@phdthesis{discovery10006703,
          school = {Institute of Education, University of London},
            note = {Thesis: PHD University of London Institute of Education, 1979.},
           title = {A critique of criteria of teacher effectiveness with particular reference to the assessment of practical teaching},
            year = {1979},
             url = {http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.454687},
          author = {Ellis, J W},
        abstract = {On the basis of the relevant literature it was established that there was a need to conduct an investigation into the development of criteria
of teacher effectiveness in two stages. Phase I of the expe{\texttt{\char126}}ent .as
designed to examine the effect of using a prepared evaluation inst{\texttt{\char126}}nt
(with and without training in its use) on students' self assessments,
and tutors' and head-teachers' assessments of students in a teaching
practice situation, and on the differences between the assessmen{\texttt{\char126}}s nade
by the three parties concerned.
Early in their practice periods in three widely dispersed colleges,
assessments were made by all participants on a defined scale (5 point:
A, B, C, D, E without +'s and -'s). Two weeks later "control" g='Oups
('C') made further sUbjective assessments, "evaluation" groups eE')
used the instrument, and "trained" groups ('T') used the same instrtoent
after training involving the use of a simulated video taped teaching
situation.
Appropriate tests and analyses, including a factor analysis, were carried
out leading to findings which supported (at an appropriate level of
significance) the hypothesis that: differences in the assessment of
practical teaching between head-teachers, tutors and students are reduced
by the use of a common evaluation instrument, supported by a tr{\texttt{\char126}}ng
session using a video-tape of a classroom situation.
Phase II of the experiment sought further clarification concerni3g those
criteria of specific importance to students, teachers and tutors.
A new sample associated with six teacher training institutions across
the country, having shared in the common experience of assessmen{\texttt{\char126}} of
practical teaching using the instrument designed for Phase I, weighted the
15 sub-categories (i.e. criteria) on the instrument using a deii{\texttt{\char126}}ed
five-point scale. The data were processed, and resulting correla-;ion
matrices and results of factor analyses tabulated to assist those
involved in the planning, implementation and evaluation of professional
studies courses in initial teacher training programmes. The co=pu{\texttt{\char126}}erised
results were interpreted to reveal five criteria:
(i) a'Fre=.oh",ll{\texttt{\char126}} , factor.
(ii) a factor which emphasised the value of 'personal
relationships with children'.
(iii)
(iv)
and (v)
a 'preparation and planning' factor.
a factor drawing attention to the vital skills of
'organisation and teacher performance'.
a 'discipline' factor.
Due consideration was given to validity (content, construct, predictive
and concurrent validity), and reliability of the evaluation instrument
used in the experiment.}
}