation, in the ways to
effectively carry out evaluations, and in the sources of evidence used for evaluation. The
following six agreements were evident and highlighted:
1. Professional approaches to teacher evaluation can both support teacher growth
through formative evaluation and ensure quality teaching through summative
evaluation;
2. Evaluation must be founded on a clear and coherent conception of exemplary teaching
practice based on current research. Effective evaluation models reference clearly
articulated criteria and standards;
3. Effective evaluation requires transparent, clearly understood processes conducted in a
constructive, professional, and sensitive manner within recognized ethical, legal, and
contractual guidelines;
4. Evaluation evidence must be gathered from multiple sources and should consider
contextual variances in the teaching environment (subject, grade level, class
composition);
42
5. Evaluators must be competent professionals who have been well trained in evaluation
practice;
6. A culture of continuous learning and improvement is nurtured when differentiated
approaches to evaluation are used to respond to the varying needs, aspirations, and
challenges of teachers at all career and developmental stages. (pp. 4-5)
Additionally, Derrington and Brandon (2019) summarized underlying ethical, legal, and contractual teacher evaluation guidelines and differentiated approaches to evaluation with
regard to a variety of aspects of differentiation. Also, the contextual variances in teaching
environment such as subject, grade level, and class composition were taken into account as
the characteristics of effective teacher evaluation systems. As Santiago and Benavides (2009) pointed out, teacher evaluation was likely to be
more effective when “involving teachers at every stage of the process”, “providing adequate
training to evaluators”, “releasing both evaluators and teachers from other tasks”, “conducting a pilot implementation and a continuous review of the process”, and “blending
teacher evaluation into broader teacher quality and support policies” (pp. 29-30). Looking across these different reviews of characteristics of effective teacher
evaluation systems, a few lessons become clear. Effective teacher evaluation should serve the
goal of improving teaching quality, have clear standards and criteria, involve stakeholders in
the process, resort to multiple approaches, resources, and contextual variances in order to
have constructive and comprehensive feedback, and effectively train evaluators before
implementation. Procedures of Designing an Effective Evaluation System
The effective implementation of teacher evaluation needs to take into account a range
of technical, financial, human resource, political, professional and social factors (Borg, 2018).
43
It is essential that these factors are given careful attention when decisions about teacher
evaluation are being made. Santiago and Benavides (2009) highlighted the societal factors that affect the design
of teacher evaluation policies. Teacher evaluation issues cannot be studied separately. “Societal, school system, and school-level factors all make a difference in the design of
teacher evaluation policies” (p. 4). To be specific, these factors influence the design of
approaches to teacher evaluation regarding the needs for new policy initiatives, the factors
that limit policy opportunities, and the factors that influence policy implementation, impact
and cost. Without an adequate understanding of what factors are involved and how they
influence the impact of teacher evaluation policies, approaches to teacher evaluation tend to
end up ineffective (Santiago & Benavides, 2009). Danielson and McGreal (2000) developed a procedure for designing an effective
evaluation system that includes six steps as follows: Step 1: determining the process; Step 2:
determining the general procedures; Step 3: determine the evaluative criteria; Step 4:
determine the detailed instruments and procedures; Step 5: determine the plan for
implementation; and Step 6: designing the training program for evaluators. “A Practical Guide to Designing Comprehensive Teacher Evaluation Systems” by
Goe et al. (2011) also proved a useful tool to help practitioners and researchers in developing
teacher evaluation systems systematically. They took into account factors influencing
contemporary teacher evaluation reform and provided a guide of the design process of
comprehensive teacher evaluation systems, including eight components to improve student
learning and teacher performance, as shown in Table 6. Table 6
Development and Implementation of Comprehensive Teacher Evaluation Systems
Component Contents and guiding questions
44
Component 1:
Specifying Evaluation
System Goals
Specifying Evaluation System Goals
1. SYSTEM GOALS AND PURPOSES: Have the goals and purposes of
the evaluation system been determined?
2. GOAL DEFINITION: Are the goals explicit, well defined, and clearly
articulated for stakeholders?
3. GOAL ALIGNMENT: Have the evaluation system goals been aligned to
the state strategic plan or other teacher reform initiatives?
Establishing Standards
4. DEFINITION OF EFFECTIVE TEACHER: 1. Has the state defined
what constitutes an effective teacher?
5. TEACHING STANDARDS: Has the state established teaching
standards?
Component 2:
Securing and Sustaining
Stakeholder Investment and
Cultivating a Strategic
Communication Plan
1. STAKEHOLDER GROUP: Has the stakeholder group been identified for
involvement in the design of the evaluation model?
2. GROUP ROLE AND EXPECTATIONS: Have the group expectations
and individual roles been established?
3. COMMUNICATION PLAN: Does the group have a strategic
communication plan to keep the broader school community informed?
4. FEEDBACK: Has the stakeholder group determined a process to ensure
that constituent feedback is integrated into the systems’ redesign efforts?
Component 3:
Selecting Measures
Selecting Measures
1. GUIDING FACTORS IN MEASURE SELECTION: Did stakeholders
consider all the recommended factors in selecting measures?
Measuring Growth in Tested Subjects
2. TEACHERS’ CONTRIBUTIONS TO STUDENT LEARNING
GROWTH: 1. Does the state intend to use teachers’ contributions to
student learning growth (determined using standardized test results) as a
factor in teacher evaluation (e.g., value-added models and other growth
models)?
3. TEACHERS OF TESTED SUBJECTS: 2. Has a growth model for
teachers of tested subjects been selected?
4. PERCENTAGE OF RESULTS BASED ON GROWTH MODEL OF
TEACHERS: Has the percentage of teacher evaluation results that will be
based on the growth model been determined?
5. IDENTIFICATION OF TEACHERS: Have teachers for whom the
growth model will be factored into evaluation results been identified?
6. DATA LINKAGE: Can student achievement data be accurately linked to
teachers (data integrity)?
7. DETERMINATION OF ADEQUATE GROWTH: Has a process been
established to determine adequate student growth?
Alternative Growth Measures in Tested and Non-tested Subjects
8. MEASURES OTHER THAN STANDARDIZED TESTS: Does the state
intend to use measures other than standardized tests to determine student
growth (e.g., classroom based assessments; interim or benchmark
assessments; curriculum-based assessments; the Four Ps: projects, portfolios, performances, products)?
9. IDENTIFICATION OF TEACHERS: Have the teachers who meet the
criteria for use of measures other than standardized tests been identified?
10. IDENTIFICATION OF MEASURES: Have measures to determine
student learning growth been identified?
11. FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS: Do these measures meet the federal
requirements of rigor: between two points in time and comparability?
Validity and Reliability
12. RESEARCH: Are there plans to conduct research during implementation
to increase confidence in the measures?
Observation Measures
13. MEASURE OF QUALITY: Does the state intend to use measures other
than observations as indicators of instructional quality?
14. RESEARCH BASE: Is there a research base for this observation tool?
45
15. APPLICABILITY: Is the observation instrument applicable to all
teachers and teaching contexts?
16. PROCESS: Has the observation process been thoroughly specified?
Component 4:
Determining the Structure of
the Evaluation System
1. MULTIPLE MEASURES: Will the state promote or use multiple
measures?
2. WEIGHT OF MEASURES: Has the state determined the percentage
(weight) of each measure in the overall teacher rating?
3. LEVELS OF PROFICIENCY: Have the levels of teaching proficiency
been determined?
4. FAILURE TO MEET PERFORMANCE LEVELS: Have consequences
been determined for failure to meet acceptable performance levels?
Component 5:
Selecting and Training
Evaluators
1. PERSONNEL: Do the selected measures require trained personnel to use
rubrics or other sources of documentation to determine the level of
teacher effectiveness?
2. TRAINING AND GUIDELINES: Will the state provide training or
guidelines on evaluator/reviewer selection and training?
3. RETRAINING: Does the state have a system in place to retrain
evaluators/ reviewers if the system is not implemented with fidelity?
Component 6:
Ensuring Data Integrity and
Transparency
1. DATA INFRASTRUCTURE: Is the data infrastructure to collect teacher
evaluation data established?
2. DATA VALIDATION: Is there a data validation process to ensure the
integrity of the data?
3. REPORTING: Can teacher evaluation data be reported
(aggregated/disaggregated) to depict results at the state, district, building, or classroom level?
4. USE OF DATA: Is there a plan for how the teacher evaluation data will
be used?
Component 7:
Using Teacher Evaluation
Results
1. TRIGGER POINTS FOR ACTION: Have trigger points for action using
evaluation results been established?
2. EVALUATION CYCLE Is professional development an integral
component of the evaluation cycle?
3. EVALUATION RESULTS: Will teacher evaluation results be used to
target professional development activities?
4. RESEARCH: Are professional learning activities provided in a manner
that is supported in research?
5. EVALUATION SYSTEMS: Are systems established to evaluate
professional learning efforts?
Component 8:
Evaluating the System
1. EVALUATION PROCESS PROCESS: Has a process been developed to
systematically evaluate the effectiveness of the teacher evaluation model?
2. EFFECTIVENESS OUTCOMES: Have outcomes to determine the
overall effectiveness of the evaluation system been established?
3. OTHER ASPECTS OF TEACHER QUALITY: Will other aspects of
teacher quality that affect teacher performance be reviewed to determine
whether they have been influenced by the evaluation system?
Note. Adapted from A Practical Guide to Designing Comprehensive Teacher Evaluation
Systems, by L. Goe, L. Holdheide, and T. Miller, 2011, National Comprehensive Center for
Teacher Quality, p. 9-48. The eight components in the Guide are “a tool designed to assist states and districts in
constructing high-quality teacher evaluation systems in an effort to improve teaching and
learning” (Goe et al.,2011, p. 1). By understanding the contents and answering the related
46
guiding questions, it helps practitioners to improve the current evaluation systems to better
identify successful teachers, assist less successful teachers, and help all teachers improve
their practice, to effectively measure teachers’ contributions to student learning growth, to use
multiple measures to assess various aspects of teachers’ performance and instructional
practice, focus on the specific components of the system that are most relevant to make sure
that teachers play a critical role in ensuring that the evaluation system is fair, valid, and
successful through their participation in designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating
the system, to effectively train evaluators, and scientifically use the results of assessment
(Goe et al., 2011). Difficulties in Implementing Teacher Evaluation Systems
Research has suggested a number of challenges to implementing a teacher evaluation
system. OECD (2013a) summarized five challenges in implementing teacher evaluation
systems, which included: (1) developing a shared understanding of effective teaching; (2)
balancing the professional development and accountability functions of teacher evaluation; (3)
accounting for student performance such as test scores in the evaluation of teachers; (4)
developing competent skills for teacher evaluation; and (5) using teacher evaluation results to
shape incentives for teachers. While most education systems have some requirements for teacher evaluation, not all
of them have national frameworks or standards for the teachers’ professionalism. The absence
of such a reference standard and evaluation criteria for teachers hinders the ability of
designated evaluators to effectively evaluate teachers and provide constructive feedback for
improvement (OECD, 2013a). Correspondingly, lack of shared understanding, different
interests of stakeholders, and existing contextual variances all account for the imbalance of
professional development and accountability functions of teacher evaluation. Traditionally, student results have been used as an important measure of the result of teaching practices in
47
some countries (Isoré, 2009; OECD, 2013b). However, to what extent it should be used is
still under discussion. Due to lack of training, not all evaluators are qualified with the
required skills to efficiently perform the task of assessing (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). Finally, even if the evaluation process is carried out in an effective way, without a proper
mechanism to relate its result to incentives for teachers, teachers still may not be motivated
(Donaldson, 2021; Isoré, 2009). The choice of evaluation methods is made complex by divergent views and interests
among stakeholders (Danielson & McGreal, 2000; OECD, 2013a). The relative importance of
summative and formative purposes is especially contentious and differs for different groups
of people. On the one hand, policymakers and parents tend to value quality assurance and
accountability. On the other hand, teachers expect opportunities of social recognition of their
work and opportunities for professional growth through the development of a formative
system of teacher evaluation (Santiago & Benavides, 2009). Teachers also often refuse
reforms made by policymakers because they consider them as incompatible with their own
concerns and daily practices (Isoré, 2009). What is worse, however, is it is possible that
current evaluation practices reach neither of their desired goals. In other words, many teacher
evaluation systems achieve neither the accountability nor the professional development
purpose (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). On close inspection, it can be seen that
incompatibility between the two purposes relies on the evaluation structures and procedures
schools use. Teacher evaluation systems should be designed and implemented in which
practitioners can merge the dual purposes of accountability and professional development
(Danielson and McGreal, 2000). Theoretical Framework and Teacher Performance and Evaluation Cycle
The theoretical underpinnings guiding this study were two important theories of
motivation, namely cognitive evaluation theory and goal-setting theory. They served to
48
construct the study’s research questions and related survey questions, seeking to understand
how teachers’ want to be evaluated and their needs in a newly designed teacher performance
and evaluation system in JEG schools. “To be motivated means to be moved to do something. A person who feels no impetus or inspiration to act is thus characterized as unmotivated, whereas someone who is energized or activated toward an end is considered motivated”
(Ryan & Deci, 2000a, p. 54). According to Cerasoli et al. (2014), motivation was a crucial
component of every credible model of human performance and has always been an essential
focus of industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology. In literature, it is widely agreed that
motivation can influence behavior and promote performance (Cerasoli, 2014; Deci et al., 1999; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Motivation is distinguished by two general types based on the different reasons or
goals that lead to an action. According to Ryan and Deci (2000b), intrinsic motivation was
defined as doing something simply for its inherent satisfactions and enjoyment rather than for
some separable consequence such as pressures or rewards. In contrast to intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation was a construct of doing an activity in order to attain a certain separable
outcome. Both intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation have been widely applied in
educational practices (Cerasoli et al., 2014; Donaldson, 2021; Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Motivation has long been a key factor in the teacher evaluation process. Teacher evaluation
has implications for both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Extrinsic rewards and sanctions
can give rise to changes of behaviors, but they can also hinder the performance of complex, creative work. For example, teachers may feel pressure to produce results that will win them
rewards or avoid sanctions. Some extrinsic factors can also prompt gaming behaviors as
teachers may seek to obtain rewards or avoid sanctions (Donaldson, 2021).
49
Intrinsic motivation is more beneficial than extrinsic motivation, which is more
evident in the context of school environments. Intrinsic motivation results in high-quality
learning and creativity (Ryan & Deci, 2000b), factors that are important in education, such as, teaching and learning. Two theories of motivation lay the foundation of the theoretical framework in this
study. Cognitive evaluation theory, which is considered a sub-theory of self-determination
theory, was presented by Deci and Ryan (1985) to specify the factors in social contexts that
produce variability in intrinsic motivation. According to cognitive evaluation theory, interpersonal events and structures such as rewards, communications, feedback that are
conducted toward feelings of competence during action could promote intrinsic motivation
for that action because of the satisfaction of the basic psychological need for competence
(Deci & Ryan, 1985). The theory further specified that sense of competence will only
enhance intrinsic motivation when accompanied by a sense of autonomy. In other words, for
a high level of intrinsic motivation, people must experience satisfaction of the needs both for
competence and autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). For example, constructive feedback from
evaluators was conducive to both competence and autonomy, thereby, intrinsic motivation
(Donaldson, 2021). The goal-setting theory, proposed by Locke and Latham (1990, 2002, 2006), underlined the impact of goals on intrinsic motivation and the level of performance under
specific circumstances. This theory was formulated inductively largely within
industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology based upon empirical studies over 25 years (Locke
& Latham, 2006). “A goal is the object or aim of an action...to attain a specific standard of
proficiency, usually within a specified time limit” (Locke & Latham, 2002, p. 705). Feedback
functioned as a key moderator of goal setting, along with three other important moderators, which were commitment to the goal, task complexity, and situational constraints.
50
Goal-setting theory focuses primarily on motivation in work settings (Locke &
Latham, 2002). Locke and Latham (2002, 2006) stated that goals that were optimally
challenging yet attainable were most motivating; goals that were specific rather than vague or
abstract are motivating; goals that were used to evaluate performance are more motivating;
goals need to be accepted; people participating in the goal-setting process set higher goals
and demonstrated higher performance than those assigned goals by the employer or
supervisor; the goal-performance relationship was strongest when people are committed to
their goals through the importance factor and the self-efficacy factor; people needed
appropriate feedback that reveals progress in relation to their goals; a learning goal
orientation was beneficial for higher performance than a performance goal orientation; and
group goal setting and individual goal setting are equally important. In conclusion, goals
were most intrinsically motivating when supporting a person’s sense of competence and
autonomy (Donaldson, 2021). Teacher evaluation processes may enhance intrinsic motivation, thereby the teacher's
performance. Cerasoli et al. (2014) found that intrinsic motivation was a medium to strong
predictor of performance in a 40-year meta-analysis study. With reference to cognitive
evaluation theory and goal-setting theory, appropriate feedback (Deci and Ryan,1985; Ryan
& Deci, 2000b) and achievable goals (Locke & Latham, 2002, 2006) may enhance
competence and autonomy, which are two key sub-constructs of intrinsic motivation. Various
studies assert that intrinsic motivation is enhanced by performance feedback (Harackiewicz, 1979; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Ryan & Deci, 2000b) and goal setting (Donaldson, 2021;
Locke & Latham, 2002). As Donaldson (2021) summarized, teacher evaluation systems
supported teachers’ intrinsic motivation through constructive feedback and goal setting by
facilitating a teacher’s sense of competence and autonomy. Particularly, feedback was
significant in the teacher evaluation process, since it “can enhance teachers’ practice by
51
identifying specific weaknesses in a teacher’s instruction, providing suggestions for how to
enhance their teaching, and motivating to improve” (Donaldson, 2021, pp. 169-170). Figure 5 presents the theoretical framework which integrates the cognitive evaluation
theory and goal-setting theory, illustrating components of an effective teacher performance
and evaluation cycle. It is noteworthy that some extrinsic factors also support a teacher’s
sense of competence and autonomy (Donaldson, 2021). Hence, extrinsic incentives can also
have positive impacts on the intrinsic motivation and performance (Cerasoli et al., 2014; Deci
et al., 1999; Ryan & Deci, 2000a, 2000b). The performance and evaluation cycle involve
extrinsic incentives on performance, which are a key component since most contemporary
teacher evaluation systems comprise both intrinsic motivation mechanisms and extrinsic
motivation mechanisms to support teachers’sense of competence and autonomy (Donaldson, 2021). Furthermore, professional development is one fundamental purpose of teacher
evaluation. In order to further enhance intrinsic motivation and performance through goal
setting and feedback, schools can provide intentionally designed professional development
programs which facilitate intrinsic motivation for teachers through supporting their needs for
autonomy and competence (Donaldson, 2021). As Ryan and Deci (2000a) concluded, autonomy-supportive and competence-supportive contexts or environments reliably enhanced
teachers’ intrinsic motivation and performance. Figure 5
Framework for Teacher Performance and Evaluation Cycle
52
53
Chapter Three: Methods
The purpose of this study was to design a more effective and comprehensive teacher
evaluation system in a large private education organization, JEG, in Dalian city, Liaoning
Province. The study focused on the four middle schools of the JEG using a cross-sectional
survey study design to determine key components of a new teacher evaluation process. All
data collected were self-reported by classroom teachers from survey questions. This study addressed the following research questions:
1. What are the profiles of how teachers in the four middle schools under JEG in China
experience teacher evaluation?
2. How would the middle school teachers of JEG like to be evaluated, including
instruments, criteria and standards, and frequency?
3. What are teachers’ professional development needs to excel within a newly designed
teacher evaluation system in the four middle schools under JEG?
This chapter outlines the methods to be employed in this study. First, the chapter
presents a brief organization overview. Then, the population and sample of the study are
defined in order to provide descriptive information about the study’s setting and its
participants. Accordingly, the data collection and instrumentation are explained to identify
how the research questions were addressed through the use of quantitative data. The methods
used to analyze the data are described afterwards. Finally, issues of validity and reliability, ethical considerations, and limitations and delimitations are discussed. Organization Overview
Dalian JEG is a large-scale K-12 private education provider in the city of Dalian, which operates five kindergartens, two primary schools, four middle schools and one high
school. All schools have adopted a mode of teacher evaluation designed by Dalian JEG, which is heavily focused on a single measure - student test scores.
54
A new system for teacher evaluation in China’s K-12 schools has called for more
attention since the implementation of China’s Double Reduction policy in 2021, which aims
to promote the quality of teaching and learning at school settings through reducing the
homework and off-campus training burdens of students in compulsory education. All of the
principals of the schools and the senior members of JEG’s leadership team, including the
president, have been confronted with the problem of the lack of a comprehensive teacher
evaluation mechanism to assess teacher efficacy and effectiveness. Moreover, in a survey
conducted by the HR department of JEG in July 2022, teachers presented low satisfaction
rates toward the current teacher evaluation system. Due to the consideration that the best instruments and criteria of teacher evaluation
are likely to differ at different stages in K-12 education, I targeted the research in one of the
stages. This study focused on teacher evaluation in the four middle schools (7-9th grades)
under the JEG. There are three reasons for choosing these sites. First, middle schools are
within Chinese Compulsory Education, and thus gain more attention and see more policy
adjustment or reform, such as the Double Reduction Policy. Second, middle schools feature a
crucial sector in JEG, with the largest number of teaching staff. Third, middle schools are
faced with great teaching and test pressure because of high school entrance examinations. Therefore, student enrollment rates and testing scores have become the primary, if not the
only, source for teacher evaluation components in middle schools. Population and Sample
This study investigated perceptions of the teacher evaluation process and components
of it in four private middle schools (7-9 grades) within JEG in the city of Dalian. Therefore, the population of focus was the 267 classroom teachers at the four middle schools. Each
teacher was a sampling unit in this case. I acquired access to the entire target population. The
accessible population was thus the target population, which provided more flexibility to the
55
sampling procedure. Therefore, I surveyed the entire population. The senior leadership team
of JEG and the principals of the four schools were all supportive of this research topic. A
reasonable high participation rate (71.5%) was achieved. This participant rate was high
enough to achieve any specified confidence levels and margins of error. With the population sample of the study determined, an officer from the Department
of Teaching and Learning of JEG sent an email to all middle school teachers on my behalf
with a link to a survey. This was an anonymous online survey, and no identifiers were
collected so that participants faced no confidentiality risks. Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study adhered to a quantitative method, using a survey as the instrument for data
collection. Quantitative work creates a degree of distance between the researcher and the data. Furthermore, it generates a sense of objectivity in both the research process and the analysis
of the data (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). According to the definition by Creswell and Creswell (2017), survey design is a
process which provides a quantitative description of tendencies, attitudes, and perspectives of
a population, or tests for associations among variables of a population by researching a
sample of that population. In this study, I used surveys to answer the descriptive questions of
the research topic, which included the processes and components of teacher evaluation. The
cross-sectional design of the survey was aimed to yield a picture of teachers’ perceptions of
an effective teacher evaluation system in the targeted schools, and specifically collected data
on teacher participants' opinions on teacher evaluation and its components, as well as on their
most recent experience with teacher evaluation in their schools. Based on the survey results, improvements to the current teacher evaluation process and criteria were considered, leading
to a more effective teacher evaluation system being designed and implemented.
56
Specifically, I first submitted an application to the University of Southern California’s
Institutional Research Board (IRB). Once approval from the University of Southern
California’s Institutional Research Board (IRB) was given, I contacted the leadership team of
JEG and the principals of the four schools. The leadership team of JEG and the principals of
the four schools were all supportive of this research project. I acquired approval from the JEG
Board of Directors, who held a meeting with all four middle school principals and the
Department of Teaching and Learning. The project gained support and approval from all
school principals, who fully understood the purpose and potential value of the study. Also, the
principals raised teachers’ awareness of the survey and of the importance of the resulting data
in faculty meetings before the survey was administered. An officer from the Department of Teaching and Learning was responsible for
sending the invitation letter and follow-up letters to teachers on my behalf with a link to the
survey. The link to the survey remained active for five weeks after the email was sent. Three
follow-up emails were sent to remind the non-responders after two weeks, after four weeks
and three days before the survey closed. In the invitation email, key elements, including a
brief, clear description of what the survey was about, who was administering it, why it was
important, how much time it would take to complete, when survey responses were due, how
the results would and would not be used, and how the responses would be kept anonymous
and confidential were stated (Pazzaglia et al., 2016). I provided relevant information in the
letter to assure them of their voluntary participation, the confidentiality of their responses, the
fact that no identifiable information would be collected, and that their responses would be
used for the design of an effective teacher evaluation system that benefited the students, the
teacher themselves as well as the schools involved. The survey was created using an online
survey platform, Qualtrics, which provided versions that could be used with computers, cellphones and tablets.
57
The survey was administered in Chinese, as most teachers other than English teachers
and foreign teachers in the four middle schools are not proficient in English. The survey
questions, invitation letter and follow-up letters were all translated into Chinese when sent
out. According to Lochmiller and Lester (2017), the “back translation” approach was used to
make sure the interpretation is as precise as possible. “The closer it comes to the original, the
more reliable is your translation” (p. 299). In translating the survey questions, three qualified
English-Chinese interpreters assisted me during this process. Finally, the data was securely stored on my password-protected laptop and accessed
by myself only. The survey results were shared with teachers, school principals and the
Department of Teaching and Learning of JEG. Instrumentation
For this study, the survey questions collected data about teacher perceptions of
various components of the current teacher evaluation system and that of an effective teacher
evaluation system. In addition, data on several demographic variables were collected. There
were 68 questions in total in the survey. All of the survey items are shown in Appendix A. The survey questions were constructed to be aligned with the theoretical framework of the
study and research questions. The survey instrument was divided into two parts. Part One of the survey included six
demographic questions and the 48-item, revised version of the Teacher Evaluation Profile
Questionnaire (TEP) developed by Rindler (1994). The demographic questions included
gender, teaching experience, education level, subject of teaching, homeroom teacher roles, and administrative roles. These data were used to assess if there were differences in responses
based on demographic factors. The original TEP was a 46-item questionnaire developed by
Stiggins and Duke (1988) at the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory to collect data
related to the components of the evaluation model used in the schools being studied. The
58
revised TEP could be used to ask elementary and secondary school teachers to respond to the
questions based upon their most recent evaluation experience in a particular school or school
district.The TEP included five subscales: attributes of the teacher, perceptions of the evaluator, procedures of the evaluation system used, feedback received, and the evaluation context. Stiggins and Duke (1988) merged the five subscales into three areas of interest: people
(attributes of the teacher and perceptions of the evaluator), procedures (attributes of the
system and feedback), and the environment (attributes of the evaluation context). The original
instrument presented 44 items related to attributes with a five-point Likert response scale, with 1 being the lowest and 5 the highest. There were two additional items; the teachers were
asked to rate that experience for its overall quality and for its impact on their growth as
teachers.The revised instrument, developed by Rindler (1994), included elements related to
teacher evaluation, such as artifacts, student performance, self-evaluation, and evaluations
from students and peers, present in the school district being studied. The revised TEP, as the
original, asked teachers to rate their most recent evaluation experience for its overall quality. In addition, there were 14 questions in Part Two of the survey, which were aimed to
yield a picture of the key components of an effective teacher evaluation system from
classroom teachers’ perspective in the targeted schools. The items in Part Two of the survey
adopted multiple scales of measurement including nominal, interval and ratio. Data Analysis
This study used descriptive analysis to effectively summarize the distribution of the
data and present a picture of what the data illustrated. For survey responses, frequencies to
each question were calculated. Since the research has a large sample group of approximately
59
300 teachers, means and standard deviation were presented to identify average levels of
responses. Data analysis followed a series of steps. First, I reported information on the number of teachers who had completed the survey
by designing a table with numbers and percentages. Second, I conducted descriptive
statistical analysis of the data once all survey results had been submitted. In this way, the
distribution of the data on teachers’ perceptions related to all the survey questions was
effectively summarized. Finally, I used ANOVA tests to determine whether there was a
statistically significant difference in how teachers would like to be evaluated based on years
of teaching experience, between homeroom teachers and non-homeroom teachers, and
between teachers with administrative responsibilities and without. In the study, SPSS and Microsoft Excel were adopted as the data analysis tools for
higher efficiency. Validity and Reliability
Standards of validity and reliability are important in quantitative research. Reliability
refers to the consistency of measurement or the degree to which your measure is replicable
across multiple administrations. Simply put, reliability is the ability of an instrument to
achieve the same measure regardless of the number of times it is administered (Lochmiller &
Lester, 2017). Validity is described as the degree to which the inference drawn from a score is
accurate. In short, validity is the ability to say that a score represents what you think it does
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Potential threats to validity will be identified and designs have
been taken into consideration to minimize these threats. The teacher evaluation attributes that were examined in the TEP are based on research
conducted by Stiggins and Duke (1988). The focus of their research was to better understand
growth-oriented teacher evaluations that had the potential to help all teachers improve. The
60
research was conducted as three separate studies over a three-year period. Each study evolved
into the next study in order to reinforce the studies that preceded it. In the first study, the
researchers examined how existing laws and collective bargaining agreements were translated
in actual district practices. In the second study, the researchers identified instances of
successful teacher evaluation and explored the antecedents for success. The results of the
second study identified the key attributes, which resulted in the design of the TEP
questionnaire. In the third study, the questionnaire was administered to 450 teachers in five
school districts. The results of the questionnaire validated the results of the previous two studies and
revealed the value of the questionnaire to make needed changes in teacher evaluation systems. Therefore, the validity of the TEP was established during its development. The items and
scales were written to reflect keys to growth-producing evaluation, as described by teachers
who benefited from the evaluations. The validity of these attributes was confirmed in
subsequent field applications. Apart from validity, the TEP has been found to be an instrument of high reliability and
proven through numerous research studies. The internal consistency reliability of the
questionnaire was 0.93 suggesting that the questionnaire asks a highly cohesive set of
questions about the evaluation process (Stiggins & Duke, 1988). Therefore, the reported internal consistency reliability coefficient of 0.93 is in line
with Cronbach (1951) who indicated that reliability coefficients above 0.6 are desirable and
values above 0.8 were required for a developed scale. In addition, the high estimate of
internal consistency of the total instrument suggests that the scales of each attribute are both
internally consistent and highly correlated. While the scale related to teacher attributes was
independent of the others, the other four scales (evaluator, evaluation procedures, feedback, and context) were moderately to highly correlated (Stiggins & Duke, 1988). The reliability
61
test was undertaken to verify that the revised TEP was still a reliable instrument after its
slight modifications (Rindler, 1994). The second part of the survey instrument was designed by the researcher, the validity
and reliability of the survey items in Part Two were also cautiously dealt with in the process. In order to ensure external validity, I avoided generalizing beyond the teachers and schools in
the survey to other schools not under study. Also, the study resorted to adequate statistical
power so as to draw accurate inferences from the data and safeguard the statistical conclusion
validity of the research. Ethics
Ethics is foundational to the entire research process. Therefore, ethical considerations
are significant and ethical issues that will possibly arise need to be anticipated in every phase
of the research study (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Ethics in
educational research involves “inviting the consent of participants, ensuring no harm is done, and protecting the identity of participants” (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017, p. 189). Informed
consent is a critical step in the research process, which involves the process of informing the
participants about their rights as research participants (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). This research focused on teacher evaluation practices in four middle schools (7-9th
grade) under the JEG. In this quantitative survey study, I took into account potential ethical
issues regarding the way to identify, recruit, and collect data, as well as my responsibilities to
protect the rights of the participants. Although no direct conflict of interest was involved in this study, the methodology I
used during the research process and the fact that the findings from the study might be used
as critical evidence in the future implementation of policies (such as teacher tenure decisions, teacher retention or dismissal, reward and recognition, and professional development
programs) could raise certain ethics concerns (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). As a result, during
62
the process of identifying, recruiting and collecting data in the research, the following steps
were taken for informed consent and protection of research subjects. First, the research
ensured a high level of the confidentiality of the participants, privacy of the data collection, and anonymity of participants. Second, I fully explained to each participant their rights and
responsibilities, making it clear that their participation in the study was voluntary and that
participants are free to withdraw from the study at any time (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). This enabled them to make an intelligent choice about whether or not to participate. Third, I
worked to make sure that all the teacher participants received the benefits—an effective
teacher evaluation system—to their current teaching practice and future professional
development (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). This research focused on teacher evaluation practice in four middle schools (7-9th
grade) under the JEG. As the principal of Dalian Royal School (high school under JEG), I had
a leadership role in the organization to be researched. However, the four middle schools were
extremely independent in terms of school daily operation and development, and I had little
connection with any of the middle schools as the principal of the high school. Furthermore, an officer from the Department of Teaching and Learning of JEG, as the third party, sent all
selected teachers the survey link on my behalf to ensure anonymity and confidentiality and
minimize feelings of coercion or pressure to participate. Role of Researcher
Ethics are foundational to the entire research process (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Being aware of the power and potential biases rooted in one’s positionality is critical and
desirable for the researcher to engage with research ethically and continually check in with
the participants in terms of their experience as research participants. This research focused on teacher evaluation practice in four middle schools under the
JEG. As the principal of Dalian Royal School (high school under JEG), I was interested in
63
this topic as I believed an effective system of teacher evaluation based on teachers’ perspective was also favorable for the development of the school where I worked. Crucial to
the validity and reliability of the research was the bias of the research, which needed to be
further stressed. The researcher’s beliefs, experiences, and tendencies may influence the
research design, data collection or data analysis, therefore bias the study (Creswell &
Creswell, 2017; Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). In this study, instead of being neutral, I might
run the risk of designing survey questions reflecting my preconceived notions around the
topic. For example, a bias I held as a researcher was that particular components of teacher
evaluation criteria and standards matter and should be placed with great value in the process
of teacher evaluation. However, this might or might not be in line with the perspective of
teachers. Thus, when designing the survey questions, I based the survey on existing scales
from a valid and reliable instrument and on scholarly literature, and provided questions in a
way that multiple answers reflecting teachers’ real opinions could be offered. My leadership
role in JEG is as the principal of the high school, with little connection with the middle
schools. In addition, I ensured that my role here was that of a doctoral student doing doctoral
research, a position that was not one of power relative to the participants’ position.
64
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of the study was to support the implementation of effective teacher
evaluation and related professional development needs for teachers in China. Specifically, the
study focused on the four middle schools of the JE Group (JEG) in the city of Dalian, Liaoning province. Using a cross-sectional survey study design, it examined teachers’ perceptions of the current teacher evaluation system adopted in the four middle schools, how
teachers would like to be evaluated, and some of the key components of a new teacher
evaluation process based on teachers’ professional development needs. The quantitative study provided evidence and data for the design and implementation
of a more effective school-based teacher evaluation system for schools under JEP, and
possibly other schools in China, for the interests of all stakeholders in the long term. All data
were collected from survey questions self-reported by classroom teachers in four middle
schools. SPSS and Microsoft Excel were used as the data analysis tools. The study addressed the following research questions:
1. What are the profiles of how teachers in the four middle schools under JEG in China
experience teacher evaluation?
2. How would the middle school teachers of JEG like to be evaluated, including
instruments, criteria and standards, and frequency?
3. What are teachers’ professional development needs to excel within a newly designed
teacher evaluation system in the four middle schools under JEG?
This chapter reports the results of this quantitative study. It begins with a discussion
about the participants of the study, including the demographic characteristics and descriptive
statistics of the participants. Then, the key findings that emerged from the data analyses are
presented aligned with each research question of the study. Lastly, this chapter ends with a
65
conclusion, summarizing the findings for the research questions and related assets, challenges
or improvements needed. Overview of Participants
The survey instrument for this study contained 68 items divided into four sections: (1)
demographic information, (2) Teacher Evaluation Profile (TEP) on their most recent teacher
evaluation experience, (3) teachers’ perceptions on how they would like to be evaluated, including instruments, criteria and standards, and frequency, and (4) teachers’ professional
development needs. A total of 191 teachers out of a possible 267 in the four middle schools responded to
the survey for a 71.5% participation rate. This participation rate is high enough to achieve
any specified confidence levels and margins of error. The participants were asked to provide demographic information in six areas: (1)
gender, (2) level of education, (3) years of teaching experience, (4) subject of teaching, (5)
role of homeroom teacher, and (6) administrative responsibility. As shown in Table 7, of the
total number of participants (N=191), 123 (64%) are female teachers and 68 (36%) are male
teachers. They varied in other demographic characteristics as shown in the Table. In this study, teachers with different teaching experience are defined as novice (1-3 years) teacher, intermediate (4-8 years) teacher, proficient (9-15 years) teacher, and experienced teacher (16+
years). In the four middle schools under JEG at the time of the study, among the 267 full-time
teachers, 165 (62%) were female teachers and 102 (38%) were male teachers. Therefore, the
gender ratio of 64% female to 36% male in this study is fairly representative of teachers in
these middle schools. Female teachers are over-represented at lower levels of education in
China and most OECD countries. In 2019, 84% of primary teachers in OECD countries were
women, on average, compared to 64% at the secondary level (OECD, 2022). According to the
66
Educational Statistics Yearbook of China (2021), 58.8% of middle school teachers in China
were female in 2020. At JEG, the minimum requirement of education level is a bachelor’s degree. Of the
191 participants in this study, 73% of the teachers had a bachelor’s degree, compared to 25%
of teachers with a master’s degree and 2% with a doctoral degree. Typically, the majority of
middle school teachers in China have a bachelor’s degree. In the four middle schools under
JEG, the percentage of teachers who have a master’s degree is higher than most middle
schools in China, particularly the public schools. Also shown in Table 7, years of experience are fairly evenly distributed, with the
largest proportion of participating teachers, 33%, having 9-15 years of experience, compared
to 29% with 16+ years, 24% of the teachers with 4-8 years and 14% with 1-3 years. Further, 39% of the participants were homeroom teachers. The role of a homeroom teacher is
extremely important in the Chinese education system. Typically, the homeroom teacher has
class management responsibilities, communicating regularly with parents, organizing student
activities and coordinating with administrators of different departments and other subject
teachers who teach the class. In many private schools, the homeroom teachers also have a
deputy to coordinate the homeroom class. In the middle schools under JEG, the size of a
homeroom class is normally between 30-40 students. Most teachers who teach Zhongkao
subjects have a good chance to be assigned the role of a homeroom teacher or deputy
homeroom teacher. In this study, 39% of the participants had a role of homeroom teacher or
deputy homeroom teacher, which fairly represents the whole population of teachers at JEG. In addition, 29% of the participants had administrative responsibilities. In private schools in
China, many teachers have administrative responsibilities including head and deputy head of
the department, year-group leader, and deputy leader. Some young teachers are sometimes
assigned administrative responsibilities in administrative departments such as the student
67
affair’s office and teacher affair’s office. In general, at schools under JEG, a full time teacher
is not assigned the position of a homeroom teacher and administrative responsibilities in the
same school year. Table 7
Frequency Distribution of Participants (N = 191)
N Percentage
Gender
Female 123 64%
Male 68 36%
Years of Teaching Experience
1-3 Years 27 14%
4-8 Years 46 24%
9-15 Years 63 33%
16+ Years 55 29%
Level of Education
Bachelor’s 139 73%
Master’s 48 25%
Doctorate 4 2%
Subjects of Teaching
Chinese 32 17%
Mathematics 29 15%
English 37 19%
Physics 11 6%
Chemistry 6 3%
Morality and Law 10 5%
History 13 7%
Geography 7 4%
Biology 9 5%
Sports 18 9%
ICT 11 6%
Arts, Music, Dance and Drama 5 3%
Other 3 2%
Role of Homeroom Teacher
Yes 74 39%
No 117 61%
Administrative Responsibilities
Yes 56 29%
No 135 71%
68
Findings
This section reports the key findings that emerged from the data analyses, aligned
with each of the Research Questions in this study. Research Question 1: What Are the Profiles of How Teachers in the Four Middle
Schools Under JEG Experience Teacher Evaluation?
This first research question sought to understand the profile of teachers' experiences
with teacher evaluation across four JEG middle schools. As part of the survey, the Teacher
Evaluation Profile (TEP) was employed to acquire perceptions of teacher evaluation based on
teachers’ most recent experience with the evaluation process in their schools. The TEP is a
tested data collection instrument and reporting system that allows users to document the
nature of teacher evaluation (Duke & Stiggins, 1986; Rindler, 1994; Stiggins & Duke, 1988). The TEP instrument included 48 items related to their teacher evaluation experiences. The
first two items assessed teachers' perceptions of the quality of their most recent evaluation
process, including planning for evaluation, observations, or other procedures and feedback, and impact of the evaluation on their professional practices, including teaching practices, attitudes about teaching, and/or understanding of the teaching profession. The next 46 items
determined the teachers’ perceptions of five attributes related to evaluation: attributes of the
teacher, attributes of the evaluator, attributes of the procedures, attributes of the feedback, and
attributes of the evaluation context. The following two key findings were highlighted from the data analysis in Research
Question 1:
● Finding 1: Overall, teachers reported the quality of teacher evaluation as poor. ● Finding 2: Among all five categories of the attributes, the evaluation context is the
category that needs to be strengthened most. Finding 1: Overall, Teachers Reported the Quality of Teacher Evaluation as Poor.
69
The first two items in the TEP were overall ratings and asked the teachers to evaluate
the quality of their evaluation experience and the impact of the teacher evaluation on their
professional practices. Table 8 provides insights into how different demographic factors, such as gender, years of teaching experience, level of education, role as a homeroom teacher, and
administrative responsibilities, related to teachers' perceptions of the quality of teacher
evaluation. The rating to the quality of the evaluation ranged from 0 to 9, with 0 indicating a
very poor quality and 9 indicating a very high quality. The mean score and standard deviation
(SD) are presented to provide a comprehensive analysis of teachers' opinions, capturing both
the overall trend and the variability in their perspectives. Table 8
Participants’Mean Overall Rating of the Quality of Teacher Evaluation (N = 191)
Mean SD
Gender
Female 4.51 2.25
Male 4.64 1.85
Years of teaching experience
1-3 Years 5.44 1.79
4-8 Years 4.17 1.74
9-15 Years 4.63 2.36
16+ Years 4.36 2.13
Level of education
Bachelor’s 4.67 2.14
Master’s 4.25 2.06
Doctorate 3.75 1.30
Role of homeroom teacher
Yes 4.46 1.95
No 4.62 2.22
Administrative responsibilities
Yes 4.63 1.87
No 4.53 2.21
70
Demographically, teachers with 1-3 years of experience had the highest mean rating
of 5.44, compared with the other groups of teachers with more years of experience, indicating
that teachers in the early stages of their careers tend to rate the quality of evaluation more
positively compared to those with more experience. Similarly, teachers with a doctorate had
the lowest mean rating of 3.75 (SD = 1.30), while teachers with a bachelor’s degree had the
highest mean rating of 4.67 (SD = 2.14). This suggests that teachers with lower levels of
education tend to rate the quality of evaluation higher on average. Overall, the majority of the responses—approximately 85%—fell between 2 and 7, indicating that most participants rated the quality of teacher evaluation somewhere in the
lower middle to middle upper ranges of the scale. There were very few participants who rated
the evaluation as extremely low (0 or 1) or extremely high (8 or 9). However, the mean rating
is 4.56, which is relatively low on the scale. This demonstrates that, on average, participants
tended to rate the quality of teacher evaluation negatively. Early-career teachers may view the evaluation process as a valuable learning
opportunity. Thus, they may indicate more positive perceptions of the quality of the feedback
and guidance provided through evaluations, seeing it as a chance to improve their teaching
skills and grow professionally. On the contrary, teachers with more experience have likely
been exposed to a variety of evaluation systems throughout their careers. They may compare
the current system to previous ones and may have higher expectations or different needs
based upon their past experiences. Further, seasoned teachers may feel a sense of mastery in
their craft and value autonomy in their teaching practices. They may, therefore, perceive
evaluations as intrusive or unnecessary, especially if they believe they already possess a high
level of competence. Likewise, teachers with lower levels of education might have less
familiarity with sophisticated evaluation criteria or standards. Consequently, they may
perceive simpler evaluation methods as more transparent and easier to comprehend, leading
71
to higher ratings. Also, they may have less exposure to critical evaluation experiences or
feedback, making them less likely to question or critique the evaluation process. Further, teachers with lower levels of education may have lower expectations regarding the evaluation
process due to their own educational backgrounds. Therefore, they might be more inclined to
rate evaluations positively, especially if they meet basic criteria they understand. It is
important to note that even teachers with less experience and lower education levels also
rated the quality of teacher evaluation in the middle ranges of the scale. It is also important to consider individual differences and professional contexts when
interpreting perceptions of evaluation quality. These findings highlight the complexity of
evaluating teaching effectiveness and the importance of ongoing support and development
tailored to teachers' diverse needs and experiences. Table 9 provides the mean overall ratings
of the perceived impact of teacher evaluation on professional practices, based on different
demographic and professional characteristics of the participants, including gender, years of
teaching experience, level of education, role of homeroom teacher and administrative
responsibilities. For each category, the table presents the mean rating and the standard
deviation (SD) of the ratings as provided by participants. The scale of the participants' overall
rating of teacher evaluation impact on professional practices ranged from 0 to 9, with 0
indicating no impact and 9 indicating a very strong impact on professional practices. Table 9
provides insights into how the demographic factors correlated with the mean ratings provided
by participants, indicating which groups tended to rate the impact higher or lower on average. Specifically, teachers with one-three years of experience rated the impact of teacher
evaluation highest, indicating that novice teachers may find evaluations more beneficial or
influential in shaping their professional practices. Interestingly, teachers with the most
experience (16+ years) also rate the impact quite high, indicating that experienced teachers
still value the evaluation process in shaping their practice. Regarding education level,
72
teachers with a bachelor’s degree gave the highest rating, on average, followed by those with
a master’s degree and then those with a doctorate. This suggests that teachers with higher
educational qualifications have different perspectives on the impact of evaluation, although
the differences are not large. Across participants, 72% of the ratings fell between 3 and 7, indicating that most
participants believed teacher evaluation had a moderate to strong impact on their professional
practices. There were few participants who rated the impact as extremely low (0-2) or
extremely high (8 or 9). The mean rating 5.02 illustrates that, on average, participants tended
to believe that teacher evaluation had some impact on their professional practices, although
moderate. Table 9
Participants’ Mean Overall Rating of the Impact of Teacher Evaluation on Professional
Practices (N = 191)
Mean SD
Gender
Female 4.93 2.12
Male 5.19 2.16
Years of Teaching Experience
1-3 Years 5.41 1.87
4-8 Years 4.80 2.06
9-15 Years 4.79 2.16
16+ Years 5.29 2.23
Level of Education
Bachelor’s 5.17 2.16
Master’s 4.79 2.04
Doctorate 4.75 1.48
Role of Homeroom Teacher
Yes 4.92 2.17
No 5.09 2.11
Administrative responsibilities
Yes 5.16 2.06
No 4.96 2.16
73
The perception of the impact of teacher evaluation on professional practices varied
based on several factors including gender, years of teaching experience, level of education, role as a homeroom teacher, and administrative responsibilities. Newer teachers and those
with extensive experience generally rated the impact of evaluation more positively, suggesting that evaluation can play a significant role in professional development regardless
of career stage. Teachers without administrative responsibilities or who are not homeroom
teachers tended to rate the impact slightly higher, indicating potential differences in how
various professional roles perceive the influence of evaluations. Overall, these data underscore the importance of considering individual differences
and contextual factors when implementing and interpreting teacher evaluation processes. Additionally, they highlight the need for tailored support and professional development
opportunities to ensure that teacher evaluations effectively contribute to improving teaching
practices and student outcomes. In summary, teachers responded that the quality of teacher evaluation in the four
middle schools under JEG was generally unsatisfying; and, the impact of the evaluation on
teachers’ professional practices was quite moderate. Finding 2: Among All Five Categories of the Attributes, the Evaluation Context is the
Category That Needs to be Strengthened Most
The following analyses examine teacher ratings of each of the five categories of
attributes of teacher evaluation which are critical to a successful evaluation: respectively, the
attributes of the teacher, the evaluator, the procedures used to gather data on teacher
performance, the feedback given to the teacher, and the evaluation context. The examination
of the overall rating of the five categories of teacher evaluation attributes provided a profile
of how teachers in the four middle schools under the JEG experienced teacher evaluation. In
the 46 items that measured the attributes, the scale ranged from 1 to 5. The analyses of the
74
mean scores illustrated the areas that teachers perceived needing to be strengthened in the
teacher evaluation process. The first attribute, Teacher attribute, examined how teachers viewed themselves
professionally and their approach towards various teaching-related aspects. Table 10 presents
the mean scores of the Teacher attributes, based on 191 respondents, from 3.1 to 4.4, with the
lowest mean score being the attribute of experience with teacher evaluation and the highest
mean score in the attribute of knowledge of curriculum content. The mean scores indicate that teachers generally had high self-perceptions in certain
areas, such as professional expectations, orientation to experimentation, knowledge of
technical aspects of teaching, and knowledge of curriculum content. These scores suggest that
teachers have strong beliefs in their professional standards, are willing to experiment with
new teaching methods, have a good grasp of teaching techniques, and are confident in their
knowledge of the curriculum content. On the other hand, some attributes received slightly lower mean scores. For instance, orientation to risk-taking scored 3.6, indicating that while teachers might be open to taking
risks, they might do so with caution. Similarly, orientation to change scored 3.9, suggesting
that teachers were somewhat receptive to change but might not be as proactive in initiating or
embracing it. Openness to criticism scored 3.7, which suggests teachers were generally open
to receiving feedback and criticism but might not always embrace it. Among the Teacher attributes category, the lowest mean score was for data related to
experience with teacher evaluation prior to most recent teacher evaluation. This suggests that
while teachers had some experience with teacher evaluation in the past, this experience might
not be very extensive or frequent. This could indicate a need for more evaluation
opportunities or a need to improve the evaluation process itself.
75
Overall, the data provide a useful starting point for further exploration of teachers' professional beliefs and practices. They can inform teacher development programs, curriculum design, and evaluation practices, among other areas, to better support teachers' professional growth and effectiveness in the classroom. Table 10
Teachers’Perceptions of the Teacher Attributes (N = 191)
Attribute Mean SD
Knowledge of curriculum content 4.4 0.87
Professional expectations 4.3 0.94
Knowledge of technical aspects of teaching 4.2 1.03
Orientation to experimentation 4.0 1.09
Orientation to change 3.9 0.86
Openness to criticism 3.7 0.97
Orientation to risk-taking 3.6 1.07
Experience with teacher evaluation prior to most recent 3.1 1.22
Table 11 reports the mean scores of the second attributes category, Evaluator
attributes, which provide teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness and impact of the
evaluation process on their professional growth and teaching practice in terms of a wide
range of interpersonal, professional, and pedagogical qualities. The mean scores ranged from
3.3 to 4.2, with the lowest mean score being the attribute of usefulness of suggestions for
improvement and the highest mean score in the attribute of interpersonal manner. Overall, the survey results indicated that teachers had positive perceptions of the
Evaluator attributes. However, there were areas where further improvement was needed, particularly in terms of usefulness of suggestions, capacity to model or demonstrate needed
improvement, and credibility as a source of feedback. This suggests the need for evaluators to
continue to develop their skills and knowledge to better support teachers in achieving
excellence in teaching. Additionally, ongoing feedback and communication between teachers
and evaluators could foster a more positive and collaborative evaluation environment.
76
Table 11
Teachers’Perceptions of the Evaluator Attributes (N = 191)
Attribute Mean SD
Interpersonal manner 4.2 0.98
Level of trust 4.1 0.83
Temperament 4.1 0.97
Working relationship 4.0 1.04
Flexibility 3.9 1.08
Knowledge of technical aspect of teaching 3.7 1.17
Familiarity with particular teaching assignment 3.7 1.14
Persuasiveness of rationale for suggestions 3.6 1.01
Credibility as a source of feedback 3.5 1.21
Capacity to model or demonstrate needed improvement 3.4 1.06
Usefulness of suggestions for improvement 3.3 1.19
Examining the third attributes category, Table 12 reports the mean scores of the
Evaluation procedures attributes from 2.4 to 4.6, with the lowest mean score being the
attribute of standards tailored for unique needs and the highest mean score in the attribute of
examination of student performance. It is important to note that among the five attribute
categories, the attributes of evaluation procedures received the second lowest mean scores. As
shown in Table 12, among all the teacher evaluation instruments, the examination of student
performance and observation of classroom performance were used most extensively, while
self-evaluations and student evaluations were the least used teacher evaluation instruments. As illustrated in Table 12, overall, the category of Evaluation Procedures attributes
had a mean score of 3.4, the second lowest category after the category of Context attributes. The mean score for the number of formal observations per year suggests that the number of
formal observations teachers received each year were somewhat limited. Formal observations
are critical for providing objective, structured feedback on teaching practices. While standards appropriate for teaching assignment had a mean score of 3.3, suggesting teachers agreed that the evaluation standards were moderately appropriate for the
teaching assignment, importantly, the attributes related to teacher evaluation standards were
77
all quite low. The attribute of standards communicated had a mean score of 2.8, which
indicates that teachers felt that the evaluation standards were not communicated in great
detail. There may have been a lack of clarity or understanding about the specific expectations
related to the evaluation process. Further, the attribute of standards clear had a mean score of
2.9, which suggests teachers found the evaluation standards to be just moderately clear. While
there was some clarity, there is still room for improvement. Table 12
Teachers’Perceptions of the Attributes of Evaluation Procedures (N = 191)
Attribute Mean SD
Examination of student performance 4.6 0.64
Observation of classroom performance 4.5 0.78
Peer evaluations 4.0 0.97
Meetings with evaluator 3.7 1.16
Frequency of informal observations per year 3.6 1.16
Examination of artifacts 3.4 1.05
Standards appropriate for teaching assignment 3.3 1.24
Student evaluations 3.1 1.13
Self-evaluations 3.0 1.07
Standards clear 2.9 0.92
Standards communicated 2.8 0.94
Number of formal observations per year 2.7 0.98
Standards tailored for unique needs 2.4 0.77
In addition, the attribute of standards tailored for unique needs had a mean score of
2.4, the lowest in all attributes. This suggests that teachers felt that the evaluation standards
were not tailored to their unique needs but the same for all teachers. This may indicate a lack
of flexibility or customization in the evaluation process. Criteria and standards for evaluation are key components in a teacher evaluation
system. An effective teacher evaluation system needs reference standards to evaluate teachers
relative to what is considered as effective teaching (Santiago & Benavides, 2009). The low
scores of the attributes related to evaluation standards suggests that this area needs to be
strengthened for the four middle schools under JEG.
78
Further, Table 13 examines the fourth Attributes category, Feedback attributes, that
provide teachers’ perceptions on feedback they received. Feedback attributes play a crucial
role in any evaluative process, including teacher evaluation. They encompass various aspects
of how feedback is delivered, received, and perceived by individuals undergoing evaluation. Effective feedback attributes can significantly impact the effectiveness of the evaluation
process and contribute to professional growth and improvement. Table 13
Teachers’Perceptions of the Feedback Attributes (N = 191)
Attribute Mean SD
Timing of feedback 4.3 0.84
Frequency of informal feedback 4.1 0.95
Nature of information 3.9 1.12
Quality of ideas and suggestions 3.8 1.07
Amount of information 3.7 1.02
Specificity of information 3.6 1.05
Feedback focused on teaching standards 3.4 1.11
Depth of information 3.3 1.14
Frequency of formal feedback 3.2 1.03
Table 13 reports the mean scores of the feedback attributes from 3.2 to 4.3, with the
lowest mean score being the attribute of frequency of formal feedback per year and the
highest mean score in the attribute of timing of feedback. Further, depth of feedback and
feedback focused on teaching standards were also rated relatively low, suggesting a lack of
feedback provided that teachers could use to improve their practice. By contrast, timing of
feedback had a high mean score of 4.3, which indicated that teachers strongly agreed that the
timing of feedback provided was appropriate. The overall feedback attributes were rated as
somewhat satisfactory. While there are areas for improvement, this score suggests that the
feedback is generally effective, although more effective in some areas than others. Teachers
79
suggested that the depth and specificity of feedback are areas of needed focus to further
improve teachers' satisfaction and professional growth. Finally, the data of the Evaluation Context attributes provided teachers’ perceptions
on evaluation and professional development in an educational setting. Table 14 displays the
mean scores of the Context attributes from 2.6 to 3.2, with the lowest mean score being the
attribute of Intended Role of Evaluation and the highest mean score in the attribute of
Availability of Training Programs and Models of Good Practice. Table 14
Teachers’Perceptions of the Evaluation Context Attributes (N = 191)
Attribute Mean SD
Availability of training programs and models of good practice 3.2 1.08
Clarity of policy statements regarding purpose of evaluation 3.1 1.13
Time allotted during the semester for professional development 2.9 0.92
Amount of time spent on evaluation process 2.7 0.97
Intended role of evaluation 2.6 0.74
Overall, the five categories of the attributes had mean scores of 3.9 (the Teacher), 3.8
(the Evaluator), 3.4 (the Evaluation Procedures), 3.7 (the Feedback), and 2.9 (the Context)
respectively. The attributes of the evaluation context had the lowest mean scores (2.9), which
suggests that this category most needs to be strengthened for the four middle schools under
JEG. Looking closely at each attribute of the Context category, as illustrated in Table 14, three attributes had mean scores below 3.0, which were the attributes of amount of time spent
on evaluation process (2.7), time allotted during the semester for professional development
(2.9), and intended role of evaluation (2.6), respectively. The relatively low scores of these
three attributes indicates that the amount of time spent on the teacher evaluation process was
low; time allotted for professional development was not sufficient; and the intended role of
evaluation put more emphasis on teacher accountability rather than teacher growth, which
80
also suggests that teachers might have different expectations or understandings about the role
of evaluation in their work and development. Although the attributes of availability of training programs and models of good
practice and clarity of policy statements regarding purpose of evaluation both had mean
scores above 3.0, the scores were relatively low compared to scores on other attribute
categories, indicating a general lack of training programs or models of good practice and
unclear policy statements regarding the purpose of evaluation in the four JEG middle schools. In summary, the data suggests that teachers perceive the attributes of the evaluation
and professional development context moderately low and areas that could benefit from
improvement. Specifically, the amount of time spent on the evaluation process, the intended
role of evaluation, and the overall context attributes could all be enhanced to better meet
teachers' needs and expectations. Additionally, ensuring clarity in policy statements and
providing access to training programs and models of good practice are important areas to
maintain and possibly expand upon. Summary of Findings for Research Question 1
The findings to Research Question 1 indicate that on the whole, teachers perceived the
quality of teacher evaluation in the JEG middle schools as lacking or inadequate. They
suggest potential areas of improvement in the evaluation process to enhance its effectiveness
and impact on teacher professional development. Moreover, among the attributes assessed
(such as interpersonal manner, level of trust, temperament, working relationship, and
flexibility), the evaluation context emerged as the category with the lowest mean scores, suggesting the need for immediate attention and enhancement. Strengthening the evaluation
context could involve improving the setting, procedures, communication, and support
surrounding the evaluation process to create a more conducive and effective environment for
teachers.
81
Research Question 2: How Would the Middle School Teachers of JEG Like to be
Evaluated, Including Instruments, Criteria and Standards, and Frequency?
The third part of the survey (items 55 to 66) examined teachers’ perceptions on how
they would like to be evaluated, including instruments, criteria and standards, and frequency. The items 55 to 59 assessed teachers’ perceptions on what criteria and standards they would
like to be evaluated in five aspects: teacher planning and preparation, classroom management, instruction, professional responsibilities, and student growth. The items 60 to 61 assessed
teachers’ perceptions regarding the preferred frequency of formal and informal evaluations. Survey Item 62 assessed teachers’ perceptions of nine commonly used teacher evaluation
instruments. The survey items 64 to 66 assessed teachers’ perceptions on factors of teachers’
involvement, differentiated evaluation models, and evaluator training for the teacher
evaluation construction process. The following key findings were highlighted from the data
analysis in Research Question 2:
● Finding 1: Teachers would like to be evaluated by multiple measures. ● Finding 2: Teachers value particular teacher evaluation instruments and forms of
informal evaluation. ○ Sub-Finding 1: Teachers with various teaching experience would like to be
evaluated differently regarding frequency of informal evaluations and
instrument of self-evaluation. ○ Sub-Finding 2: Homeroom teachers value communicating with families, managing student behavior, and parent rating differently from non-homeroom
teachers. ○ Sub-Finding 3: There are no differences in how teachers would like to be
evaluated between teachers with administrative responsibilities and teachers
without.
82
● Finding 3: Teacher involvement, differentiated models, and evaluator training are key
factors of teacher evaluation. Finding 1: Teachers Would Like to be Evaluated by Multiple Measures. Most middle school teachers of JEG would like to be evaluated by multiple measures, including different instruments and a variety of criteria and standards in different aspects. Multiple measures in teacher evaluation can adequately capture the complexity of teaching
and ensure an unbiased and reliable basis (Borg, 2018; OECD, 2013a; Santiago & Benavides, 2009). Also, multiple measures ensure that teachers have various occasions to demonstrate
what they know and can do (Borg, 2018; Goe et al., 2011; National Education Association, 2010). Survey Items 55 to 59 assessed teachers’ perceptions on what criteria and standards
they would like to be evaluated. Table 15 shows the teachers’ perceptions of the criteria and
standards by which they would like to be evaluated related to Teacher Planning and
Preparation. Out of six criteria and standards, demonstrating knowledge of content and
pedagogy, designing coherent instruction, and demonstrating knowledge of students were
most selected by teachers as strongly agree or somewhat agree, indicating that teachers would
like to be evaluated on these areas related to teacher planning and preparation. Demonstrating
knowledge of content and pedagogy received the highest agreement as an area they would
like to be evaluated by, at 98%, followed closely by designing coherent instruction at 95%. Designing student assessments received the lowest agreement at 74%. Overall, teachers
generally agreed most strongly on the importance of content and pedagogy knowledge and
designing coherent instruction for areas of evaluation, with the majority of teachers agreeing
that these are all areas of criteria by which they would like to be evaluated.
83
Table 15
Teachers’Perceptions of the Criteria and Standards in Teacher Planning and Preparation (N = 191)
Planning and Preparation
Category
Frequency of
Strongly Agree
Frequency of
Somewhat Agree
Total
Percentage
Demonstrating knowledge of
content and pedagogy 96 91 98%
Designing coherent instruction 93 89 95%
Demonstrating knowledge of
students 94 78
90%
Setting instructional outcomes 74 79 80%
Demonstrating knowledge of
resources 63 81
75%
Designing student assessments 67 74 74%
Survey question, Item 56, asked what criteria and standards in the category of teacher
classroom environment teachers would like to be used in the evaluation process. As illustrated in Table 16, in this category, 96% of the teachers strongly agreed or
somewhat agreed with managing classroom procedures as an important criterion and standard
to be evaluated related to the teacher classroom environment. Establishing a culture for
learning received the lowest agreement with only 48% of the teachers choosing strongly
agree or somewhat agree in this criterion and standard. Teachers may interpret what
constitutes a “culture for learning” differently. Some may prioritize discipline and order, while others focus on fostering creativity and critical thinking. This discrepancy could lead to
varied perceptions and lower agreement rates. Also, each classroom has its unique dynamics
influenced by factors like student demographics, behavior, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Teachers may find it challenging to establish a consistent learning culture, or how one should
be evaluated, across diverse classrooms, leading to lower agreement rates.
84
Table 16
Teachers’Perceptions of the Criteria and Standards in Teacher Classroom Environment (N =
191)
Teacher Classroom Environment
Category
Frequency of
Strongly Agree
Frequency of
Somewhat Agree
Total
Percentage
Managing classroom procedures 89 95 96%
Managing student behavior 66 89 81%
Creating an environment of
respect and rapport 69 76 76%
Organizing physical space 55 69 65%
Establishing a culture for
learning 44 47 48%
The category of Instruction provides different aspects of instruction that could be
evaluated and teachers’ perceptions of which areas they view as more or less meaningful to
include in an evaluation system. As illustrated in Table 17, in the category of Instruction, Using Assessment in Instruction received the highest agreement as an area for teacher
evaluation at 84%. Using questioning and discussion techniques received the lowest
agreement at 55%, indicating that they do not wish to be evaluated by this criterion. The
reasons could be multifaceted. Teachers may have different opinions on the effectiveness of
questioning and discussion techniques in promoting student learning, as well as unique
teaching styles and preferences. Moreover, the effectiveness of questioning and discussion
techniques may depend on the specific context of the classroom, including the age and ability
level of the students, the subject matter being taught, and the cultural and social norms of the
school community. Teachers may not have received adequate training or support in using
questioning and discussion techniques effectively. It is worth noting that even though there
may be lower agreement on this specific criterion, it does not necessarily mean that
questioning and discussion techniques are not valuable or effective or used in teaching. Instead, it may reflect different perspectives, experiences, and challenges that teachers face in
their classrooms and what they prioritize for evaluation.
85
Table 17
Teachers’Perceptions of the Criteria and Standards in Instruction (N = 191)
Instruction Category Frequency of
Strongly Agree
Frequency of
Somewhat Agree
Total
Percentage
Using assessment in instruction 88 73 84%
Engaging students in learning 60 87 77%
Communicating with students 53 71 65%
Demonstrating flexibility and
responsiveness 53 64 61%
Using questioning and discussion
techniques 47 59 55%
The category of Professional Responsibilities provides insights into the practices of
teachers that extend beyond their classrooms and the learning experience they facilitate. Table
18 demonstrates that in the category of professional responsibilities, all teachers agreed that
professionalism is an important area to include in a teacher evaluation system, indicating
unanimous recognition of its importance. They understand that their professionalism sets an
example for how students should behave in academic and professional settings. Teachers
understand that maintaining a professional demeanor fosters positive relationships and
enhances collaboration with stakeholders. This trust and respect are essential for creating a
supportive and conducive learning environment (Danielson, 2007). Among the areas for
evaluation within Professional Responsibilities, communicating with families received the
lowest agreement at 54%. Teachers often have demanding schedules, leaving limited time for
communication with families. Meanwhile, they may lack training on how to initiate and
maintain productive communication channels, address diverse family needs, or handle
difficult conversations. Engaging with families can be challenging, particularly if there are
language barriers, cultural differences, or socioeconomic disparities. As a result, they may
show less preference to include this as part of the criteria and standards.
86
Table 18
Teachers’Perceptions of the Criteria and Standards in Professional Responsibilities (N = 191)
Professional Responsibilities
Category
Frequency of
Strongly Agree
Frequency of
Somewhat Agree
Total
Percentage
Showing professionalism 113 78 100%
Reflecting on teaching 58 94 80%
Maintaining accurate records 63 82 76%
Growing and developing 49 87 71%
Participating in a professional
community 41 73 60%
Communicating with families 47 56 54%
The last category for evaluation, Standards in Student Growth, as illustrated in Table
19, provided some interesting insights to how teachers at JEG would like to be evaluated. Standardized test results, such as Zhongkao examinations, received the highest agreement at
95%. Table 19
Teachers’Perceptions of the Criteria and Standards in Student Growth (N = 191)
Student Growth Category Frequency of
Strongly Agree
Frequency of
Somewhat Agree
Total
Percentage
Standardized test results such as
Zhongkao (High School
Entrance) examinations 105 76 95%
Midterm and/or final examinations 63 94 82%
Formative assessment 57 86 75%
Teachers may perceive high scores on these tests as evidence of their effectiveness in
teaching and preparing students for academic success. Parents, students, and the community
generally place a high value on standardized test scores as indicators of school quality and
teacher performance. Teachers may believe that strong performance on standardized tests
enhances their reputation and credibility among stakeholders. While teachers placed high
importance on standardized test results, there was less agreement on the significance of
formative assessment. Formative assessment received the lowest agreement as an area for
87
their evaluation, at 75%. Teachers may have a limited understanding of formative assessment
practices or their importance in the teaching and learning process, so they may not prioritize
them in their evaluation criteria. In addition, implementing formative assessment requires
dedicated time and effort for planning, implementing, and analyzing assessment data. Teachers may feel overwhelmed by their workload and prioritize other responsibilities over
formative assessment practices. Overall, teachers generally agreed on the importance of the teacher evaluation criteria
and standards in various aspects of planning and preparation, classroom management, instruction, professional responsibilities, and student growth. Teachers would like to be
evaluated by multiple measures, including a variety of criteria and standards in different
aspects of their roles. However, there are differences in agreement levels across different categories, highlighting areas of highest value and focus for teachers. Professionalism and managing
classroom procedures received high levels of agreement across all categories. Areas such as
designing student assessments, establishing a culture for learning, using questioning and
discussion techniques, and communicating with families may require more attention to
understand their relatively low importance in terms of evaluative value to teachers, possibly
suggesting areas for additional professional development initiatives. Finding 2: Teachers Value Particular Teacher Evaluation Instruments and Forms of
Informal Evaluation
Survey Item 62 assessed teachers’ perceptions of various teacher evaluation
instruments. As illustrated in Table 20, out of nine commonly used teacher evaluation
instruments, middle school teachers of JEG would like to be evaluated by classroom
observations, student performance, and evaluations by peers within the same teaching content
area as the major evaluation instruments. At the time of the study, classroom observations and
88
student performance were the most common measures in the schools of JEG. The high
percentage of teachers indicating they would like evaluations by peers within the same
teaching content area indicated that teachers prefer to be evaluated by people who are
relatable and have knowledge and understanding of the subject and teaching area. Table 20
Teachers’Perceptions of the Teacher Evaluation Instruments Considered (N = 191)
Instrument Frequency of
Strongly Agree
Frequency of
Somewhat Agree
Total
Percentage
Classroom observations 108 79 98%
Student performance 105 71 92%
Evaluations by peers within the
same teaching content area 84 87 90%
Classroom artifacts and portfolios 72 66 72%
Self-evaluation 71 53 65%
Parents ratings 45 54 52%
Principal evaluations 41 56 51%
Students ratings 26 35 32%
Teacher testing 10 24 18%
The least popular ways that JEG middle school teachers would like to be evaluated
were teacher testing, student ratings, and parent ratings. This may be explained by the lack of
trust in the evaluator and evaluator reliability. Teachers may question the validity and
reliability of evaluations based on teacher testing, student ratings, and parent ratings. They
may perceive these instruments as subjective or prone to bias, resulting in inconsistent or
inaccurate assessments of their teaching effectiveness. Some teachers may also feel
uncomfortable with being evaluated by instruments that they perceive as undermining their
professional expertise. They may fear that low scores or negative feedback could unfairly
reflect on their teaching abilities. The use of teacher testing, or written examinations is
relatively rare for teacher evaluation in China. It is interesting to note that in the four JEG
middle schools, principal evaluations are a common teacher evaluation instrument for
89
teachers. However, the survey data suggests that principal evaluations are not a popular
measurement among teachers. One of the reasons may be that some principals or vice
principals have not taught any classes for a long time, and they are not in the same teaching
content area with the teachers being evaluated. Other survey items, 60 to 61 specifically, assessed teachers’ perceptions regarding the
preferred frequency of formal and informal evaluations. A formal teacher evaluation is
conducted to gather information for a specific decision-making process and is considered
high stakes. In contrast, an informal teacher evaluation is conducted to collect information for
offering feedback or professional development opportunities to improve teaching practices
and is considered low stakes. Usually, formal evaluations are summative and carry serious
consequences, while informal evaluations are formative and do not carry serious
consequences (Goe et al., 2008). The majority of teachers (53%) hoped to receive two formal evaluations per year, while a significant minority (23%) hoped to receive only one. A small percentage (8%)
preferred four or more formal evaluations. Only a very small percentage (1%) reported they
did not wish to receive any formal evaluations. About half of teachers (46%) agreed they would like to receive monthly informal
evaluations. A significant number preferred less than once per month (29%) and weekly
informal evaluation (20%), while a minority (3%) suggested they would like daily informal
evaluations. Only a very small percentage (2%) currently reported they did not wish to
receive any informal evaluations. In summary, the data highlighted the frequency of formal and informal evaluations
teachers undergo as well as the frequency they would prefer. In general, informal evaluations
were more frequent than formal ones, and the majority of teachers hoped to receive them at
least once per month. It may be that informal teacher evaluations are more valued because
90
they provide frequent, personalized, and adaptive feedback that encourages teacher autonomy
and stronger professional relationships. These evaluations are less stressful and more tailored
to the unique context of each teacher’s practice, making them an effective tool for
professional development and improvement. In addition to the descriptive analysis of teachers’ perceptions on how they would like
to be evaluated, including instruments, criteria and standards, and frequency, inferential tests
were also conducted to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in
how teachers would like to be evaluated based on years of teaching experience, between
homeroom teachers and non-homeroom teachers, and between teachers with administrative
responsibilities and without. Sub-finding 1: Teachers with Various Teaching Experience Would Like to be
Evaluated Differently Regarding Frequency of Informal Evaluations and Instrument of
Self-Evaluation. One-way ANOVA tests were conducted to examine differences in how
teachers with various years of teaching experience would like to be evaluated in each item of
teacher evaluation instruments, criteria and standards, and frequencies. The following results
were discovered. Regarding the evaluation criteria and standards, there was no significant
difference among teachers with different levels of experience. However, under the evaluation
instruments category, there was a significant main effect in how teachers with different levels
of teaching experience perceived self-evaluation (F(3,187) = 5.028, p = 0.002), indicating
that teachers' attitudes towards self-evaluation may be influenced by their tenure in the
profession, with potentially varying levels of comfort or confidence in self-assessment. Post
hoc analysis showed a significant difference between teachers with 1-3 years of experience
and teachers with 16+ years of experience, with teachers with 1-3 years of experience
reporting lower means for self-evaluation than teachers with 16+ years of experience (p = .022 ). There was also a significant difference between teachers with 4-8 years of
91
experience and teachers with 16+ years of experience, with teachers with 4-8 of experience
reporting lower means for self-evaluation than teachers with 16+ years of experience (p = .040). Table 21 displays the means for the instrument of self-evaluation by years of
teaching experience. Teachers with longer years of experience may have a deeper understanding of their
teaching pedagogy, student learning needs, and curriculum objectives, as well as a clear sense
of their strengths and areas for improvement. Self-evaluation allows them to assess their
performance in a way that is tailored to their unique teaching style and the specific context of
their classroom. Additionally, self-evaluation empowers teachers to take ownership of their
professional growth, rather than relying solely on external evaluations that may not fully
capture the nuances of their teaching. Finally, self-evaluation can be a more efficient and
timely process, which can be especially beneficial for teachers who already have a busy
workload. Table 21
Means and Standard Deviations for Self-Evaluation by Years of Experience
Years of Experience M SD N
1-3 years 2.44 0.75 27
4-8 years 2.59 0.98 46
9-15 years 2.97 0.81 63
16+ years 3.11 0.93 55
Likewise, a significant main effect (F(3,187) = 4.391, p = .005) was found in how
teachers with varying years of teaching experience preferred the frequency of informal
evaluations. Teachers' preferences for the frequency of informal evaluations varied depending
on their level of experience in the teaching profession. There was a significant difference
between teachers with 1-3 years of experience and teachers with 16+ years of experience, and
between teachers with 1-3 years of experience and teachers with 9-15 years of experience.
92
Teachers with 1-3 years of experience reported significantly higher means than teachers with
16+ years of experience (p = .025) as did teachers with 4-8 years of experience (p = .038). This suggests that teachers with more or less teaching experience have different needs, with
those with less teaching experience placing higher value on more frequent informal
evaluations. Table 22 displays the means for the frequency of informal evaluations by years
of teaching experience. Teachers with more teaching experience may feel more confident in
their teaching abilities and have a deeper understanding of their strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, they may have developed a stronger sense of self-awareness and are able to self- evaluate their performance more effectively. Fewer evaluations can reduce the administrative
burden on teachers, allowing them to spend more time on teaching and less on preparation for
evaluations. Table 22
Means and Standard Deviations for the Frequency of Informal Evaluations by Years of
Experience
Years of Experience M SD N
1-3 years 3.22 0.93 27
4-8 years 3.11 0.94 46
9-15 years 2.97 0.76 63
16+ years 2.64 0.73 55
Sub-finding 2: Homeroom Teachers Value Communicating With Families, Managing Student Behavior and Parent Rating Differently From Non-Homeroom
Teachers. One-way ANOVA tests were conducted to examine differences in how teachers
would like to be evaluated in each item of teacher evaluation instruments, criteria and
standards, and frequencies based on the role of homeroom teacher. Homeroom teachers
exhibited a significant difference in their preference for being evaluated on communication
with families compared to non-homeroom teachers (F(1,189) = 5.472, p = .020). Homeroom
teachers reported higher means than non-homeroom teachers. This may result from the fact
93
that homeroom teachers tend to place a higher emphasis on building and maintaining strong
relationships with families as part of their teaching responsibilities. Table 23 shows the means
for communication with families by the role of homeroom teacher. Table 23
Means and Standard Deviations for Communication with Families by the Role of Homeroom
Teacher
Role M SD N
Homeroom Teacher 2.85 0.87 74
Non-Homeroom Teacher 2.50 1.07 117
Similarly, homeroom teachers showed a significant difference in their preference for
being evaluated on student behavior management compared to their non-homeroom
counterparts (F(1,189) = 4.160, p = .043). This may be due to the fact that homeroom
teachers are more likely to prioritize setting up a positive and supportive classroom
environment by effectively managing student behavior. Table 24 shows the means for student
behavior management by the role of homeroom teacher. Table 24
Means and Standard Deviations for Student Behavior Management by the Role of Homeroom
Teacher
Role M SD n
Homeroom Teacher 3.24 0.77 74
Non-Homeroom Teacher 2.98 0.91 117
Moreover, there was a significant difference in how homeroom and non-homeroom
teachers perceived parent ratings as part of the evaluation process (F(1,189) = 5.210, p = .024). Specifically, homeroom teachers perceived parent feedback value more than non- homeroom teachers. Homeroom teachers typically have more frequent and direct interaction
with students' parents compared to non-homeroom teachers. They often serve as the primary
94
point of contact for parents regarding students' academic progress, behavior, and other
concerns. As a result, homeroom teachers may perceive parent ratings as more reflective of
their overall relationship with students and families. Table 25 shows the means for usefulness
of parent rating by the role of homeroom teacher. Table 25
Means and Standard Deviations for Parent Rating by the Role of Homeroom Teacher
Role M SD N
Homeroom Teacher 2.79 0.89 74
Non-Homeroom Teacher 2.45 1.09 117
Sub-finding 3: There are no Differences in How Teachers Would Like to be
Evaluated Between Teachers With Administrative Responsibilities and Teachers
Without. To examine differences in how teachers would like to be evaluated in each item of
teacher evaluation instruments, criteria and standards, and frequencies based on the
administrative responsibilities, one-way ANOVA tests were performed based on teachers’ status of administrative responsibilities. Overall, there were no significant differences in any
of the evaluation criteria and standards, instruments, and frequency between teachers with
administrative responsibilities and those without. Finding 3: Teacher Involvement, Dif erentiated Models and Evaluator Training are Key
Factors of Teacher Evaluation
Teachers expressed ways in which they would like to be involved in the construction
of an evaluation process. Involving teachers in the construction of evaluation processes
empowers them to take ownership of their professional growth and development (OECD, 2013a). Further, by incorporating differentiated models into evaluation processes, educators
can tailor support and resources to meet teachers' diverse needs and preferences (Campbell et
al., 2004; Derrington & Brandon, 2019). Evaluator training is also essential for ensuring that
those responsible for conducting evaluations possess the knowledge, skills, and expertise
95
needed to provide meaningful feedback and support to teachers (Danielson & McGreal, 2000;
Santiago & Benavides, 2009). The survey items 64 to 66 assessed teachers’ perceptions on
factors of teachers’ involvement, differentiated evaluation models, and evaluator training for
the teacher evaluation construction process. These perceptions are measured by the frequency
of agreements. As illustrated in Table 26, it is noteworthy that all the percentages of strongly
agree and somewhat agree are high, suggesting the importance of all three aspects of
constructing a teacher evaluation process. Specifically, 91% of teachers agreed that they
should be involved in the process of constructing the evaluation system. This is a significant
figure, indicating that teachers value their input and expertise in shaping the evaluation
process. Further, 85% of teachers agreed with the use of differentiated evaluation models or
criteria depending on different contexts, suggesting recognition among teachers of the need
for flexibility and adaptability in evaluation practices. By considering varying teaching
contexts, student needs, and subject matter expertise, differentiated evaluation models can
provide a more accurate and fair assessment of teachers' performance (Campbell et al., 2004;
Derrington & Brandon, 2019). Importantly, almost all teachers, 96%, agreed that evaluators
should undergo extensive training before evaluating teachers. The data highlight the
importance of pre-evaluation training for evaluators. Proper training can ensure that
evaluators have the necessary knowledge, skills, and understanding to conduct evaluations
competently, fairly, and objectively. It also builds trust and confidence among teachers that
the evaluation process will be conducted in a professional and reliable manner (Borg, 2018;
Danielson & McGreal, 2000; Santiago & Benavides, 2009). Overall, the data indicate strong recognition among teachers that an evaluation system
needs to include their involvement in the construction of the system, use differentiated
evaluation models, and incorporate extensive evaluator training. Table 26
96
Teachers’Perceptions of the Teachers Involvement, Dif erentiated Models and Evaluator
Credential in the Process of Constructing the Evaluation System (N = 191)
Aspect Frequency of
Strongly Agree
Frequency of
Somewhat Agree
Total
Percentage
Teachers’ involvement in the
process of constructing the
evaluation system 101 72 91%
Differentiated evaluation models
or criteria under different
contexts 87 75 85%
Extensive evaluator training before
evaluating teachers 94 90 96%
Summary of Findings for Research Question 2
The findings indicate that teachers prefer to be evaluated using multiple measures, emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive assessment approach. They value specific
evaluation instruments and informal evaluation methods, recognizing their effectiveness in
providing meaningful feedback. There were significant differences in how teachers would
like to be evaluated based on the level of teaching experience and their roles. Teachers with
varying levels of teaching experience prefer to be evaluated differently in terms of the
frequency of informal evaluations and the instruments used for self-evaluation. Further, homeroom teachers assign greater importance to communicating with families, managing
student behavior, and receiving parent ratings compared to non-homeroom teachers. Additionally, teachers advocate for their involvement in the evaluation process, along
with the implementation of differentiated models and comprehensive evaluator training to
ensure fair and effective evaluations. Overall, these findings underscore the significance of
collaborative, inclusive, and well-rounded teacher evaluation practices to support
professional growth and development.
97
Research Question 3: What are Teachers’ Professional Development Needs to Excel
Within a Newly Designed Teacher Evaluation System in the Four Middle Schools under
JEG?
Professional development is one fundamental purpose of teacher evaluation, which
aims to improve teaching practice and student learning. By identifying individual teachers’ strengths and weaknesses, teachers and school leaders can make more informed choices
about the specific professional development activities that best meet teachers’ needs in the
context of the school’s priorities (OECD, 2009). At the same time, current evaluation systems
have largely failed to identify teachers’ professional growth needs and failed to provide the
support and professional learning opportunities required to meet those needs (National
Education Association, 2010). In the middle schools under JEG, very limited professional
development programs align with teacher evaluation and feedback, and teachers’ real needs
are not designed and provided through professional development. Research Question 3
intended to provide empirical data to examine what middle school teachers’ professional
development needs are to excel within a newly designed evaluation system. There are
opportunities for the schools to design professional development activities with teachers
based on their desired needs to better their teaching pedagogy and professional content
knowledge. Data analysis led to two findings for Research Question 3:
● Finding 1: The most desired areas for professional development are: approaches to
individualized learning, student behavior and classroom management, and teaching
cross-curricular skills. ● Finding 2: JEG middle school teachers prefer to participate in types of professional
development activities that include courses/seminars attended in person, online
courses/seminars, observation visits to other schools, and education conferences.
98
Finding 1: The Most Desired Areas for Professional Development are: Approaches to
Individualized Learning, Student Behavior and Classroom Management, and Teaching
Cross-Curricular Skills. The survey, in Item 67, assessed teachers' perceptions of their levels of need in 14
common professional development areas or activities, including a variety of pedagogical
competencies or approaches, professional knowledge, and practical skills. The survey data
demonstrated awareness among teachers regarding identifying areas in which they perceived
needs to update their teaching competencies, based on challenges in their daily work. Figure 6 demonstrates the ranking of teachers’ professional needs that includes high
level and moderate level needs. The highest ranked areas of professional development for
which middle school teachers of JEG perceived a need were approaches to individualized
learning (78%), followed by student behavior and classroom management (70%), and
teaching cross-curricular skills (66%). Private schools in China have very high expectations
from the parents, and individualized learning has become a critical pedagogical competence
for teachers in the JEG schools. Teachers’ classroom management skills are likewise expected
by parents and school leaders in private schools. During the constant school closures due to
the COVID-19 pandemic, students experienced online teaching, and student behavior and
classroom management became big issues for most schools. Understandably, teachers desire
to participate in professional development activities to improve their student behavior and
classroom management skills.
99
Figure 6
Ranking of Teachers’Professional Development Needs at High and Moderate Levels (N =
191)
Teaching cross-curricular skills has also become more desired due to the national
curriculum reform which calls for the integration of knowledge and skills from different
subjects, and the cultivation of students’ cross-disciplinary learning competencies to be
applied to real-world situations. Teachers are aware of the importance of this as it not only
benefits students via comprehensive and student-centered learning but also prepares them for
future education. The lowest areas of professional development needed were expressed for teaching in a
multicultural or multilingual setting (23%), communicating with people from different
cultures or countries (30%), and ICT skills for teaching (34%). All four middle schools under
JEG are typical private schools that follow the Chinese National Curriculum. Therefore, there
100
was no significant need for most teachers to participate in teaching in a multicultural or
multilingual setting and communicating with people from different cultures or countries. Surprisingly, only 34% of participants selected a high-level need or moderate need for ICT
skills for teaching. This might be explained by the fact that some teachers were used to
teaching more traditionally, such as writing on the blackboard or simple technological tools, rather than using up-to-date Internet technologies and did not perceive a need for professional
learning here. Finding 2: JEG Middle School Teachers Prefer to Participate in Types of Professional
Development Activities That Include Courses/Seminars Attended in Person, Online
Courses/Seminars, Observation Visits to Other Schools, and Education Conferences. The survey, Item 68, also asked participants to select types of professional
development activities they preferred to participate in at their schools. Table 27 indicates the
percentage of teachers’ preferred professional development types in the four JEG middle
schools. As the participants were asked to select all that apply, the percentages reflect the
portion of total participants (N = 191) who selected each item. There were four professional development types that over 50% of participants
selected as preferred. The highest three types of professional development were
courses/seminars attended in person, observation visits to other schools, and online
courses/seminars. Traditionally, attending courses or seminars in person, observation visits to
other schools, and education conferences where teachers or researchers present their research
or discuss educational issues are the most common professional development activities
arranged by schools or professional development providers in China. The survey data
indicate that the JEG middle school teachers still prefer to participate in these three types of
activities, given the Education Conferences where teachers and/or researchers present their
research or discuss educational issues was the fourth-highest (64%) professional development
101
activities. It is worth noticing that in schools of JEG and China in general, online courses or
seminars have typically not been popular choices for professional development activities. The
fact that 68% of the participants selected online courses or seminars may be attributed to the
constant school closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Most schools in China could only
provide online professional development activities, and JEG schools were no exception, which likely significantly changed teachers' preferences and habits towards online
professional development activities. Reading professional literature (7%) and formal qualification programs (12%) were
the lowest preferred activities for professional development among the JEG middle school
teachers. Reading professional literature is generally not a popular professional development
activity in China, as teachers are often required to read books that they are not interested in or
do not need practically. Participation in formal qualification programs such as a master’s
degree programs are restricted not only by schedule conflicts between work and study but
also other needs to take into account, such as the teacher’s personal life and cost into
consideration. Preference for participation was also low for more collaborative forms of professional
development, with only 43% of teachers selecting peer and/or self-observation and coaching, and 31% selecting participation in a network of teachers formed specifically for the
professional development of teachers. These two activities are part of the common practices
of professional learning communities (PLCs), of which schools under JEG often do not have, because of teachers’ lack of awareness of the importance of communication and collaboration, or loose management by the school, or simply busy daily routine. Overall, while teachers may prioritize professional development activities that they
are familiar with and already engage in, these might not be the best formats for professional
development. In addition, it is essential for schools under JEG to address barriers to
102
participation in collaborative practices and provide the necessary support, training, and
resources to foster a culture of continuous learning and collaboration among educators. By
addressing these challenges, schools can enhance the effectiveness of professional
development efforts and support teachers' ongoing growth and improvement. Given the
strong literature showing the benefits of PLCs, why teachers indicated low preference for
PLC-type professional development needs further understanding and study. Table 27
Teachers’Preferred Professional Development Activities (N = 191)
Activity N Percentage
Courses/seminars attended in person 176 92%
Observation visits to other schools 139 73%
Online courses/seminars 101 68%
Education conferences where teachers and/or researchers
present their research or discuss educational issues 122 64%
Peer and/or self-observation and coaching as part of a
formal school arrangement 82 43%
Note. Participants were asked to select all that apply, so percentages reflect the portion of N =
191 who selected each item. Summary of Findings for Research Question 3
Overall, findings to Research Question 3 underscore the importance of tailored
professional development opportunities that address teachers' specific needs and interests, while also providing diverse formats for learning and collaboration. By aligning professional
development offerings with teachers' preferences and priorities, schools can better support
their ongoing growth and effectiveness in the classroom. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that
although teachers preferred to participate in types of professional development activities that
they were familiar with, other types of activities, such as those that are more collaborative
and related with PLC, may offer benefits as well.
103
Conclusion
This chapter highlighted the analysis of data gathered with respect to each research
question of this study and key findings. First, the demographic characteristics and descriptive
statistics of the participants were presented. Then, the key findings emerging from the data
analyses were discussed aligned with each research question of the study. These key findings
are included in Table 28. Table 28
Summary Table of the Key Findings Aligned with the Research Questions
Research Question Findings
RQ One Finding 1: Overall, teachers reported the quality of teacher
evaluation as poor. Finding 2: Among all five categories of the attributes, the
evaluation context is the category that needs to be strengthened
most. RQ Two Finding 1: Teachers would like to be evaluated by multiple
measures. Finding 2: Teachers value particular teacher evaluation
instruments and form of informal evaluation. Sub-finding 1: Teachers with various teaching experience
would like to be evaluated differently regarding frequency
of informal evaluations and instrument of self-evaluation. Sub-finding 2: Homeroom teachers value communicating
with families, managing student behavior and parent rating
differently from non-homeroom teachers. Sub-finding 3: There are no differences in how teachers
would like to be evaluated, between teachers with
administrative responsibilities and teachers without. Finding 3: Teacher involvement, differentiated models and
evaluator training are key factors. RQ Three Finding 1: The most desired areas for professional development
are approaches to individualized learning, student behavior and
classroom management, and teaching cross-curricular skills. Finding 2: JEG middle school teachers prefer to participate in
types of professional development activities such as
courses/seminars attended in person, online courses/seminars, observation visits to other schools, and education conferences. In summary, participants suggested that JEG needs to upgrade its teacher evaluation
methods to meet teachers’ expectations and enhance effectiveness by adopting multiple
104
measures, involving teachers in the policy-making process, and providing training for
evaluators to make sure they are qualified. Furthermore, teachers were eager to develop their
skills through professional development in areas such as individualized learning, student
behavior management, and cross-curricular teaching, and they preferred a diverse range of
professional development activities to achieve this, involving courses/seminars attended in
person, online courses/seminars, observation visits to other schools, and education
conferences. The findings highlight several key areas for discussion and recommendations for
practice, as presented in the next chapter, pointing to the need for a comprehensive evaluation
reform, tailored evaluation strategies, and enhanced professional development opportunities
to support teachers' growth and effectiveness.
105
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations for Practice
The purpose of this study was to understand how teachers in China would like to be
evaluated in order to develop a more effective teacher evaluation system that supports
teachers’ development and growth and students’ learning. Specifically, the study examined
teachers’ perceptions of the current teacher evaluation system adopted in four middle schools
under the JE Group (JEG) in the city of Dalian, and how they would like to be evaluated and
supported in their professional growth. The quantitative study provided evidence and data for
the design and implementation of effective teacher evaluation and related professional
development needs for teachers in China. This study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What are the profiles of how teachers in the four middle schools under JEG in China
experience teacher evaluation?
2. How would the middle school teachers of JEG like to be evaluated, including
instruments, criteria and standards, and frequency?
3. What are teachers’ professional development needs to excel within a newly designed
teacher evaluation system in the four middle schools under JEG?
This chapter begins with a discussion of findings, followed by recommendations for
practice, recommendations for future research, limitations and delimitations, and conclusion
of this study. Discussion of Findings
This section discusses the findings from the quantitative study within scholarly
literature and two theories of motivation, namely cognitive evaluation theory and goal-setting
theory which laid the foundation of the theoretical framework discussed in Chapter Two. Research Question 1 Discussion of Findings
106
Participating teachers reported the overall quality of teacher evaluation as poor, meaning that they considered the effectiveness of teacher evaluation in their work context as
low, taking into consideration their demographic features including gender, teaching
experience, education level, homeroom teacher and administrator roles. This finding is
consistent with existing literature that widely acknowledges that traditional teacher evaluation
systems often fail to meet teachers' needs and expectations (Danielson & McGreal, 2000;
Danielson, 2007; National Education Association, 2010). These systems are often criticized, including in China, for being too focused on compliance and performance metrics, rather than
on teachers' professional growth and learning. This misalignment can lead to feelings of
dissatisfaction and a lack of trust in the evaluation processes among teachers (Danielson &
McGreal, 2000; Li & Xin, 2022). The perceived low quality of teaching evaluation in JEG
can be attributed to teachers’ low rating of the five categories of attributes critical to teacher
evaluation systems, which namely are: Teacher Attributes, Evaluator Attributes, Attributes of
Evaluation Procedures, Feedback Attributes, and Evaluation Context Attributes. Among all
the attributes, they identified the evaluation context as the category that needed to be
strengthened most urgently. The context attribute of teacher evaluation encompasses various
factors that influence the effectiveness and impact of the evaluation process. Among these
factors, the availability of training programs and models of good practice, clarity of policy
statements, time allotted for professional development, the amount of time spent on the
evaluation process, and the intended role of evaluation are particularly significant. This aligns with current discussions in the literature about the importance of
considering the context of teacher evaluation. A supportive and collaborative evaluation
context includes factors such as availability of training programs and models of good
practices, clarity of policy statements regarding purpose of evaluation, and intended role of
evaluation as teacher growth rather than teacher accountability, which can significantly
107
influence the effectiveness of the evaluation process (Duke & Stiggins, 1986; Stiggins &
Duke, 1988). According to the survey results, teachers found it difficult to access these
training resources. Meanwhile, policies on teacher evaluation were ambiguous, difficult to
understand, or not communicated effectively, leading to confusion and uncertainty about its
objectives and expected outcomes, and thereby teachers’ feeling that the system did not align
with their personal or organizational goals. Moreover, there might be a heavy workload or
conflicting schedules in the process, or professional development activities might not be
properly prioritized or supported, making teachers regard the evaluation process as a burden
rather than a valuable tool for improvement. Collectively, these findings highlight the need for a shift in approach towards teacher
evaluation that is more focused on teachers' professional learning, needs and expectations, and that takes into account the preferred context in which effective evaluation occurs. Doing
so can improve the overall quality of teacher evaluation and foster a more positive and
productive environment for teachers' professional development. Findings from Research Question 1 also align with the theoretical framework of this
study. With reference to cognitive evaluation theory and goal-setting theory, appropriate
feedback (Deci & Ryan,1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000b) and achievable goals may enhance
competence and autonomy, which are two core sub-constructs of intrinsic motivation. As
Donaldson (2021) summarized, teacher evaluation systems support teachers’ intrinsic
motivation through constructive feedback and goal setting by facilitating a teacher’s sense of
competence and autonomy. When teachers perceive the quality of teacher evaluation as poor, as did the teachers in this study, it may diminish their sense of competence and autonomy in
their professional roles. It indicates that the participating teachers had low levels of intrinsic
motivation to participate in the teacher evaluation. A positive, clear and strong valuation
context enables teachers to be motivated and committed to their professional development,
108
promoting a culture of continuous learning and improvement within the educational setting. With the focus on teachers' strengths, areas for development, and sharing best practices, the
evaluation system can foster a growth mindset and encourage teachers to reflect on their own
practices and seek new strategies to enhance the quality of their work. In addition, appropriate allocation of time of the evaluation process allows for a thorough and
comprehensive evaluation without burdening teachers at the same time. The study showed that the availability of training programs for teachers was low, meaning that more teacher training should be provided. The availability of training programs
and models of good practice enables teachers to continuously enhance their skills and
knowledge. This growth and development satisfy teachers' inherent need for selfimprovement and mastery, which is a key aspect of intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). In addition, intrinsic motivation thrives when individuals have clear goals and
receive meaningful feedback on their progress (Donaldson, 2021; Locke & Latham, 2002;
2006). In the study, teachers perceived the evaluation process as poor partly due to a lack of
clarity regarding policy statements and purpose of evaluation across the four schools. Giving
them a clearer sense of direction in their evaluation process would enhance their intrinsic
motivation. Apart from the need of professional training and clarity of goal, teachers also
considered the role of evaluation more for teacher accountability rather than teacher growth. However, when teachers perceive evaluation as an opportunity to learn and improve, rather
than a threat, they are more likely to approach it with a positive attitude and engage in selfreflection and self-improvement activities that promote intrinsic motivation (Donaldson, 2021;
Ryan & Deci, 2000b). In summary, by providing teachers with opportunities for growth, clarity in
expectations, time for professional development, constructive evaluation processes, and a
109
positive perception of evaluation's role, schools can foster an environment that supports and
enhances teachers’ intrinsic motivation to excel in their teaching careers. Research Question 2 Discussion of Findings
The findings related to teacher involvement, differentiated models, and evaluator
training under Research Question 2 provided insights into key components that should be
considered when redesigning teacher evaluation in the studied schools in China. Specifically, ensuring that teachers are actively involved in the evaluation process, accounting for different
teaching contexts and experiences, and providing adequate training for evaluators are all
essential for creating a fair and effective evaluation system (Borg, 2018; Campbell et al., 2004; Danielson, 2007; Danielson & McGreal, 2000; Derrington & Brandon, 2019; Isoré, 2009). Teachers stated that they would like to be evaluated by multiple measures, or in other
words, different criteria and standards, instruments, and evaluators. According to literature, multiple measures provide a more comprehensive understanding of teacher performance, taking into account various aspects of teaching, such as student progress, classroom
management, and teacher-student relationships (Goe et al., 2011; National Education
Association, 2010; OECD, 2013a; Santiago & Benavides, 2009). This approach is more
likely to capture the complexity of teaching and is generally considered more accurate and
fairer than relying on a single evaluation criterion. Teachers' stated preferences for specific
evaluation instruments and informal evaluation methods suggests that evaluation practices
should be tailored to teachers' needs and preferences. Out of nine commonly used teacher
evaluation instruments, middle school teachers of JEG would most like to be evaluated by
classroom observations, student performance, and evaluations by peers within the same
teaching content area as the major evaluation instruments. By understanding which
evaluation instruments and methods teachers value most, school leaders and policy makers
110
can create evaluation systems that are more likely to be embraced by teachers in their setting
and culture, and thus are more effective (Danielson & McGreal, 2000; Isoré, 2009; OECD, 2013a).With regards to the difference between formal and informal evaluation, informal
evaluations were more frequently used in JEG than formal ones, and the majority of teachers
hoped to receive them at least once per month. In addition, teachers' experience level is an
important factor to consider when designing evaluation systems. The survey results showed
that teachers’ experience had significant impacts regarding the preferred frequency of
informal evaluations and instrument of self-evaluation. Specifically, teachers with 1-3 years
of experience reported significantly higher means than teachers with 16+ years of experience, suggesting that teachers with less teaching experience placed greater importance on more
frequent informal evaluations. According to Stronge and Tucker (2020), novice teachers need
more frequent informal feedback and instructions to develop their skills, while teachers with
more experience tend to prefer less frequent but more targeted evaluations. Moreover, according to the survey results, the more years of experience teachers had, the more they
valued self-evaluation as an important means of teaching evaluation. As teachers gain
experience, they often become more proficient in evaluating their own teaching practice, recognizing its role in their ongoing professional growth and commitment to student success
(Danielson, 2007). Overall, differentiated evaluation systems that take into account teachers' varying levels of experience and professional development needs are more likely to be fair
and effective (Campbell et al., 2004; Danielson, 2007; Derrington & Brandon, 2019). Further, the preference for informal and formative teacher evaluation over high-stakes formal
evaluation among many teachers can be attributed to its natural and relaxed environment, focus on day-to-day practices, timeliness and responsiveness, and authenticity and personal
touch (Goe et al., 2008).
111
The survey results also indicated that homeroom teachers exhibited stronger
preference for communicating with families, managing student behavior, and parent rating
than their non-homeroom counterparts. This may be because in China, homeroom teachers
are often responsible for a broader range of tasks, including communicating with parents and
managing student behavior across multiple settings. Therefore, their evaluation should reflect
these additional responsibilities. This finding adds nuance to the discussion of teacher
evaluation by highlighting the need for evaluation systems that are tailored to the specific
roles and responsibilities of different types of teachers. Danielson and McGreal (2000) identified six major causes of deficiency in teacher
evaluation systems, one of which is limited administrator expertise. In the survey, almost all
teachers, accounting for 96%, concurred that evaluators should undergo rigorous training
prior to assessing teachers, which underscored the significance of pre-evaluation training for
those responsible for conducting teacher evaluations. According to Derrington and Brandon
(2019), evaluators must be competent professionals who have been well trained in evaluation
practice, because evaluations carried out by evaluators, such as school principals, without
adequate professional training prior to the evaluation process are not qualified to provide
teachers with constructive and actionable feedback. Apart from the request of evaluator training, teachers in JEG middle schools
expressed agreement that they should be actively involved in the process of developing the
evaluation, underscoring the importance they placed on their input and expertise in shaping
the evaluation process. Borg (2018) stressed the significance of involving stakeholders, including teachers, in decisions about the development and implementation of teacher
evaluation systems. When teachers are actively involved in shaping the evaluation system, they feel a greater sense of ownership over the process. Teachers have deep knowledge of
their classrooms, students, and teaching strategies. Thus, their input is invaluable in designing
112
evaluation criteria and methods that accurately reflect the complexities of teaching and
learning (Danielson & McGreal, 2000; Isoré, 2009; OECD, 2013a). When teachers are
consulted in the development of the evaluation system, they are more likely to perceive it as
fair and credible. The literature often emphasizes the importance of involving teachers in the
design and implementation of evaluation systems, as they are the experts in their field and
have valuable insights into what works best in their classrooms (Borg, 2018; Isoré, 2009;
OECD, 2013a). In a bid to achieve flexibility and adaptability in evaluation, teachers in JEG
concurred with the employment of differentiated evaluation models or criteria tailored to
specific contexts. Differentiated models allow for a more nuanced and context-specific
approach to evaluation, taking into account the unique characteristics and challenges of
individual teachers and their teaching environments. This ensures that the evaluation process
is more fair, accurate, and relevant to the specific context in which teachers are operating
(Campbell et al., 2004; Derrington & Brandon, 2019). Collectively, teacher involvement ensures that teachers’ voices are heard, and their
needs are addressed, while differentiated models allow for more personalized and targeted
evaluations. Evaluator training, on the other hand, ensures that the evaluation process is fair, consistent, and accurate. Additionally, teacher involvement in teacher evaluation, evaluator
training, and the use of differentiated models all contribute to the promotion of intrinsic
motivation among teachers by enhancing their competence and autonomy. The findings for Research Question 2 are correlated with the theoretical framework of
intrinsic motivation, which points out that teacher evaluation systems support teachers’
intrinsic motivation when their sense of competence and autonomy are boosted in certain
ways (Donaldson, 2021). In the study, teachers presented their preference in being involved
in the process of designing evaluation. When teachers have a say in shaping the evaluation
113
criteria and processes, they are more likely to view the evaluation as a valuable and
meaningful activity that contributes to their professional growth. Teachers are more likely to
internally drive themselves to improve their practices when they believe they have a voice in
the evaluation process (Borg, 2018; Isoré, 2009; OECD, 2013a). This sense of ownership and
participation fosters teacher autonomy and whereby their intrinsic motivation to excel in
teaching and to seek continuous improvement. Drawing upon cognitive evaluation theory and goal-setting theory, it is suggested that
appropriate feedback (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000b) and attainable goals (Locke
& Latham, 2002; 2006) can contribute significantly to enhancing competence and autonomy, two integral components of intrinsic motivation. Regarding the finding of the need for
multiple measures, it aligns with this theory by enabling teachers to have well-defined goals
that cover various aspects of teaching, such as different evaluators, different criteria and
different instruments. The specificity and measurability of these goals help teachers track
their progress and make adjustments to their strategies accordingly. This goal-oriented
approach fosters a sense of accomplishment and drives teachers to continue improving. Meanwhile, multiple measures of teacher evaluation provide a comprehensive and
multifaceted feedback loop. Through formal and informal assessment, self-assessment, peer
reviews, student evaluations, and classroom observations, teachers receive various
perspectives on their teaching practices. This feedback is crucial for informing teachers about
their strengths and areas for improvement, which directly relates to their self-awareness and
ability to grow. The timely and specific nature of this feedback aligns with the theory of
intrinsic motivation, as it fosters a desire for self-improvement and personal growth
(Donaldson, 2021; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Trained evaluators are able to provide feedback that is specific, constructive, and
aligned with the teacher's individual goals and needs (Isoré, 2009). This type of feedback
114
helps teachers to identify areas for improvement and to see how they can progress in their
teaching practices. When teachers receive feedback that is tailored to their unique
circumstances and that recognizes their efforts and achievements, they are more likely to feel
intrinsically motivated to continue growing and developing as professionals (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). What is more, differentiated models of teacher evaluation recognize the uniqueness
of each teacher and their individual teaching contexts and allow for a more personalized and
relevant approach to assessment. Teachers are more likely to be intrinsically motivated to
improve when the evaluation process takes into account their individual strengths, weaknesses, and teaching environments (Campbell et al., 2004; Derrington & Brandon, 2019). In this way, the goals of teacher evaluation can be more targeted and individualized, and
accordingly, the feedback will be more effective because the evaluation process takes into
account the distinctive features and preferences of teachers. By doing so, teachers will be
intrinsically motivated in the process of evaluation based on cognitive evaluation theory
(Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Research Question 3 Discussion of Findings
Professional development is a fundamental purpose of teacher evaluation (Danielson
& McGreal, 2000; Marzano, 2012; OECD, 2013a). An effective teacher evaluation system
designed based upon teachers’ perceptions and involvement would improve teacher practice
and thereby enhance student growth and learning by promoting professional development
opportunities to meet teachers’ professional growth needs, and increase teachers’ intrinsic
motivation through enhanced competence and autonomy (Donaldson, 2021; Ryan & Deci
2000a).When asked what their professional development needs were to excel within a newly
designed teacher evaluation system, the middle school teachers under JEG stated that the
most desired areas for professional development included individualized learning, student
115
behavior and classroom management, and teaching cross-curricular skills. Due to the
diversified academic levels, needs and characteristics of students, it is appropriate for
teachers to deem individualized learning as crucial. By implementing individualized learning
strategies, teachers can better cater to the unique learning needs of each student, and enhance
their interest and engagement (OECD, 2019, 2020b). In China, teachers often face challenges
in managing large class sizes and diverse student behaviors. Therefore, professional
development in this area is crucial for teachers to effectively manage classrooms, ensure
smooth teaching processes, and create a positive and harmonious atmosphere for learning. Further, the emphasis on cross-curricular skills is in line with the trend of educational reform
in China. Having recognized the significance of cross-curricular teaching in cultivating
students' comprehensive literacy and innovative capabilities, teachers prefer professional
development in this area to acquire the required skills and knowledge to effectively
implement cross-curricular teaching strategies. Teachers' preferences for desired areas for professional development resonate with the
growing body of literature that underscores the importance of teachers' continuous learning
and development, particularly in areas that directly impact student learning and outcomes. Individualized learning strategies, effective classroom management, and cross-curricular
integration are all crucial components of a contemporary educator’s toolkit and are widely
recognized as essential for enhancing student engagement and achievement (OECD, 2019, 2020b).In addition, the preferred formats of professional development activities identified
among middle school teachers of JEG showed their preference for in-person courses/seminars, online courses/seminars, observation visits to other schools, and education conferences, which aligns with the literature that explores the various modalities of professional
development and their relative effectiveness (OECD, 2009a, 2013a). The diversity of
116
preferred formats suggests that teachers value different types of learning experiences, from
the interactive and immersive nature of in-person workshops to the flexibility and
convenience of online courses. This diversity also indicates that a one-size-fits-all approach
to professional development may not be effective, and that providing a range of options
tailored to teachers' needs and preferences is likely to be more impactful. Overall, the findings suggested the need for professional development to be
responsive to teachers' particular interests and needs. A teacher-centered approach to
professional development is advocated as it recognizes teachers as agents of their own
learning and encourages them to identify and pursue areas of growth that are personally
meaningful and relevant to their practice (OECD, 2009a, 2013a). According to cognitive evaluation theory and goal-setting theory that lay the
foundation of the theoretical framework in this study, in order to further enhance intrinsic
motivation and performance through goal-setting and feedback, schools can provide
intentionally designed professional development programs which facilitate intrinsic
motivation for teachers through supporting their needs for autonomy and competence
(Donaldson, 2021; Locke & Latham, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). With intrinsic motivation, individuals are internally driven to engage in activities they find inherently enjoyable or
rewarding and emphasizes the role of internal factors, such as interest, curiosity, and a sense
of accomplishment, in motivating behavior (Donaldson, 2021; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). A
diversified approach to professional development emphasizes the importance of considering
teachers’ unique needs and preferences to maximize their motivation and engagement in
professional growth. This approach allows teachers to engage in development activities that
they find personally fulfilling, which in turn can lead to deeper learning, increased job
satisfaction, and long-term retention of knowledge and skills (OECD, 2009b). In the context
of professional development, teachers who are intrinsically motivated are likely to seek out
117
opportunities for growth and learning that align with their personal goals and interests. In this
way, both autonomy and competence of teachers can be promoted via professional
development (Donaldson, 2021; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). By providing teachers with a variety
of professional development choices that cater to their specific needs and preferences, schools are more likely to tap into teachers’ intrinsic motivation and encourage active
participation in professional growth. Overall, findings of this study contribute insights to the existing literature on teacher
evaluation, and specifically teacher evaluation in China. Most of the research on effective
teacher evaluation is U.S-based and does not account for the different context of China where
little research on teacher evaluation has been conducted. By offering empirical evidence of
teachers’ perspectives of teacher evaluation, the study findings highlighted areas for
improvement, and informed the development of more effective evaluation practices and
professional development initiatives in the four middle schools studied in China, and more
broadly. Furthermore, these findings can inform the design and implementation of more
targeted and effective teacher evaluation systems that are responsive to teachers' needs and
that are likely to have a positive impact on their practice and, ultimately, on student learning. Recommendations for Practice
This section discusses recommendations to support the findings identified in Chapter
Four and discussed in this chapter. Based on the survey results and the findings, the following
four recommendations for practice are proposed:
1. Optimize the context attributes and tailor teacher evaluation standards. 2. Apply multiple sources and differentiated models for evaluation. 3. Enhance evaluator training and teacher involvement. 4. Provide high-quality professional development programs, with a focus in high-need areas.
118
As illustrated in Table 29, the proposed recommendations are summarized aligned
with the research questions and findings. The recommendations are interconnected and
together work to develop an effective teacher evaluation system that meets teachers’ needs
and those of their students. Table 29
Key Findings and Recommendations
Key Findings & Recommendations
Research Question
RQ1: What are the
profiles of how
teachers in the four
middle schools
under the JEP in
China experience
teacher evaluation?
RQ2: How would the
middle school teachers of
JEG like to be evaluated, including instruments, criteria and standards, and
frequency?
RQ3: What are teachers’ professional
development needs to
excel within a newly
designed teacher
evaluation system in the
four middle schools
under JEG?
Key Finding 1
Overall, teachers
reported the quality
of teacher
evaluation as poor. Teachers would like to be
evaluated by multiple
measures. The most desired areas
for professional
development are
approaches to
individualized learning, student behavior and
classroom management, and teaching cross- curricular skills. Key Finding 2
Among all five
categories of the
attributes, the
evaluation context is
the category that
needs to be
strengthened most.
Teachers value particular
teacher evaluation
instruments and forms of
informal evaluation. Middle school teachers
of JEG prefer to
participate in types of
professional
development activities
such as courses/seminars
attended in person, online courses/seminars, observation visits to
other schools, and
education conferences.
119
Sub-findings N/A
1. Teachers with various
teaching experience
would like to be
evaluated differently
regarding frequency of
informal evaluations and
the instrument of self- evaluation. 2. Homeroom teachers
value communicating
with families, managing
student behavior and
parent rating differently
from non-homeroom
teachers. 3. There are no differences
in how teachers would
like to be evaluated, between teachers with
administrative
responsibilities and
teachers without.
N/A
Key Finding 3 N/A
Teacher involvement, differentiated models, and
evaluator training are key
factors of teacher
evaluation. N/A
Recommendation 1
Optimize the
context attributes
and tailor teacher
evaluation standards
Recommendation 2
Apply multiple sources and
differentiated models for
evaluation
Recommendation 3 Enhance evaluator training
and teacher involvement
Recommendation 4
Provide high-quality
professional
development programs, with a focus in high- need areas
Recommendation 1: Optimize the Context Attributes and Tailor Teacher Evaluation
Standards
According to cognitive evaluation theory, interpersonal events and structures, such as
rewards, communications, and feedback, that are conducted toward feelings of competence
during action can promote intrinsic motivation because of the satisfaction of the basic
psychological need for competence (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Based upon teachers' perceptions
of the context attributes relevant to teacher evaluation, there are several key areas to be
120
addressed to improve the overall evaluation process in the JEG middle schools. First, teachers
in JEG middle schools need to understand the context of teacher evaluation, including how it
aligns with the school's mission and goals (Isoré, 2009). This includes clear and concise
communication around the objectives, scope, timeline and expected outcomes of an
evaluation process. This involves explicitly communicating the intended role of evaluation to
teachers, emphasizing its formative and diagnostic functions rather than just a summative
assessment. Regular communication sessions with teachers should be conducted for them to
provide input as well as discuss and clarify any uncertainties or misinterpretations about
evaluation purposes and policies (Isoré, 2009). Based on teachers’ perceptions of the attributes of evaluation procedures in this study, there are some targeted recommendations for improving teacher evaluation attributes with
regard to evaluation standards. First, policymakers should ensure that evaluation standards
are tailored to the specific teaching assignments and responsibilities of each teacher. Specifically, prior to the establishment of evaluation standards, policymakers should
recognize that teachers have unique needs and teaching circumstances and accommodate
these differences in the evaluation process. Moreover, they should be able to evaluate and
adjust the evaluation standards to account for the diverse teaching contexts, subject areas, and
student populations teachers encounter (Campbell et al., 2004; Derrington & Brandon, 2019). In addition, in a bid to strike a balance between evaluation time and teachers’ workload, and
thus increase efficiency of teacher evaluation, JEG middle schools should streamline the
evaluation process and remove redundant or unnecessary steps to minimize the time teachers
spend on it. Also, it is suggested that teachers are provided with training on efficient
evaluation techniques to help them maximize their time (OECD, 2013a). In addition, technology tools can be leveraged to automate some aspects of the evaluation, such as data
collection and analysis to reduce the time spent on routine administrative work.
121
Equally important, JEG middle schools should disseminate and clarify evaluation
standards and ensure they are consistently communicated to teachers by means of multiple
channels of communication, including meetings, emails, and online platforms. Also, open
communication and feedback channels need to be built to address teachers' questions and
concerns about the standards. Meanwhile, clear guidelines and examples should be provided
for teachers to align their teaching practices with the defined standards (Isoré, 2009, OECD, 2013a).Throughout the evaluation process, JEG middle schools should provide teachers with
timely and constructive feedback on their evaluation results, focusing on areas of
improvement and growth. Meanwhile, a supportive environment should be established where
teachers can discuss their evaluation results, seek guidance, and share best practices through
peer-to-peer collaboration or mentorship to foster a learning community for continuous
improvement (OECD, 2013a). Further, JEG middle schools should provide teachers with training on how to
effectively interpret and apply the evaluation standards to their teaching practices and
encourage them to participate in professional development opportunities that can help them
improve their teaching skills and align them with the established standards. Teachers need to
be provided with examples and case studies that demonstrate how evaluation feedback can be
used to improve teaching effectiveness (Danielson & McGreal, 2000; Isoré, 2009). By doing
so, teachers can be supported to use evaluation feedback constructively for personal and
professional growth. According to cognitive evaluation theory, constructive feedback can
promote teachers’ intrinsic motivation to engage in the process (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Finally, policymakers need to recognize and reward teachers who demonstrate
excellence in teaching practices aligned with the evaluation standards (OECD, 2009b). For
example, schools can publicly acknowledge teachers’ achievements, provide professional
122
development opportunities, or offer other forms of recognition in a bid to motivate them to
continue striving for excellence. By addressing these areas, it is likely that teachers' perceptions of the evaluation
attributes will improve, leading to a more fair, transparent, and effective evaluation system
which is aligned with the specific context and culture of JEG. In this way, teachers' satisfaction with the evaluation process is expected to be enhanced, which helps to foster a
culture of continuous improvement and excellence in teaching. Recommendation 2: Apply Multiple Sources and Differentiated Models for Teacher
Evaluation
The current teacher evaluation system in the four middle schools under JEP were
thought by teachers to be ineffective, as the schools used student achievement, often
measured by test scores only, as the key measure of teacher effectiveness. Teachers suggested
that their schools should incorporate diverse perspectives and data points into the teacher
evaluation process. By drawing on multiple sources of evidence, such as classroom
observations, student feedback, peer evaluations, and self-assessment, the evaluation
becomes more comprehensive and balanced (Goe et al., 2011; National Education
Association, 2010; OECD, 2013a). One of the key benefits of utilizing multiple sources of
evidence is that it reduces the risk of bias and subjectivity inherent in any single evaluation
method (Borg, 2018; OECD, 2013a; Santiago & Benavides, 2009). A multi-lens approach not
only provides a more accurate assessment of teacher performance but also helps in
identifying areas for improvement and promoting professional growth. However, it is
noteworthy that careful and thorough analysis and interpretation of data from multiple
sources needs to be conducted in the process of data synthesizing, in order to draw
meaningful conclusions about a teacher's performance.
123
Middle schools under JEG should employ a carefully constructed set of multiple
measures. According to the survey data, the middle school teachers under JEG welcome other
measures such as classroom observations, principal evaluation, peer evaluation, analysis of
classroom artifacts, teaching portfolios, and teacher self-evaluation. These methods draw on
several sources of rigorous evidence collected over time, as well as involve multiple
evaluators. Therefore, the use of these measures will certainly offer more evidence about
teacher effectiveness and student learning in these schools. Teachers in JEG also suggested the need for differentiated evaluation models that
could vary, for example, based on their years of experience, position, subject area, and
student population. Differentiated evaluation models in teacher evaluation refer to the
application of various evaluation approaches and techniques that are tailored to the unique
characteristics, goals, and content of each teacher's practice (Campbell et al., 2004;
Derrington & Brandon, 2019). This emphasizes individualized assessment, allowing for a
targeted analysis of teachers' achievements and progress based on their specific teaching
strengths and areas for improvement. Also, varying teaching contexts, student needs, and
subject matter expertise are taken into consideration to provide a more accurate and fair
assessment of teachers' performance (Campbell et al., 2004; Derrington & Brandon, 2019). Middle schools under JEG could adopt a differentiated evaluation model in teacher
evaluation by following several key steps. First, schools should identify unique
characteristics of teachers based on their experience, subjects, job responsibilities, strengths, and challenges. Second, the schools should set individualized evaluation criteria that are
tailored to teachers’ teaching context and objectives, and make sure these criteria are clear, measurable, and aligned with the schools' educational goals. Lastly, schools should provide
personalized feedback based on their evaluation results, highlighting their strengths,
124
identifying areas for improvement, and offering constructive suggestions for their
development. Overall, incorporating multiple sources of evidence into the teacher evaluation
process and employing differentiated evaluation models would help to enhance the equity, accuracy, and effectiveness of teacher evaluation and individual teachers’ professional
development. By doing so, middle schools under JEG could promote a positive evaluation
culture of continuous improvement and professional development and ultimately enhance the
quality of teaching and learning in the school. By doing so, middle schools under JEG could promote a positive evaluation culture of
continuous improvement and professional development, which would promote teachers’
intrinsic motivation to engage in the process according to cognitive evaluation theory (Ryan
& Deci, 2000b), and ultimately enhance the quality of teaching and learning in the school. Recommendation 3: Enhance Evaluator Training and Teacher Involvement
Evaluators who provide inconsistent or uninformed evaluations of teachers lead to
minimal value as well as dissatisfaction among teachers. On the contrary, rigorous evaluator
training contributes significantly to the quality of teacher evaluation in terms of its accuracy
and effectiveness (Borg, 2018, Isoré, 2009). By providing adequate training for evaluators, educational institutions can enhance the reliability and validity of their teacher evaluation
processes. Well-trained evaluators are better equipped with the knowledge, skills, and
resources needed to conduct meaningful evaluations, provide constructive feedback to
teachers effectively and consistently, and support their professional growth and development. Although the survey results indicated that teachers showed slightly more positive
attitude of the evaluator attributes compared with other attributes, there were still areas for
further improvement, particularly in terms of usefulness of suggestions, capacity to model or
demonstrate needed improvement, and credibility as a source of feedback. Accordingly, they
125
had the most agreement on evaluator credentials in the process of constructing the evaluation
system, indicating that they might lack extensive evaluator training and, meanwhile, qualified
and professional evaluators are deemed crucial. Therefore, it is recommended that once the appropriate measures of teacher evaluation
are discussed and approved, the middle schools under JEG should start to recruit and train the
evaluators accordingly. Evaluators could be other teachers, administrators, educational
consultants, or external evaluators with a background in teacher evaluation. Training for
evaluators should first help evaluators understand the evaluation objectives and criteria (Isoré, 2009). Meanwhile, it should cover a range of topics, including evaluation frameworks and
tools, data collection and analysis techniques, observation and feedback protocols, cultural
competency, and legal and ethical considerations. It should also provide opportunities for
evaluators to practice their skills and receive feedback from experienced professionals
(Danielson & McGreal, 2000; OECD, 2013a; Santiago & Benavides, 2009). Implementing
this recommendation requires investment in resources, such as training programs, materials, and ongoing support for evaluators. It also necessitates a commitment to continuous
improvement and evaluation of the effectiveness of training efforts to ensure they meet the
needs of evaluators and align with best practices in teacher evaluation (Danielson & McGreal, 2000; Isoré, 2009; OECD, 2013a). Theoretically, providing adequate training for evaluators of teacher evaluation is
crucial for fostering an environment that supports teachers' intrinsic motivation. To specify, evaluator training ensures that those responsible for teacher evaluation possess the necessary
skills, knowledge, and understanding to carry out the process effectively. Trained evaluators
are more likely to provide accurate, constructive, and timely feedback, focusing on teachers' strengths, areas for improvement, and personal growth. This approach not only supports
teachers' professional development but also enhances their sense of self-efficacy and intrinsic
126
motivation (Donaldson, 2021; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). On the contrary, inadequate evaluator
training can lead to inconsistent, biased, or even unfair assessments. When teachers perceive
that the evaluation process lacks objectivity and fairness, their motivation to improve or
engage in professional development may suffer. They may feel discouraged or disillusioned, believing that their efforts are not being recognized or valued (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Overall, providing adequate training for evaluators is essential for ensuring the quality
and integrity of teacher evaluation processes. It strengthens the capacity of evaluators to
conduct fair and rigorous evaluations that contribute to the improvement of teaching and
learning, as well as the well-being and satisfaction of teachers. Involving teachers in the
design and implementation of teacher evaluation promotes transparency, fairness, and
ownership, as it ensures that evaluation systems reflect the needs, priorities, and perspectives
of those who are directly impacted. It empowers teachers to take ownership of their
professional growth and development and contributes to a positive school culture built on
trust, respect, and collaboration (Borg, 2018; Isoré, 2009; OECD, 2013a). Regarding teacher involvement, it is suggested that teachers should be involved in the
design and implementation of evaluation systems, so that they can contribute valuable
insights and expertise to ensure that the process is relevant, meaningful, and aligned with best
practices in teaching and learning. This involvement also fosters a sense of trust and
collaboration between teachers and administrators, as it demonstrates a commitment to shared
decision-making and mutual respect (Danielson & McGreal, 2000; Isoré, 2009; OECD, 2013a). Furthermore, teachers’ involvement in the process can enhance the validity and
reliability of evaluation outcomes by incorporating their perspectives and experiences. By
involving teachers, they can be uniquely positioned to provide valuable feedback on
evaluation criteria, processes, and tools based on their firsthand knowledge of classroom
practice and student learning.
127
Specifically, for the evaluation and teaching standards to be relevant and owned by
the teachers, it is essential that the teachers take a lead role in developing, refining and taking
responsibility for them. Teachers should also be given the opportunities for their input and
feedback on the strengths and the flaws of the system, from its design to its full
implementation and review, in order to ensure teacher evaluation is effective, desired and
successful. Further, JEG middle schools should provide them with the opportunity to voice
their unique challenges and needs during the evaluation process and consider their opinions
and concerns in designing the standards and evaluation procedures accordingly. It is also noteworthy that implementing this recommendation requires JEG schools to
have careful planning and coordination to ensure that teachers have meaningful opportunities
to contribute to the design and implementation of evaluation systems. Schools should also
carry on a commitment to ongoing communication, collaboration, and professional
development to support teachers' engagement and participation in the evaluation process. In summary, this recommendation, when implemented thoughtfully and effectively, can contribute to the development of fair, accurate, and meaningful teacher evaluation
processes that support teacher voice in the process of continuous improvement and
professional growth. Recommendation 4: Provide High-quality Continuous Professional Development, With
a Focus on High-Need Areas
Continuous professional development assists teachers’ entire journey of growth from
novices to experts, aiming to accomplish their sustained professional progress in the field of
education. Through professional development, teachers can stay updated with educational
theories and teaching methods, which enables them to better satisfy the learning needs of
students and social development. Furthermore, it fosters teachers' self-actualization, enhances
their professional identity and satisfaction, and raises their social status and reputation.
128
Professional development is a critical aspect of teacher learning and growth. It involves
ongoing opportunities for teachers to acquire new knowledge, skills, and strategies that they
can apply in their classrooms. Similarly, the ultimate purpose of teacher evaluation is to
support teacher learning and growth. Evaluation should not merely be a one-time, pass-or-fail
exercise; rather, it should be a continuous, collaborative process that aims to identify
strengths, pinpoint areas for improvement, and provide the resources and support necessary
for teachers to achieve their professional goals (Goe et al., 2012; OECD, 2013a, 2013b). The identification of the most desired areas for professional development, including
individualized learning, student behavior and classroom management, and cross-curricular
teaching skills, revealed a deep understanding of the evolving needs of JEG teachers under
the educational landscape today. These areas are crucial for teachers to stay up-to-date with
modern teaching methods and effectively address the diverse learning needs of their students. As a result, middle schools under JEG should invest more in the above areas. Specifically, schools should provide teachers with training on strategies and tools for
implementing individualized learning, such as differentiated instruction and the use of
technology to personalize learning experiences, and provide teachers with training on the use
of project-based learning or inquiry-based approaches to foster a more personalized learning
environment (Derrington & Brandon, 2019; OECD, 2019). Additionally, they should organize
workshops and seminars on effective classroom management techniques, including setting
clear expectations, establishing routines, using positive reinforcement, building conflict
resolution skills, managing challenging student behaviors in a supportive and productive
manner, and creating a positive classroom culture of respect, collaboration, and a sense of
belonging (Danielson & McGreal, 2000; OECD, 2019, 2020b). Furthermore, schools can
design professional development activities focusing on integrating different subjects and
skills sets, such as interdisciplinary projects or collaborative teaching arrangements. Teachers
129
should be trained on innovative ways to teach cross-curricular concepts, such as integrating
technology, art, or science into traditional subjects (OECD, 2019, 2020b). Meanwhile, resources and support should be provided for teachers to develop
interdisciplinary units or lesson plans that align with curricular standards. The preference of
middle school teachers in JEG for certain types of professional development activities—such
as in-person courses/seminars, online courses/seminars, observation visits to other schools, and education conferences—provided valuable insights into how they preferred to learn and
grow as educators. These preferences suggest a desire for a mix of traditional and innovative
approaches to professional development, with a focus on hands-on experiences, interactive
learning, and networking opportunities. In order to enhance teachers’satisfaction with the time allotment of professionals, JEG middle schools should prioritize professional development in the academic calendar, allocating sufficient time for teachers to engage in professional growth activities. For
example, the schools can block out specific times during the semester for professional
development activities to make sure they are not overshadowed by other responsibilities. Furthermore, the schools can collaborate with local universities or professional organizations
to offer workshops or courses on teachers’ professional training during summer breaks or
other non-teaching periods. In addition, they can help to create platforms or communities for
shared best practices and mutual learning among teachers via case studies, workshops, or
online forums to promote a culture of learning and continuous improvement. As a result, schools under JEG should offer diversified professional development
pathways by offering a series of professional development options to cater to the diverse
needs and interests of teachers as well as the delivery forms that teachers prefer. In addition, in order to motivate teachers' enthusiasm and participation, schools should establish incentive
mechanisms, recognizing and honoring those who have made significant achievements.
130
Based on the theoretical framework in this study, although intrinsic motivation is more
beneficial than extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000b), some extrinsic factors also
support a teacher’s sense of competence and autonomy. Hence, extrinsic incentives can also
have positive impacts on the intrinsic motivation and performance (Cerasoli et al., 2014; Deci
et al., 1999; Ryan & Deci, 2000a; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). As Ryan and Deci (2000a)
concluded, autonomy-supportive and competence-supportive contexts or environments
reliably enhanced teachers’ intrinsic motivation and performance. Overall, by considering both the desired areas for professional development and the
preferred types of activities, policymakers in JEG middle schools can design professional
development programs that not only meet the needs of their teachers but also align with their
personal preferences and learning styles. In this way, teachers' engagement and motivation
can be promoted, leading to more meaningful and impactful professional growth. To effectively provide teachers with professional development opportunities, middle
schools under JEG should start with establishing a comprehensive professional development
system. This could include setting up departments for teacher professional development to
plan, organize, and implement professional development activities tied to teacher needs. This
would operate within clear professional development goals and plans and provide teachers
with systematic training and learning opportunities. The implementation of the above
measures can help middle schools under JEG effectively support teachers' professional
development, enhance their competence and foster a culture of continuous learning, thereby
enhancing the quality of education provided to students. Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are influences that the researcher cannot control, and delimitations are the
boundaries set by the researcher that need to be addressed (Creswell & Creswell, 2017;
Kornuta & Germaine; Ross & Bibler Zaidi, 2019).
131
Three key delimitations were identified in this study. First, the absence of a neutral
category in Part Two of the survey might have had an impact on respondents’ decision- making in some survey questions. Therefore, the degree of accuracy of the respondents’ answers might be affected and have an impact on the findings. Second, because the research aimed at the perception of effective teacher evaluation
in JEG, its scope and boundary were limited to the four private middle schools within the
organization. Thus, the findings of the survey might have limited generalizability beyond the
specific sample of teachers surveyed. Specifically, while there may be some similarities in the
principles and practices of effective teacher evaluation between private and public schools, there are also significant differences in resources, regulations and student populations that can
impact the transferability of these findings. First, public schools may face stricter budget
constraints and may not have the same level of resources to dedicate to teacher evaluation. Second, public schools are often subject to more stringent regulatory requirements and
standards set by state or national governments, which may influence the design and
implementation of teacher evaluation systems, including the use of standardized assessments, the frequency of evaluations, and the consequences of underperformance. Third, public
schools typically serve a more diverse range of students, including those from low-income
families and students with special needs, resulting in unique challenges for teacher evaluation, like the need to address various learning needs and abilities. Fourth, public schools generally
have limited resources and budgets for teacher professional development. Teachers in public
schools, therefore, might have different perceptions on professional development
opportunities and needs. In addition, factors such as the geographical location, type of school, and demographic characteristics of respondents could influence their perceptions and
experiences with teacher evaluation, limiting the applicability of findings to the broader
population of educators in China.
132
Third, this study was delimited to the perspectives of classroom teachers. Administrators, including senior management team members and supporting staff, were not
asked to participate. Administrators are often responsible for setting the overall direction and
tone of the school or educational institution. Their perspectives could have provided a
broader contextual understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the entire
organization. Excluding them from the study limited the depth and breadth of the analysis. There were also inevitably limitations of the study. First, the study adhered to a
quantitative survey method. Although the design of the survey study established reliability
and validity, self-reported questionnaire data was subjective by nature and teachers might not
always have completed the self-reported measures truthfully on the topic of teacher
evaluation for some reasons. Second, the sensitivity of the information and responses
collected from the participants might have had an effect on their responses. Participants might
have been unwilling to respond truthfully to questions related to their opinions or attitudes on
teacher evaluation practices in their current position due to worries about the changes of
current teacher evaluation policies or even other school policies. For example, some teachers
might have had concerns that the findings of the study would impact teacher tenure decisions, promotion, teacher retention or dismissal, and professional development programs. This
could have resulted in inflated or distorted perceptions of the effectiveness of teacher
evaluation systems. In addition, this quantitative study might provide surface-level feedback, as it
typically consisted of predefined questions with limited response options. This could result in
responses that lacked depth and nuance, making it challenging to fully understand teachers' perspectives and experiences with evaluation. Meanwhile, it might struggle to capture the
emotional and personal experiences of teachers with evaluation, such as feelings of stress, anxiety, or satisfaction. These subjective experiences could significantly influence teachers'
133
perceptions of the effectiveness of evaluation processes. Moreover, it did not provide
opportunities for clarification or follow-up questions, making it difficult to probe deeper into
respondents' responses or seek clarification on ambiguous or contradictory answers. Recommendations for Future Research
As a quantitative research based upon teachers’ perceptions of teacher evaluation
within a specific setting, this study has left scope for further research to deepen understanding
and refine practices in effective teacher evaluation systems in China. The study was conducted to provide reference for four JEG middle schools regarding
their future teacher evaluation. As the schools carry out the recommendations to support
teachers' professional development, foster a culture of continuous learning, and thereby
enhance the quality of education, future research can assess the effectiveness of the
implemented teacher evaluation system. This can include quantitative and qualitative
methods such as surveys, interviews, and observations to gather various kinds of data, including teachers' and administrators’ feedback, student outcomes, and changes in teaching
practices. In addition, considering that this study included only participants of middle schools
under JEG, its findings may not be applicable to other contexts. Therefore, future research
can study teacher evaluation practices in other schools in China as well as those in other
cultural, regional or international contexts. For example, future research could compare and
contrast the teacher evaluation systems and practices in both private and public schools to
identify areas of similarities and differences. Moreover, researchers, where appropriate, could
focus on tailoring the findings of effective teacher evaluation in private schools to fit the
context and resources of public schools, which may involve modifying evaluation tools, processes, or support systems to ensure their relevance and effectiveness. This can provide
134
insights into diverse approaches, challenges, and opportunities for teacher evaluation across
different settings. This can also contribute to research on effective teacher evaluation practices outside
of U.S. contexts, where considerable research has been conducted, to places like China where
little research on teacher evaluation practices and models of effective teacher evaluation have
been studied. When conducting research on teacher evaluation, professional development is a
closely related topic as professional development is an important goal of teacher evaluation. Professional development helps teachers improve their teaching practices, while teacher
evaluation provides valuable feedback that can guide future professional development efforts. Regarding the significance of teachers’ professional development, further research could
focus on its key components, such as induction, ongoing education and training, reflective
practice, collaborative learning, technology integration, teacher engagement, and ethical and
legal frameworks. This continuous learning process helps teachers expand their knowledge
base, improve their teaching skills, and better meet the needs of their students. By conducting these future research studies, researchers can gain a deeper
understanding of the complexities and nuances involved in teacher evaluation. This, in turn, can inform the design and implementation of more targeted and effective support strategies
for teachers, leading to improved educational outcomes for students. Conclusion
This study sought to support the design of an effective teacher evaluation system and
related professional development needs for teachers in China. Teachers in four middle
schools of the JE Group in the city of Dalian, Liaoning province were asked about their
experiences with teacher evaluation, how they would like to be evaluated, and their
professional development needs to excel within a newly designed teacher evaluation system.
135
Through this quantitative study, a clear picture emerged about what teachers believed to be
paramount in their evaluation and their professional learning needs. Key findings revealed that teachers generally perceived their current system of
teacher evaluation quality as poor, particularly in the evaluation context and standards. They
preferred a multifaceted approach to evaluation, valuing specific instruments and informal
feedback. Teacher involvement, differentiated models of evaluation, and evaluator training
were deemed to be crucial, and professional development in high-need areas of approaches to
individualized learning, student behavior and classroom management, and teaching cross- curricular skills were prioritized. Recommendations for practice centered on enhancing the objectivity, fairness, usefulness, and comprehensiveness of the evaluation system. This included ensuring that the
context attributes of evaluation are refined, evaluation criteria are clearly defined and
communicated, multiple sources are included in the process, teachers are given opportunities
for professional growth and development, and the evaluation process is transparent and
involves the voices of teachers. However, beyond summing up the findings and recommendations, this study
highlights the significance of a teacher evaluation system that not only measures outcomes
but also nurtures teachers' growth and development. It underscores the need for a system that
is responsive to teachers' needs and aspirations, one that can lead to a positive feedback loop
between evaluation and teacher effectiveness. As we depart from this dissertation, it is worth reflecting on the potential impact of
the study. A refined and effective teacher evaluation system can be a catalyst for improving
the overall quality of education in China and worldwide. It can empower teachers, enhance
their job satisfaction, and ultimately contribute to the cultivation of a more enlightened and
better-performing educational force. In that sense, this study is not merely an academic
136
practice; rather, it functions as an action call to urge all stakeholders in the education system
to rethink and refine teacher evaluation for the betterment of both teachers and students. In conclusion, this study represents a significant milestone in understanding teachers' perspectives on effective teacher evaluation in China. It provides valuable insights and
recommendations which can inform policy and practice, which paves the way for a more
equitable, effective, and inclusive teacher evaluation landscape. Moving forward, researchers, policymakers and education practitioners should keep in mind that the true measure of
success inevitably lies in how well teachers' voices are taken into account and their wisdom is
acted upon in a bid to build a brighter future for education in China.
137
References
Borg, S. (2018). Teacher evaluation: Global perspectives and their implications for English
language teaching. A literature review. Delhi: British Council. Campbell, J., Kyriakides, L., Muijs, D., & Robinson, W. (2004). Assessing teacher
effectiveness: Developing a dif erentiated model. London, England: Routledge. Central Committee of the Communist Party of the People’s Republic of China, State Council
of the People’s Republic of China. (2020). Overall plan for deepening educational
evaluation reform in the new era. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2020-10/13/content_5551032.htm
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic
incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 140(4), 980. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches. Sage publications. Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). Recognizing and enhancing teacher effectiveness. The
International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 3(1), 1–24. Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012). Evaluating
teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 8–15. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological
Bulletin, 125(6), 627.
138
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum. Derrington, M. L., & Brandon, J. (2019). Dif erentiated teacher evaluation and professional
learning: Policies and practices for promoting career growth. Springer International
Publishing. Donaldson, M. L. (2021) Multidisciplinary perspectives on teacher evaluation:
Understanding the research and theory. New York, NY: Routledge. Duke, D., & Stiggins, R. (1986). Teacher evaluation: Five keys to growth. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Education. Goe, L. (2007). The link between teacher quality and student outcomes: A research synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Goe, L., Bell, C., & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher ef ectiveness: A
research synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher
Quality. Goe, L., Biggers, K., & Croft, A. (2012). Linking Teacher Evaluation to Professional
Development: Focusing on Improving Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC:
National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Goe, L., Holdheide. L, & Miller, T. (2011). A practical guide to designing comprehensive
teacher evaluation systems. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for
Teacher Quality. Guo, Y. (2022). The current impact of the double reduction policy. International Conference
on Education, Language and Art (ICELA), 147-152. Atlantis Press. Harackiewicz. (1979). The effects of reward contingency and performance feedback on
intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1352–1363.
139
Hinchey, P. H. (2010). Getting teacher assessment right: What policymakers can learn from
research. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Isoré, M. (2009). Teacher evaluation: Current practices in OECD countries and a literature
review. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 23. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Jiang, F. H. (2001). Modern educational evaluation: Theory technology, and methods. China:
Guangdong People Press. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1988). The personnel evaluation
standards: How to assess systems of evaluating educators. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 6-7. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A
historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254. Kornuta, H. M., & Germaine, R. W. (2019). A concise guide to writing a thesis or
dissertation: Educational research and beyond. Routledge. Leading Group of the State Council for the Seventh National Population Census (2021). Major figures on 2020 population census of China. China Statistics Press. Li, G., & Xin, T. (2022). An Overview of the Teacher Evaluation System in China. In J. Manzi, Y. Sun and M. R. Garcia (Eds.), Teacher evaluation around the world :
experiences, dilemmas and future challenges (pp. 293-319). Springer. Little, O., Goe, L., & Bell, C. (2009). A practical guide to evaluating teacher ef ectiveness. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Liu, S., & Teddlie, C. (2005). A follow-up study on teacher evaluation in China: Historical
analysis and latest trends. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18, 253–272.
140
Liu, S., & Teddlie, C. (2003). The ongoing development of teacher evaluation and curriculum
reform in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in
Education, 17, 243–261. Liu, S., & Zhao, D. (2013). Teacher evaluation in China: Latest trends and future directions. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25, 231-250. Liu, S., Xu, X., & Stronge, J. (2018). The influences of teachers’ perceptions of using student
achievement data in evaluation and their self-efficacy on job satisfaction: evidence
from China. Asia Pacific Education Review, 19(4), 493–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-018-9552-7
Lochmiller, C.R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research:
Connecting methods to practice. SAGE. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current
Directions in Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 15(5), 265–268. Lu, Z. (2022). Exploration and thinking of class management under the Double Reduction
Policy. Advances in Educational Technology and Psychology, 6(6), 94-98. Marzano, R. J. (2012). The two purposes of teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 14–19. Marzano, R. J., & Toth, M. D. (2013). Teacher evaluation that makes a dif erence: A new
model for teacher growth and student achievement. Association for Supervision &
Curriculum Development.
141
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ministry of Education. (2001). Curriculum reform guidelines for compulsory education (No. 17). http://www.moe.edu.cn/base/jckecheng/
Ministry of Education. (2008). Guidelines to teacher performance evaluation in compulsory
schools (No15). Retrieved from
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_670/201001/xxgk_81
469.html
Ministry of Education. (2020). Notification on distributing national curriculum framework
and national curriculum standards in compulsory education. https://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A26/s8001/202204/t20220420_619921.html
Ministry of Education. (2020). Notification on distributing national curriculum framework
and national curriculum standards in senior secondary school. https://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A26/s8001/202006/t20200603_462199.html
Ministry of Education. (2023). Statistical bulletin on national education development in 2022. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/sjzl_fztjgb/202307/t20230705_1067278.html
National Education Association. (2010). Teacher assessment and evaluation: The National
Education Association’s framework for transforming education systems to support
ef ective teaching and improve student learning. U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED583104.pdf
OECD. (2020a). Benchmarking the performance of China’s education system. PISA. OECD
Publishing. OECD. (2009a). Creating ef ective teaching and learning environments: First results from
TALIS. OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD. (2016). Education in China-A snapshot. OECD Publishing.
142
OECD. (2009b). Evaluating and rewarding the quality of teachers: International practices. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264034358-en
OECD. (2013a). Synergies for better learning: An international perspective on evaluation
and assessment. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong
learners. TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en
OECD. (2020b). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and school leaders as valued
professionals. TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en. OECD. (2013b). Teachers for the 21st century: Using evaluation to improve teaching. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Selecting samples and administering surveys (Part 2 of 3) (REL 2016–160). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional
Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands. Rindler. B. H. (1994). The attributes of teacher evaluation systems that promote teacher
growth as perceived by teachers of intensive English programs. ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing. Ross, P. T., & Bibler Zaidi, N. L. (2019). Limited by our limitations. Perspectives on Medical
Education, 8, 261-264. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions
and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
143
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-Determination Theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual ef ects of teachers on future
student academic achievement (No. R11-0435-02-001-97). Knoxville: University of
Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center. Santiago, P., & Benavides, F. (2009), Teacher Evaluation: A Conceptual Framework and
Examples of Country Practices. OECD Publishing, Paris. State Council of China. (2006). Compulsory education law. https://www.gov.cn/guoqing/2021-10/29/content_5647617.htm
State Council of China. (2008). Guidelines to the implementation of performance pay in
compulsory schools (No. 15). www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/s6052/moe_838/tnull_42745.html
State Council of China. (2012). Suggestions of the State Council on strengthening the
building up of the ranks of teachers (No. 41). https://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xxgk/moe_1777/moe_1778/201209/t20120907_141772. html
Stiggins, R.J. & Duke, D.L. (1988). The case for commitment to teacher growth:
Research on teacher evaluation. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press. Stiggins, R. J., & Nickel, P. (1989). The teacher evaluation profile: A technical
analysis. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 2, 151-165. Stronge, J. H. (2010). Assessing teacher ef ectiveness: Eight research-based standards for
assessing teacher excellence. Larchmont: Eye On Education.
144
Stronge, J. (2013). Evaluating what good teachers do: Eight research-based standards for
assessing teacher excellence. Routledge. Stronge, J., & Tucker, P. (2020). Handbook on teacher evaluation with CD-ROM. Routledge. Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., Tucker, P. D., & Hindman, J. L. (2008). What is the relationship
between teacher quality and student achievement? An exploratory study. Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20(3–4), 165–184. UNESCO. (2012). International standard classification of education: ISCED 2011. Montreal:
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Wang, Q., Luo, X., & Yang, J. (2022). Understanding China’s double reduction policy on
educational economy. Global Economic Observer, 10(1), 63–69. Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national
failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. The Education
Digest. 75 (2), 31–35. Wheeler, P. H., & Scriven, M. (1997). Building the foundation: Teacher roles and
responsibilities. Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice, 27-58. Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on
student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 11, 57–67. Xinhuanet. (2021). “Double reduction” policy adds strength to China’s education reform. https://english.news.cn/20211229/4dc124fe4f8e42978f1b636e1b3e4a97/c.html
Yang, C., & Jiang, J. (2009). Synthesis of primary and secondary school teacher evaluation in
China. Education Exploration, 213, 59-60.
145
Ying, P. C., & Fan, G.R. (2001). Case Study on Teacher Evaluation Patterns – on the
Limitations of Traditional Pattern of Teacher Evaluation and Exploration of a New
Pattern. Theory and Practice of Education 21(3), 22–25. Zhang, W. (2023). Exploring double reduction policy, social justice, equity-centered
pedagogy, and whole person education for school effectiveness and student outcome
in China. Global Scientific and Academic Research Journal of Multidisciplinary
Studies, 2(8), 1-13.
146
Appendix A
Survey Items
PART ONE: TEACHER EVALUATION PROFILE
TEACHER EVALUATION PROFILE
The Definition of Teacher Evaluation
Teacher evaluation takes different forms in different programs. For the purpose of this study, teacher
evaluation procedures may include all or some of the following: Classroom observations, student/parent
evaluation of teachers, meetings with teacher evaluators, peer evaluation, examination of lesson plans, materials or other artifacts, self-evaluation , student achievement. When reference is made in this
questionnaire to teacher evaluation, it should be understood to encompass any of these procedures that are
followed in the evaluation program within your school. Overview
This form has been designed to allow you to describe in some detail your most recent
experience with teacher evaluation in your school. Your responses will be combined with those of other
teachers to yield a picture of the key components in the teacher evaluation processes for teachers in four
middle schools under JEG. The goal of this survey is to determine how the teacher evaluation process
motivates teachers to improve their professional practice. Your honest responses are important to reach this
goal and will remain confidential. While this questionnaire is designed to be comprehensive in scope, it will take only a short time to
complete. Please follow the instructions carefully and set aside about 20-30 uninterrupted minutes to
provide thoughtful responses. Instructions
Please use the scales provided on the following pages to describe yourself and the nature of your most
recent teacher evaluation experience in your school. Do this by: Considering each of the items carefully, studying the scale to be used to describe each, click on the bullet under the number on the scale that best
represents your response. Thank you for your participation. Please reflect on your most recent experience with the evaluation process in your school. Consider the
entire evaluation process including planning for evaluation, observations, or other procedures and feedback. Section 1: Demographic Questions
Please answer the following demographic questions. 1. What is your gender?
○ Male
○ Female
○ Prefer not to say
2. What is the highest degree or level of education you have completed?
○ High School
○ Bachelor's degree
○ Master's degree
○ Doctorate
3. Including the current school year, how many years of teaching experience do you have?________
147
4. What subject do you teach (you may select more than one)?
○ Chinese
○ English
○ Mathematics
○ Physics
○ Chemistry
○ History
○ Politics
○ Biology
○ Geography
○ Arts, Music, Dance and Drama
○ Sports
○ Other - please specify______
5. Are you a homeroom teacher?
○ Yes
○ No
6. Are you a classroom teacher with an administrative role in your school (For example, Head of
Department, Year-group Leader, Academic Affairs Office, Student Affairs Office, but excluding the
position of homeroom teacher)?
○ Yes
○ No
Section 2: Overall Rating
Please reflect on your most recent experience with the evaluation process in your school. Consider
the entire evaluation process including planning for evaluation, observations, or other procedures
and feedback. 7. Rate the overall quality of the evaluation:
Very poor quality 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very high quality
8. Rate the overall impact of the evaluation on your professional practices. (Note: A rating of 10 would
reflect a strong impact leading to profound changes in your teaching practices, attitudes about teaching, and /or understanding of the teaching profession. A rating of 1 would reflect no impact at all and not
changes in your practices, attitudes, and/or understanding.)
No impact 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strong impact
Section 3. Rating Attributes of Evaluation
A. Describe yourself in relation to the following attributes:
9. The strength of your professional expectations
I demand little 1 2 3 4 5 I demand a great deal
10. Orientation to risk-taking
I avoid risks 1 2 3 4 5 I take risks
11. Orientation to change
I am relatively slow to change 1 2 3 4 5 I am relatively flexible
12. Orientation to experimentation in your classroom
I don’t experiment 1 2 3 4 5 I experiment frequently
148
13. Openness to criticism
I am relatively closed 1 2 3 4 5 I am relatively open
14. Knowledge of technical aspects of teaching
I know a little 1 2 3 4 5 I know a great deal
15. Knowledge of curriculum content
I know a little 1 2 3 4 5 I know a great deal
16. Experience with teacher evaluation prior to most recent
Waste of time 1 2 3 4 5 Very helpful
B. Describe your perceptions of the person who most recently evaluated your performance:
17. Credibility as a source of feedback
Not credible 1 2 3 4 5 Very credible
18. Working relationship with you
Adversary 1 2 3 4 5 Helper
19. Level of trust
Not trustworthy 1 2 3 4 5 Trustworthy
20. Interpersonal manner
Threatening 1 2 3 4 5 Not threatening
21. Temperament
Impatient 1 2 3 4 5 Patient
22. Flexibility
Rigid 1 2 3 4 5 Flexible
23. Knowledge of technical aspect of teaching
Not knowledgeable 1 2 3 4 5 Very knowledgeable
24. Capacity to model or demonstrate needed improvement
Low 1 2 3 4 5 High
25. Familiarity with your particular teaching assignment
Unfamiliar 1 2 3 4 5 Very familiar
26. Usefulness of suggestions for improvement
Useless 1 2 3 4 5 Very useful
27. Persuasiveness of rationale for suggestions
Not persuasive 1 2 3 4 5 Very persuasive
C. Describe the attributes of the procedures used during your most recent evaluation: Standards are
the criteria used to evaluate your teaching. Describe the procedures related to standards in the items
below:
28. Were standards communicated to you?
Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 In great detail
29. Were the standards clear to you?
Vague 1 2 3 4 5 Very clear
149
30. Were standards endorsed by you as appropriate for your teaching assignment?
Not endorsed 1 2 3 4 5 Highly endorsed
31. Were the standards
The same for all 1 2 3 4 5 Tailored for your teachers’ unique needs
To what extent were the following sources of performance information considered as part of the
evaluation?
32. Observation of your classroom performance
Not considered 1 2 3 4 5 Used extensively
33. Meetings with evaluator
Not considered 1 2 3 4 5 Used extensively
34. Examination of artifacts
Not considered 1 2 3 4 5 Used extensively
35. Examination of student performance
Not considered 1 2 3 4 5 Used extensively
36. Student evaluations
Not considered 1 2 3 4 5 Used extensively
37. Peer evaluations
Not considered 1 2 3 4 5 Used extensively
38. Self-evaluations
Not considered 1 2 3 4 5 Used extensively
Describe the extent of the observations of your classroom, based on your most recent evaluation
experience in your school. (Note: In these items, formal refers to observations that were pre- announced and/or were accompanied by a pre- or post conference with the evaluator; informal
refers to unannounced drop-in visits.)
39. Number of formal observations per year
1. 0 Observations
2. 1 Observation
3. 2 Observations
4. 3 Observations
5. 4 Observations or more
40. Approximate frequency of informal observations per year
1. None
2. Less than 1 per month
3. Observations Once per month
4. Observations Once per week
5. Daily
D. Please describe the attributes of the feedback you received during your last evaluation experience:
41. Amount of information received
None 1 2 3 4 5 Great deal
42. Frequency of formal feedback
Infrequent 1 2 3 4 5 Frequent
150
43. Frequency of informal feedback
Infrequent 1 2 3 4 5 Frequent
44. Depth of information provided
Shallow 1 2 3 4 5 In-depth
45. Quality of the ideas and suggestions contained in the feedback
Low 1 2 3 4 5 High
46. Specificity of information provided
General 1 2 3 4 5 Specific
47. Nature of information provided
Judgmental 1 2 3 4 5 Descriptive
48. Timing of feedback
Delayed 1 2 3 4 5 Immediate
49. Feedback focused on teaching standards
Ignored the standards 1 2 3 4 5 Reflected the teaching standards
E. Please describe these attributes of the evaluation context:
Resources available for evaluation:
50. Amount of time spent on the evaluation process
None 1 2 3 4 5 Great deal
51. Time allotted during the semester for professional development
None 1 2 3 4 5 Great deal
52. Availability of training programs and models of good practices
None 1 2 3 4 5 Great deal
School values and policies in evaluation:
53. Clarity of policy statements regarding purpose of evaluation
Vague 1 2 3 4 5 Very clear
54. Intended role of evaluation
Teacher accountability 1 2 3 4 5 Teacher growth
PART TWO: PERCEPTIONS OF EFFECTIVE TEACHER
EVALUATION
Q55-Q59:
The commonly used criteria and standards of teacher evaluation include 5 categories, namely Planning and
Preparation, Classroom Environment, Instruction, Professional Responsibilities and Student Growth. Please select the items within each category based on your personal beliefs. 55. Please indicate the extent to which the following criteria and standards that you think should be
evaluated in the category of Teacher Planning and Preparation. Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree
a. Demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy
b. Demonstrating knowledge of students
151
Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree
c. Setting instructional outcomes d. Demonstrating knowledge of resources e. Designing coherent
instruction
f. Designing student assessments 56. Please indicate the extent to which the following criteria and standards that you think should be
evaluated in the category of Teacher Classroom Environment. Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree
a. Creating an environment of respect and rapport
b. Establishing a Culture for Learning
c. Managing Classroom
Procedures d. Managing Student
Behavior e. Organizing physical space 57. Please indicate the extent to which the following criteria and standards that you think should be
evaluated in the category of Instruction. Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree
a. Communicating with
students b. Using questioning and
discussion techniques c. Engaging students in
learning
d. Using assessment in
instruction
e. Demonstrating flexibility
and responsiveness 58. Please indicate the extent to which the following criteria and standards that you think should be
evaluated in the category of Professional Responsibilities. Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree
a. Reflecting on teaching
b. Maintaining accurate
records c. Communicating with
families d. Participating in a professional community
e. Growing and developing
professionally
f. Showing professionalism
152
59. Select the following criteria and standards that you think should be evaluated in the category of Student
Growth. Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree
a. Standardized test results
such as Zhongkao (High
School Entrance) exam
b. Midterm and/or Final exams c. Formative assessment
60. How many formal evaluations do you think a teacher should receive from an effective teacher
evaluation system in a school year?
○ None
○ 1
○ 2
○ 3
○ 4 or more
61. How many informal evaluations do you think a teacher should receive from an effective teacher
evaluation system in a school year?
○ None
○ 1; Less than 1 per month
○ 2; Once per month
○ 3; Once per week
○ 4 or more; Daily
62. For each of the measures (instruments) of teacher effectiveness, please indicate the extent to which you
think a teacher should be evaluated based on. Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree
a. Classroom observations b. Principal evaluations c. Evaluations by peers within the same teaching
content area d. Self-evaluation
e. Students performance
f. Classroom artifacts and
portfolios g. Students ratings h. Parents ratings
i. Teacher testing
63. Classroom teachers are currently involved in the process of constructing the teacher evaluation system
in your school. Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree 64. Classroom teachers should be involved in the process of constructing the teacher evaluation system in
your school. Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree 65. Differentiated evaluation models or criteria should be used to evaluate teachers teaching different
subjects. Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree
153
66. An evaluator in an effective evaluation system should be trained properly before evaluating any
teachers, even if he or she is provided with a detailed teacher evaluation protocol. Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree 67. For each of the areas listed below, please indicate the extent to which you currently need professional
development. No need
at present
Low level of need
Moderate level of need
High level of need
a. Knowledge and understanding of my
subject field(s)
b. Pedagogical competencies in
teaching my subject field(s) c. Knowledge of the curriculum
d. Student assessment practices e. ICT (information and communication
technology) skills for teaching
f. Student behavior and classroom
management
g. School management and
administration
h. Approaches to individualized
learning
i. Teaching students with special needs
j. Teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting
k. Teaching cross-curricular skills (e.g. creativity, critical thinking, problem
solving)
l. Analysis and use of student assessments m. Teacher-parent/guardian co- operation
n. Communicating with people from
different cultures or countries 68. Select the the following professional development activities that you wish to participate in your school
(select all that apply)
○ a. Courses/seminars attended in person
○ b. Online courses/seminars
○ c. Education conferences where teachers and/or researchers present their research or discuss
educational issues
○ d. Formal qualification programme (e.g. a degree programme)
○ e. Observation visits to other schools
○ f. Observation visits to business premises, public organizations, or nongovernmental organizations
○ g. Peer and/or self-observation and coaching as part of a formal school arrangement
○ h. Participation in a network of teachers formed specifically for the professional development of
teachers
○ i. Reading professional literature
○ h. Other (if you have chosen none of the above)
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This quantitative study focused on exploring effective teacher evaluation practices and associated professional development needs for teachers in China. Conducted in four middle schools of the JE Group in Dalian, Liaoning province, and guided by motivation theories, the study aimed to support the implementation of a more comprehensive and responsive teacher evaluation system. Teachers' perceptions on their current evaluation experiences, desired evaluation practices, and professional development requirements were surveyed.
Key findings indicated that teachers perceived the current evaluation system as inadequate, especially in terms of context and standards. They preferred a multifaceted approach with specific instruments and informal feedback, emphasizing teacher involvement, differentiated evaluation models, and evaluator training. The study also revealed teachers' professional development needs in areas such as individualized learning, student behavior and classroom management, and cross-curricular teaching skills. Recommendations call for an enhanced evaluation system that is objective, fair, useful, and comprehensive, ensuring refined contextual attributes, clearly defined criteria, multiple evaluation sources, opportunities for professional growth, evaluator training and teacher involvement. Overall, this study highlights the significance of a teacher evaluation system that nurtures teacher growth and responds to teachers' needs, which ultimately leads to improved educational quality and student performance. It also underscores China's education reforms that increasingly look to move away from the singular focus on test scores to the promotion of the comprehensive and healthy growth of students. It serves as a call for stakeholders to rethink teacher evaluation for the betterment of teachers and students in China.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Understanding digital transformation of early childhood pre-service teacher education in China
PDF
The teacher evaluation: key components that positively impact teacher effectiveness and student achievement
PDF
Perceptions of professional development from the lens of the global teacher in a rapidly evolving, linguistically diverse instructional environment
PDF
Career planning education in China and path optimization in the context of Chinese new national college entrance examination
PDF
Assessing the needs of teachers when creating educational technology professional development for an urban charter school district: an innovation study
PDF
Teacher retention in an urban, predominately Black school district: an improvement study in the Deep South
PDF
A gap analysis on improving teacher retention in kindergarten: a case of a private kindergarten in Hong Kong
PDF
An evaluation study of effectiveness of continuous professional development in Ethiopia
PDF
Understanding teacher burnout through a lens of hope in high-poverty schools
PDF
In-service teacher training in Pakistan’s elite private primary schools – lessons for Pakistan’s public schools
PDF
Success in the sticky: exploring the professional learning and instructional practices that are sticky for distinguished secondary STEM educators of students historically…
PDF
Efficacy drivers that aid teacher professional development transfer
PDF
Teacher perceptions of evaluation policy in Hawaii
PDF
Examining teachers’ perceptions of diversity, equity, and inclusion professional development
PDF
Building computations thinking through teaching of computer programming: an evaluation of learning centers in China
PDF
Perceptions of early childhood educators on how reflective supervision influences instructional effectiveness and teacher wellbeing
PDF
Growing international student enrollment from developing markets
PDF
The role of U.S. historic sites and museums in supporting social studies instruction in K-12 classrooms
PDF
Imagining an equitable child care system
PDF
Creative trouble: an exploration of elementary classroom teachers' perceptions of their roles in educational justice
Asset Metadata
Creator
Zhang, Yunkui
(author)
Core Title
Teachers' perceptions of an effective teacher evaluation system and its key components in China
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Global Executive
Degree Conferral Date
2024-08
Publication Date
09/04/2024
Defense Date
07/16/2024
Publisher
Los Angeles, California
(original),
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
cognitive evaluation theory,goal-setting theory,intrinsic motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,teacher effectiveness,teacher evaluation,Teacher Evaluation Profile
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Krop, Cathy (
committee chair
), Filback, Rob (
committee member
), Picus, Larry (
committee member
)
Creator Email
yunkuizh@usc.edu,yunkuizhang@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC11399A77A
Unique identifier
UC11399A77A
Identifier
etd-ZhangYunku-13482.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-ZhangYunku-13482
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Zhang, Yunkui
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20240904-usctheses-batch-1207
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
cognitive evaluation theory
goal-setting theory
intrinsic motivation
professional development
teacher effectiveness
teacher evaluation
Teacher Evaluation Profile