A Study of Primary School Teachers’ Attitudes toward Teacher Evaluation for Professional Development and Teaching Effectiveness in the Remote Districts
Hsiu-Ping Huang 1  
,  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
National Taitung University, Taiwan
2
Kaohsiung Shou Tian Elementary School, Taiwan
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Hsiu-Ping Huang   

National Taitung University, Taiwan
Online publish date: 2017-08-26
Publish date: 2017-08-26
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2017;13(8):5949–5960
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to explore the primary school teachers’ attitudes toward teacher evaluation for professional development (TEPD) and teaching effectiveness in remote districts. The questionnaire survey method was adopted in this study, formal questionnaires were distributed to 500 elementary school teachers in Kaohsiung and Pingtung areas by stratified random sampling, 446 questionnaires were returned, 393 were answered completely, the valid return rate was 88.12%. The findings were as follows: (1) The attitudes toward teacher evaluation for professional development among primary school teachers in remote districts was above average, with the most positive attitudes toward “evaluation outcome application”. (2) Teachers in remote districts in Kaohsiung and Pingtung had a favorable perception in teaching effectiveness, with the most favorable perception in “teaching assessment and classroom management”. (3) There are differences among primary school teachers’ attitudes toward teacher evaluation for professional development in seniority, experience of participating in TEPD and school districts. (4) The primary school teachers’ attitudes on teaching effectiveness have middle to high performance. However, no difference was observed on teachers’ various backgrounds of gender, age, highest academic degree, post, seniority, experience of participating in TEPD, and school location in remote districts. (5) The primary school teachers’ attitudes toward teacher evaluation for professional development show low positive correlation with their teaching effectiveness at various dimensions.
 
REFERENCES (21)
1.
Celep, C., & Eminoglu, E. (2010). Primary school teacher’s experience with mobbing and teacher’s self-efficacy perceptions. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4761-4774.
 
2.
Chan, P. H. (2012). The study of decision-making capability of administrative management to the schools at the typhoon high risk zone. Journal of Educational Administration Research, 2(1), 203-241.
 
3.
Chang, D. R. (2002). Improving the teaching effectiveness of teachers by teaching portfolio. Journal of Education Research, 104, 25-31.
 
4.
Chang, D. R., Cho, L. H., & Lee, C. D. (2009). A case study on formative teacher evaluation process and its impact in an elementary school. Curriculum and Instruction Quarterly, 12(3), 265-290.
 
5.
Chen, J. L. (2010). A study on teacher professional growth under the teacher professional development evaluation. School Administration, 66, 188-207.
 
6.
Chen, T. T. (2011). A study on teacher profession developmental evaluation and its forecast: a case study in Hsinchu County. School Administration, 76, 220-233.
 
7.
Cheng, S. H., & Pan, H. L. (2013). Process and outcome evaluation on a national pilot program: a case of secondary school teacher evaluation for professional development. Secondary education, 64(2), 78-97.
 
8.
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social- emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1189- 1204.
 
9.
Fishler, J. L., & Firestone, W. A. (2006). Teacher learning in a school-university partnership: Exploring the role of social trust and teaching efficacy beliefs. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1155-1188.
 
10.
Gabriel, J. G. (2005). How to thrive as a teacher leader. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
 
11.
Harris, D. G. (1985). Faculty and administrative perceptions of post-secondary occupational staff development. University of Houston.
 
12.
Hsu, C. C., & Wu, C. H. (2014). Those engaged in the professional development of teachers in remote schools difficulties and suggestions. School Administration, 90, 108-126. doi:10.3966/160683002014030090005.
 
13.
Huang, H. P. (2009). Teacher evaluation for professional development: current status, obstacles, and possible solutions. Educational Resources and Research, 89, 71-88.
 
14.
Labone, E. (2004). Teacher efficacy: maturing the construct through research in alternative paradigms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 341-359.
 
15.
Ministry of Education (2015). All levels of school directory. Retrieved from http://www.edu.tw/pages/detail....
 
16.
Pan, W. F. (2012). Case study on choice of school-based teacher evaluation criteria for professional development. Journal of Teacher Education and Professional Development, 5(1), 75-98.
 
17.
Peers, C. E., Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (2003). Supports and concerns for teacher professional growth during the implementation of a science curriculum innovation. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 89-110.
 
18.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing and elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
 
19.
Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: an international review of the literature. In UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning. Retrieved from http://www.nnesco.org/iiep.
 
20.
Yeung, K. W., & Watkins, D. (2000). Hong Kong student teachers’ personal construction of teacher efficacy. Educational Psychology, 20(2), 213-235.
 
21.
Yu, T. H., & Huang, H. P. (2016). A case study on the implementation of teacher evaluation for professional development in a Pingtung County elementary school. Yu Da Academic Journal, 42, 1-14.
 
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215