Abstract
Reporting on the results of a sequential mixed-methods study conducted in the Iranian higher education context, this paper addressed measures and features of teacher effectiveness evaluation from EFL lecturers’ perspectives. In so doing, two groups of lecturers were recruited to participate in quantitative (n = 43) and qualitative (n = 14) phases of the research. The findings obtained from a researcher-developed questionnaire and semi-structured interviews were threefold. First, five independent evaluation measures (SETs/students’ ratings, student learning outcomes, peer evaluation, self-evaluation, and observation) were introduced. Second, features of a successful teacher evaluation system were discussed. Third, evidence for a differentiated teacher appraisal model was presented. The model discussed called for L2-specific features in L2 teacher effectiveness evaluation. The findings were imbued with several implications for the main stakeholders, e.g. administrators and teachers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Arthur, J., Winfred, B. J., Winston, E. P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.234.
Bakar, R. (2018). The influence of professional teachers on Padang vocational school students’ achievement. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 39(1), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2017.12.017.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum.
Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2018). Doing interviews (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, J., Kyriakides, L., Muijs, D., & Robinson, W. (2003). Differential teacher effectiveness: Towards a model for research and teacher appraisal. Oxford Review of Education, 29(3), 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980307440.
Campbell, J., Kyriakides, L., Muijs, D., & Robinson, W. (2004a). Assessing teacher effectiveness: Developing a differentied model. London: Routledge.
Campbell, J., Kyriakides, L., Muijs, D., & Robinson, W. (2004b). Effective teaching and values: Some implications for research and teacher appraisal. Oxford Review of Education, 30(4), 451–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498042000303955.
Caughlan, S., & Jiang, H. (2014). Observation and teacher quality. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(5), 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114541546.
Cheng, Y. C., & Tsui, K. T. (1999). Multimodels of teacher effectiveness: Implications for research. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(3), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679909597589.
Cohen, P. A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: A meta-analysis of multisection validity studies. Review of Educational Research, 51(3), 281–309. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543051003281.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Coombe, C. A., Al-Hamly, M., Davidson, P., & Troudi, S. (2007). Evaluating teacher effectiveness in ESL/EFL contexts. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Crandall, J. (2000). Language teacher education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 34–55. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500200032.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.
Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Heilig, J. V. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42), 1–48.
Darling-Hammond, L., Newton, S. P., & Wei, R. C. (2013). Developing and assessing beginning teacher effectiveness: The potential of performance assessments. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(3), 179–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9163-0.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5–6), 523–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00015-9.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Doyle, W. (1977). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. Review of Research in Education, 5, 163–198. https://doi.org/10.2307/1167174.
Feldman, K. A. (2007). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings 1. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 93–143). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Gallagher, H. A. (2004). Vaughn elementary’s innovative teacher evaluation system: Are teacher evaluation scores related to growth in student achievement? Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 79–107. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327930pje7904_5.
Gillham, B. (2008). Developing a questionnaire (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.
Goe, L., Bell, C., & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness: 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.
Greenwald, A. G. (1997). Validity concerns and usefulness of student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1182–1186. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.11.1182.
Griffin, B. W. (2004). Grading leniency, grade discrepancy, and student ratings of instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(4), 410–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2003.11.001.
Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. Essex: Pearson Longman.
Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2010). Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice. New York: Guilford Publications.
Hornstein, H. A. (2017). Student evaluations of teaching are an inadequate assessment tool for evaluating faculty performance. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1304016. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1304016.
Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. New York, NY: Routledge.
Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kane, T. J., Rockoff, J. E., & Staiger, D. O. (2008). What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education Review, 27(6), 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.05.005.
Kelly, S. (2009). Tracking teachers. In L. J. Saha & A. G. Dworkin (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers and teaching (Vol. 21, pp. 451–461). New York, NY: Springer.
Kierstead, D., D’Agostino, P., & Dill, H. (1988). Sex role stereotyping of college professors: Bias in students’ ratings of instructors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 342–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.342.
Kohut, G. F., Burnap, C., & Yon, M. G. (2007). Peer observation of teaching: Perceptions of the observer and the observed. College Teaching, 55(1), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.55.1.19-25.
Kupermintz, H. (2003). Teacher effects and teacher effectiveness: A validity investigation of the Tennessee value added assessment system. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(3), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737025003287.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interivews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kyriakides, L. (2007). Generic and differentiated models of educational effectiveness: Implications for the improvement of educational practice. In T. Townsend (Ed.), International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement (pp. 41–56). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Kyriakides, L., Campbell, R. J., & Christofidou, E. (2002). Generating criteria for measuring teacher effectiveness through a self-evaluation approach: A complementary way of measuring teacher effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(3), 291–325. https://doi.org/10.1076/sesi.13.3.291.3426.
Looney, J. (2011). Developing high-quality teachers: Teacher evaluation for improvement. European Journal of Education, 46(4), 440–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2011.01492.x.
Marsh, H. W. (2007). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and usefulness. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 319–383). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Mazandarani, O. (2014). EFL lecturers’ perceptions of teacher effectiveness and teacher evaluation in Iranian universities. Doctoral Thesis. University of Exeter, Exeter.
Mazandarani, O. (2020). The status quo of L2 vis-à-vis general teacher education. Educational Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1729101.
Mazandarani, O., & Troudi, S. (2017). Teacher evaluation: What counts as an effective teacher? In S. Hidri & C. Coombe (Eds.), Evaluation in foreign language education in the Middle East and North Africa. Cham: Springer.
McBer, H. (2000). Research into teacher effectiveness: A model of teacher effectiveness. Research Report No. 216. London: Report by Hay McBer to the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE).
Middlewood, D. (2001). The future of managing teacher performance and its appraisal. In D. Middlewood & C. E. M. Cardno (Eds.), Managing teacher appraisal and performance: A comparative approach (pp. 180–195). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Muijs, D., Kyriakides, L., van der Werf, G., Creemers, B., Timperley, H., & Earl, L. (2014). State of the art – teacher effectiveness and professional learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885451.
Nygaard, C., & Belluigi, D. Z. (2011). A proposed methodology for contextualised evaluation in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(6), 657–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003650037.
Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London: Continuum.
Ostovar Namaghi, S. A. (2010). A data-driven conceptualization of teacher evaluation. The Qualitative Report, 15(6), 1504–1522.
Peer, E., & Babad, E. (2014). The Doctor Fox research (1973) rerevisited: “Educational seduction” ruled out. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033827.
Peterson, K. D. (1987). Teacher evaluation with multiple and variable lines of evidence. American Educational Research Journal, 24(2), 311–317. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312024002311.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Elam, G. (2003). Designing and selecting samples. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 77–108). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Ryans, D. G. (1949). The criteria of teaching effectiveness. The Journal of Educational Research, 42(9), 690–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1949.10881737.
Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., & Horn, S. P. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1007999204543.
Shinkfield, A. J. (1994). Principal and peer evaluation of teachers for professional development. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8(3), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00973724.
Shinkfield, A. J., & Stufflebeam, D. L. (1996). Teacher evaluation: Guide to effective practice. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Spooren, P., Brockx, B., & Mortelmans, D. (2013). On the validity of student evaluation of teaching: The state of the art. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 598–642. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313496870.
Stodolsky, S. S. (1984). Teacher evaluation: The limits of looking. Educational Researcher, 13(9), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X013009011.
Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., & Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111404241.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292430.
Tucker, P. D., & Stronge, J. H. (2005). Linking teacher evaluation and student learning. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Ware, J. E. J., & Williams, R. G. (1975). The Dr. Fox effect: A study of lecturer effectiveness and ratings of instruction. Academic Medicine, 50(2), 149–156.
Wilkerson, D. J., Manatt, R. P., Rogers, M. A., & Maughan, R. (2000). Validation of student, principal, and self-ratings in 360° feedback® for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008158904681.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Close-ended questionnaire
Appendix: Close-ended questionnaire
Please read each statement and put a tick under your chosen response.
Item no. | Statement | Response | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Strongly agree | agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Disagree | Strongly disagree | ||
1. | Different stakeholders’ voices e.g. teachers, students, administrators, etc. who have a stake in teaching, should be heard and incorporated into the appraisal model | |||||
2. | A friendly personality is important to teacher effectiveness | |||||
3. | An EFL teacher effectiveness model needs to be evaluated upon TEFL-specific subject criteria rather than generic education criteria | |||||
4. | Teacher s’ appraisal should mostly focus on formative purposes, i.e. professional development | |||||
5. | Teachers’ appraisal should mostly focus on summative purposes, e.g. promotion, tenure, etc | |||||
6. | Teacher effectiveness appraisal should mainly focus on teachers’ performance | |||||
7. | Administrators (e.g. Dean, Head of department) should adopt a multi-measure rather than a single-measure approach towards teacher effectiveness appraisal | |||||
8. | Appraisal models mainly depend on students ratings with less attention given to other stakeholders such as teachers | |||||
9. | Teachers’ self-evaluation will help them reflect on their own teaching practices | |||||
10. | Teachers’ beliefs tend to exert influence on teacher effectiveness | |||||
11. | Self-evaluation should be used for formative purposes | |||||
12. | Self-evaluation should be used for summative purposes | |||||
13. | Peer evaluation contributes to the improvement of teacher effectiveness | |||||
14. | Colleagues who evaluate a faculty need to be skilled in evaluation | |||||
15. | Peer evaluation could be used for summative evaluation | |||||
16. | Teacher s’ gender tends to exert influence on students’ ratings | |||||
17. | Teacher s’ age tends to have impacts on students’ ratings | |||||
18. | Teachers who give high marks tend to be rated as more effective by students | |||||
19. | Students should be informed of the criteria for identifying an effective teacher | |||||
20. | The easier the course, the higher the students’ ratings of their teachers | |||||
21. | It is a good idea to collect students’ ratings in mid-semester in order to eliminate the “grading bias” effect | |||||
22. | Students’ learning outcome is highly vulnerable to student-specific factors which are beyond teachers’ control | |||||
23. | An effective teacher might be less effective with a particular group of students or a particular course | |||||
24. | Students’ learning outcomes (e.g. test results, achievement) can be a good indicator of teacher effectiveness | |||||
25. | Administrators’ (e.g. Dean, Head of Department, etc.) appraisal is subjective and biased | |||||
26. | Teachers are not willing to be evaluated by an external observer | |||||
27. | Teacher effectiveness should be evaluated based upon a set of transparent standards/criteria | |||||
28. | Teachers need to be convinced of the fairness of the evaluation system through which they are assessed | |||||
29. | There is a direct correlation between teacher s’ level of academic qualifications and their effectiveness | |||||
30. | Universities from which teachers have graduated are influential factors in their effectiveness | |||||
31. | An effective teacher has excellent pedagogical skills | |||||
32. | Teachers’ subject knowledge lies at the heart of teacher effectiveness | |||||
33. | Effective EFL teachers should have TEFL-driven understanding of teaching | |||||
34. | Teacher leadership contributes to teacher’s effectiveness | |||||
35. | Teachers’ personal traits (e.g. patience) play an important role in their effectiveness | |||||
36. | Teachers’ language proficiency does not contribute to teacher effectiveness | |||||
37. | Effective language teachers should consider Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) in their teaching practices | |||||
38. | Effective language teachers dedicate themselves to their students to the extent that their needs are met | |||||
39. | Effective teachers are open to their students’ voices | |||||
40. | Teacher authority is the keystone of the notion of teacher effectiveness | |||||
41. | Effective teachers are accountable to other stakeholders, e.g. students, administrators, etc. | |||||
42. | An effective teacher respects the students | |||||
43. | An effective language teacher engages all students in classroom activities | |||||
44. | EFL teachers should have the required knowledge of curriculum development, lesson plan, syllabus design, etc. | |||||
45. | An effective TEFL teacher is familiar with assessment strategies for assessing learners’ different language skills | |||||
46. | Effective language teachers tend to be sensitive to important issues such as students’ race, social class, etc. | |||||
47. | Teachers’ experience is a cornerstone of their teaching effectiveness | |||||
48. | An effective teacher establishes a friendly environment in the classroom | |||||
49. | An effective teacher knows how to deal with unexpected situations in the classroom | |||||
50. | An effective teacher should be innovative | |||||
51. | I am not well-aware of the evaluation system and the appraisal model adopted by administrators for evaluating teacher effectiveness in the Iranian higher education | |||||
52. | The existing appraisal model used in the Iranian higher education is a reliable and valid indicator of my teaching effectiveness | |||||
53. | External observation should be considered as a measure of evaluation in the Iranian appraisal model | |||||
54. | Power relations might dominate teacher appraisal | |||||
55. | Universities should have units that provide technical and general advice to less effective teachers | |||||
56. | I am happy with the existing appraisal model adopted in my university | |||||
57. | There is a need to revisit the existing Iranian appraisal model | |||||
58. | Developing an accredited professional preparation programme will not help teachers gain the required skills | |||||
59. | Educational leadership tends to exert influence on teacher effectiveness | |||||
60. | National curriculum and syllabi are important factors in promoting teachers effectiveness | |||||
61. | Designing a good teacher education programme (TEP) for pre-service teachers can contribute to their teaching effectiveness | |||||
62. | Staff development programme such as Teacher Development Programme (TDP) can promote teacher effectiveness | |||||
63. | The Iranian appraisal model needs to be informed by the political, cultural and social specificities in Iranian context | |||||
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mazandarani, O., Troudi, S. Measures and features of teacher effectiveness evaluation: perspectives from Iranian EFL lecturers. Educ Res Policy Prac 21, 19–42 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-021-09290-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-021-09290-0