Curriculum and Instruction Appraisal Model

Running head: CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION APPRAISAL MODEL

1

Curriculum and Instruction Appraisal Model

Earl F. Cater

University of Phoenix

CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION APPRAISAL MODEL

2

Curriculum and Instruction Appraisal Model

The evaluation of curriculum and instruction represents a

nebulous enterprise managing individual approaches, materials,

methods, and stake-holders in an attempt to improve student

learning (Glatthorn, Boschee, and Whitehead, 2009). Appraisal

models presented by Marshall (2009) provide insight into the

pitfalls and successes of evaluation practices within the school

setting. Observations from these examples demonstrate several

factors held in tension by supporting behaviors. These behaviors

include,

• the value of frequent evaluation with the need for

formative feedback;

• the value of a consistent evaluative structure with the

need to reduce grandstanding;


3

• the value of thorough evaluation with the need for

dialogue;

• the value of a supportive culture with the need for

leadership investment;

• the value of student assessment with the need for

improved instructional method; and

• the value of accurate observation with the need for

relational and tactful communication (Marshall, 2009).

The observed strengths and weaknesses in these models

provided a basis for developing a practical and workable

instruction appraisal model which finds support in the

comparative study completed by May and Zimpher (1986). Adding to

this list, McGuinn (2012) found a need for supportive

communication networks, training modules, and long-term plans.

The Formative Phase

Preparation of a teacher evaluation plan requiring the

creation and application of a structured evaluation rubric

provided invaluable insight in preparation for the design of an

instruction appraisal model. The learning gained from an


4

exercise in evaluation demonstrated the complexity involved in

creating an evaluation model and the potential problems

encountered. Combining these lessons with the examples given by

Marshall (2009) helped form the foundation for building an

appraisal model.

Methods and Approach

Kesson and Henderson (2010) argued the need to return to the

progressive philosophy of Dewey as a guiding parameter for a

curriculum and instruction appraisal model. This guidance

confirms the observations gained from Marshall (2009) and the

insight gained from McGuinn (2012). Following these suggestions,

the process and approach to the formation of a curriculum and

instruction appraisal model require the following method.

Frequent evaluation. Visiting and participating in the

classroom environment of each instructor on an informal and

unannounced visit to the classroom provides for the development

of a congenial, trusting team environment between administration,

teacher and students (Marshall, 2009). These visits coincide

with unit changes to allow for observation of the teaching plan


5

implemented by the instructor (Appendix A). With this model, the

evaluator will make notes on the observation after leaving the

classroom. The evaluator will meet with the instructor for a

formative analysis at an arranged time. The teacher will

complete and discusses the categories on the evaluation form with

the evaluator to create a formative analysis (Appendix B). This

provides a consistent evaluative structure with formative

development and recommendations determined by the teacher in

conjunction with the administrative evaluator.

Formative feedback. Following a model recommended by Davies

(2007) the instructor will complete the evaluation form, make

recommendations for improvement, and compare performance to the

objectives established for the school. With the guidance from

the evaluator, this feedback gains ownership and creates an

opportunity for teacher recommended improvements (Appendix A;

Davies, 2007). This process creates more in-depth content

information about the performance of the instructor while

reducing the pressure which might exist with a transactional

evaluation completed by administration. This process follows the


6

dialogic reflective inquiry model suggested by Gordon in 2008.

The instructor in this model receives help creating a personal

development plan like the one used by the Quaker Valley School

District (2013) wherein reported development became part of the

evaluative process. The learning achieved a thorough evaluation

becomes linked with the need for dialogue through this approach

(Marshall, 2009).

Creating a supportive culture. Using the guidance from

DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker (2008) the evaluator takes leadership

in encouraging staff development on general

themes occurring throughout the school setting. Assigning

research groups to discover answers to problems identified by

several instructors enables deep learning owned by the

instructors (DuFour et al, 2008). The investment of leadership

in creating this environment produces a sense of personal

responsibility for the growth of learning in the classroom with

the mutual support and encouragement of staff.

Using student assessment. Student assessment results used

in evaluation presents a potential conflict in the evaluation


7

process. Unions and contracts may prevent the use of student

results from becoming part of the official district evaluation

process (Marshall, 2009). However, when teachers are taught by

the evaluation staff on how to complete assessments which measure

the results of changes in their instructional process, teachers

can use assessment as process of instructional development. When

the teacher uses this information in conjunction with their self-

evaluation, the statistics can bolster their claim to personal

growth and create opportunity for future development. Using

student assessment in this way preserves the need for accurate

observation information and maintains a relational and tactful

communication model (Kesson & Henderson, 2010). Davies (2007)

used student supplied examples to make personal assessment work

through personal ownership.

Communication methods. Because individuals and the systems

of development matter, this curriculum and instruction appraisal

model will serve as the primary source of communication with the

instructors and exist by internal email, and personal contact

with the teaching staff (Connelly, He, & Phillion, 2008). The


8

model guidelines presented to the teaching staff establishes the

general schedule determining when and how the teacher will meet

with the evaluation staff (Appendix A). The teacher will meet

for dialogue with the evaluator during the first free period

following a visit to the classroom. Because the evaluator basis

the schedule on the teaching plan, the teacher will need to

contact the evaluator if alternative arrangements are required.

During the school year, the teacher will be invited to semester

evaluation meetings with the evaluator by internal email

supported by personal contact. This meeting will review the

development of the teacher for the semester. Additional

communication required will take place through internal email

supported by personal contact from the evaluation staff. This

process protects the understanding of a collaborative effort this

model seeks to establish and follows many of the suggestions made

by Lordon (1986).

The Summative Phase

The summative phase of this curriculum and instruction

appraisal model comes through a collaborative effort between the


9

evaluator and the instructor and involves the standards set

forward by the district. Combining the formative semester

evaluations created by the teacher and evaluator with the

artifacts provided by the teacher forms the foundation to this

evaluation. The teacher creates the evaluation forms after each

observation, discusses these evaluation forms with the evaluator,

and creates an action plan for growth. These forms and any

artifacts presented represent the basis for a collaborative

summative assessment at the end of each semester. The form

produced by the semester evaluations provide the basis for the

formal annual evaluation demonstrating the current personal

development of the instructor (Quaker Valley School District,

2013). Through discussion and consensus, this report both

enables and creates an archived file demonstrating the growth of

the instructor and enabling the personal investment of the

instructor in professional development (Davies, 2007). This

model follows a constructivist approach to instructor development

and allows improving academic standards. (Kesson and Henderson,

2010).


10

Observations and Communication. Through the observation

plan defined in this appraisal model, communication becomes

personal and based on a collaborative relationship

enabling growth in the instructor (Appendix A: Davies, 2007).

The involvement of the instructor in the observation, the

establishment of learning communities, and the formative nature

of the evaluation provides a summative assessment enabling growth

in the instructor (Kesson & Henderson, 2010). The findings from

research of models in use by six states confirm the need for

progressive changes and collaborative involvement in the

evaluation process (McGuinn, 2012).

Conclusion

This model for evaluation of curriculum and instruction

creates an environment where consideration for the development of

the instructor becomes a centerpiece to improved instruction.

Observations from a constructivist perspective seek to build a

collaborative evaluation system that involves the instructor and

staff in improving the learning outcomes for the students. The

models provided by Quaker Valley School District (2012) and Eagle


11

College Prep Elementary Schools (2013) follow a similar plan and

provide encouragement for developing practical and workable

instruction appraisal model which preserves instructor integrity.

References

Connelly, F. M., He, M. F., & Phillion, J. A. (2008). The SAGE

handbook of curriculum and

instruction. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Davies, A. (2007). Involving students in the classroom assessment

process. In D. Reeves (Ed.),

Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching and

learning (pp. 31 - 57). Reston, VA: Solution Tree.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting

professional learning communities at work: New insights for improving schools.

Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Eagle College Prep Elementary Schools (2013). About Us | EAGLE

College Prep Elementary


12

Schools. Retrieved February 21, 2014, from

http://eagleprep.org/about-us

Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., & Whitehead, B. M.

(2009). Curriculum leadership: Strategies for

development and implementation. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Gordon, S. P. (2008). Dialogic reflective inquiry: Integrative

function of instructional

supervision. Catalyst for Change, 35(2), 4 - 11. Retrieved from

http://web.a.ebscohost.

com. ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?

sid=2dc9ad3c-5131-45f6-

9f5c-db4a3efed0f8%40sessionmgr4005&vid=4&hid=4209

Kesson, K. R., & Henderson, J. G. (2010). Reconceptualizing

professional development

for curriculum leadership: Inspired by John Dewey and

informed by Alain

Badiou. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 42(2), 213 - 229.

doi:10.1111/j.1469-

5812.2009.00533.x


13

Lordon, J. (1986). In defense of the preobservation

conference. Educational Leadership, 83, 70-

71. Retrieved from

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com

Marshall, K. (2009). Rethinking teacher supervision and evaluation: How to

work smart, build

collaboration, and close the achievement gap (1st ed.). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

May, W. T., & Zimpher, N. L. (1986). An examination of three

theoretical perspectives on

supervision: Perceptions of preservice field

supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 1(2), 83 - 99.

Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.

ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?

vid=3&sid=2ff1f44c-2b2b-4971-aea2-

5eceeb556108%40sessionmgr4003&hid=4209

McGuinn, P. (2012). The state of teacher evaluation reform (November

2012). Retrieved from


14

Center for American Progress website:

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/M

cGuinn_TheStateofEvaluation-1.pdf

Nolan, J. F., & Hoover, L. A. (2008). Teacher supervision & evaluation:

Theory into practice.

Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Quaker Valley School District (2012). Differentiated teacher supervision &

evaluation plan.

Retrieved from

http://www.qvsd.org/uploaded/District_Files/Forms/District/Superv

_

Eval_Plan.pdf


15

Appendix A. Overview of the Curriculum and Instruction Appraisal

Model

Overview of the Curriculum and Instruction Appraisal Model

This appraisal model seeks to create a collaborative evaluation environment involving instructional and supervisory staff membersin the process of improving instruction and student outcomes. Through mutual investment, the evaluation staff working with the teaching staff will create opportunities for personal growth and improved classroom learning.

1. Classroom Observation. Classroom observation will take place on a random schedule and

usually will occur within each scheduled teaching segment as identified by the instructors teaching plan. This enables a big- picture view of the instructional plan of the instructor and on-going work in the classroom. These observations will come as casual events with evaluator interaction and participation in the classroom. The evaluator will complete notes after the session. The teacher will complete an evaluation rubric form for a meeting with the evaluator.

Please Note: The evaluator expects the teacher to attend a meeting in the evaluator’s office during the next free class


16

period. If the teacher has a conflict with that time, the teacher must make alternative arrangements with the evaluator.

2. Personal Reflection. Following an observation event, the teacher will complete an evaluation

rubric as an instrument to augment growth and improve instruction. The teacher will keep these instruments and bring them to the semester evaluation along with other artifacts relevant to the demonstration of instructional progress.

3. Semester Evaluation. Internal email will schedule the semester evaluation followed with personal contact. The semester evaluation will be reflective in nature and follow the combined rubrics from evaluation events.

4. Student Assessment. The evaluator will recommend assessment of student progress as an

overall collaborative team effort to help develop the means and method for improving

instruction and overall student outcomes.

5. Professional Learning Teams. The development and assignment of professional teams will come as part of the overall evaluation process. Where strength through study can accommodate improved instruction and learning the evaluator will employ this method of development. The evaluator will group teachers for these studies according to observed need. Instructors may recommend research and present a proposal to the evaluator.


17

6. Annual Evaluation. The annual evaluation of each instructor will come out of the formative evaluations, semester evaluation, participation in learning teams, and over-all growth of the instructor in personal and instructional development. The instructors are encouraged to provide artifacts in support of their assessment of instructional progress.


18

Appendix B. Evaluation Rubric

Instructor Evaluation Rubric

Indicators

Instructor’s

Perception

Appli

edSummation

Classroom Operations

Appropriate behavior managementCreated a positive, nurturing, classroom environment

Managed and engaged students

Used effective transitions

Used routines and procedures to support learning


19

Content

Instructor’s

Perception

Appli

edSummation

Captured teachable moments toemphasize contentContent linked to student experienceContent understanding assessed and redressed duringpresentationRedressed content for understandingStudents understood learning objectivesTeacher demonstrated understanding of contentUsed variety of approaches topresenting content

Instruction

Instructor’s

Perception

Appli

edSummation

Engaged all learning modalitiesDemonstrated awareness of learning stylesInstruction developmentally appropriate

Provided feedback to students

Student understanding assessed frequently


20

Used assessment to reteach students

Used technology

Used variety in instructionalstrategies

Individualized Learning

Instructor’s

Perception

Appli

edSummation

Demonstrated high expectationfor all studentsPresented multiple points of viewResponded appropriately to diversityResponded to multiple learning styles

Interaction

Instructor’s

Perception

Appli

edSummation

Engaging

Positive

Respectful

Tactful

Inspiration

Instructor’s

Perception

Appli

edSummation


21

Created curiosity and a desire to explore contentEngaged students with instructional styleDemonstrated material as relevant to lifeProvided meaningful instruction of content

Progression

Recommendations for personal growth

Recommendations for peer research

Recommendations for student assessment


22

Documents

Curriculum and Instruction Appraisal Model