Abstract

The study finds if teachers’ success in classroom is determined by the efficacy of teaching skills. Successful and effective teaching depend on several factors including level of knowledge, classroom management skills and students assessment. Evaluating the effectiveness of teachers is a challenging task due to the absence of a standardized scale for assessing teachers’ classroom disposition. The present study develops and validate a scale for the evaluation of teachers’ teaching skills. Keeping in consideration the previous scales, literature and teaching skills, a scale comprising of 27 items is developed. It is then validated in pilot testing. The developed scale is used for the appraisal of 60 teachers for their teaching skills. The coefficient of reliability for the scale was 0.822 which is acceptable for the scales to be used in social sciences.

Key Words

Teaching Skills, Evaluation, Classroom, Management, Reliability

Introduction

Teachers promote the standard of education. Improving the efficacy and quality of education depends on well-resourced and motivated teachers. Similarly to ensure that their performance is up to the specified standard and they are fulfilling the requirements of the students and intuition, there is need for the assessment of their teaching skills (OECD, 2005).

Effective teacher assessment needs correct appraisal of their teaching skills indicating their weak or strong points, improvement margin in teaching skills, effective feedback, continuous training of teachers, their positive attitude and professional development. Teachers must be given constructive feedback to appreciate their hard work. Results of different studies show that constructive feedback is helpful in developing their teaching skills (OECD, 2009b).

Evaluation is an essential part of teacher training programs. It plays a vital role in improving the teachers’ capabilities including classroom skills. NEA (2011) stated that the purpose of teacher evaluation is to test and strengthen teachers’ knowledge, teaching skills and pedagogies. It will enable them to work with more responsibility and care. If a teacher is a well aware of the evaluation of his performance in the classroom, he/she will certainly try to meet the minimum requirements. It will not only improve the performance of the teachers but also the repute of the profession and consequently the students will be well taught and properly handled.

The disposition of teachers teaching skills depends upon their knowledge and professional experience so teachers’ disposition for providing quality education should be evaluated well for successfully achieving their educational goals. Rike (2008) has pointed out the purpose for teaching skills assessment. He stated that assessment is essential to communicate stakeholders’ requirements to teachers as well as to pinpoint teachers’ classroom dispositions in a pre-service program teacher training program like B.Ed. It is also important as it provides pre-service teachers awareness about their responsibilities as a teacher.

Usually the teachers are evaluated on the basis of

1. Subject knowledge

2. Professional commitment

3. Teaching attitude

4. Teaching skills and evaluation skills

5. Management and administration skills

6. Awareness of student support services

7. Professional development activities, and

8. Contribution for the society

The study at hand only targets the skills needed for smooth teaching and learning process including;

a. Teachers’ disposition of knowledge

b. Classroom management skills

c. Skills required for the students’ assessment 

Need for the Scale




It is assumed that effective teachers keep learning and continuously keep updating their knowledge, by taking part in professional up gradation activities and by listening to their students as well as by sharing their ideas with other teachers (Uppsala Universitet, 2012). Therefore, the teachers need feedback regarding the accuracy of their learning skills. They should be informed about their deficiencies, inabilities and weaknesses. For the provision of all this information there is need of a measuring scale which can be used to assess the teachers’ classroom disposition.

In general the scale is a device to measure certain variables. Commonly it consists of various aspects to measure teachers’ teaching skills. Different scales for the assessment of teachers’ teaching skills is developed to measure teachers’ effective teaching in the classroom. But none of these scales suits the multilingual and multicultural Pakistani situation. Therefore, there is a need for the development of scale which can suit well the teaching situations in Pakistan. Hence the researchers took an initiative to develop the scale for assessing teachers’ teaching dispositions.




Significance of the Study




The success of teachers in the classroom is determined by the effective use of teaching skills. A successful exhibiter of the teaching skills in the class will be regarded as an effective teacher. It further depends upon several factors including their level of knowledge, classroom management skills and students’ assessment. The evaluation of teaching skills has always been a problem for the administrators and the policy makers. The main hurdle in such evaluations has always been the absence of a standardized scale for assessing teachers’ classroom disposition. 




The Government of Pakistan (2009) has proposed standards for teacher education in the country. These standards paved the way for the development of scale for assessing the requisite skills for teachers. Typical standards of teachers for the their education include instructional planning, teaching strategies, students’ assessment and evaluation, class environment and communication as well as skilled use of technology, teamwork, and constant professional improvement for teaching English as a second language (Govt. of Pakistan, 2009).

For the present study it was difficult to include all the said standards in the proposed scale. Therefore, the following three standards can be assessed through the developed scale. These standards are;

1. Instructional planning and strategies

2. Learning environment

3. Assessment

Hence, through this study the researchers intended to develop and validate a scale for the evaluation of teachers’ teaching skills including;

d. Teachers’ disposition of knowledge

e. Classroom management skills

f. Skills required for the students’ assessment 

The detailed description of the scale development procedure is given below.

Methodology

The study at hand is of quantitative research in which data was collected through the scale. The population of this study consisted of all pre-service teachers enrolled in  Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) program at different public sector universities and Government Colleges for Elementary Teachers (GCETs). Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) is a one year duration pre-service teacher training program being offered in Pakistan.

The development of scale comprised of four stages. Firstly, the selected three aspects of the teachers’ dispositions viz. teaching and learning skills, classroom management skills and assessment skills, were reviewed extensively from the previous studies. For  each factor 12 items were developed. Secondly, the initial developed scale was validated by foreign as well as local experts from the field of teacher education.  As a result of the experts’ opinion, the number of items in the questionnaires was reduced to 27 from the initial numbers of 36, i.e. 9 items each for the three aspects of teachers’ teaching skills were taken out.

The third phase of the scale development was to try out the scale at a limited sample size. Therefore, the scale was tried out at two GCTs and a public sector university. For this purpose 33 prospective teachers and 3 cooperative teachers (observers) were selected. The cooperative teachers were engaged in the study to assist the researchers during data collection. The results of the trial are as below.

Table 1: Try out Scale Statistics

> > > >

Mean width="89"> Variance width="125"> Std.  Deviation width="122"> No. of Items

83.41 width="89"> 65.653 width="125"> 7.897 width="122"> 27

Reliability Analysis

Cronbach's Alpha width="213" colspan="2" valign="top"> Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items width="122" valign="top">       Total Items

.790 width="213" colspan="2"> .799 width="122"> 27

N= 33

The coefficient of reliability i.e. Cronbach's Alphafor scale was ?= .790 and the mean score of the responses was x?= 83.34. The reliability coefficient of the scale was acceptable as it was more than .60 the level prescribed in different research studies (Creswell, 2012; Fraenkel, &Wallen, 2009))

As a result of the trial, 3 items were slightly rephrased. The final number of items for the three factors of scale viz.  Teaching and learning, Classroom management and Assessment are given in the following table.

Table 2. Detail of Factors and Items of the scale

> > >

Selected National Professional Standards width="148"> Aspects of Professional Standards width="50"> No. of Items width="114"> Item Labels

Instructional planning and strategies width="148"> Teaching and learning width="50"> 9 width="114"> A1, >a2, a3,………..a9

Learning environment width="148"> Classroom management width="50"> 9 width="114"> B1, >b2, b3,..……...b9

Assessment width="148"> Assessment width="50"> 9 width="114"> C1, >c2, c3………...c9

For the fourth and final phase of the scale development a randomly drawn sample comprising of 236 prospective teachers and 54 cooperative teachers from a public sector university and 6 randomly selected GCETs was used.

Findings and Results

For determining the reliability of the questionnaire factor analysis, inter-item correlation and Cronbach Alpha for each factors of the scale as well as for the whole scale were calculated. 

For each sub scale (Factor) the inter-item correlation was calculated to analyze the strength of each sub scale.  The detail of the inter item correlation for three factor of the scale is given below

Table 3. Inter-item Correlation for the Sub-scale: Teaching and Learning

> > > > > > > > >

width="47"> A1 width="48"> A2 width="48"> A3 width="48"> A4 width="48"> A5 width="48"> A6 width="50"> A7 width="48"> A8 width="48"> A9

A1 width="47"> 1 width="48"> .717** width="48"> .721** width="48"> .489** width="48"> .023 width="48"> .123 width="50"> -.019 width="48"> .194 width="48"> .192

A2 width="47">   width="48"> 1 width="48"> .738** width="48"> .681** width="48"> .381** width="48"> .467* width="50"> .113 width="48"> .247** width="48"> .899**

A3 width="47">   width="48">   width="48"> 1 width="48"> .421** width="48"> .129 width="48"> .321** width="50"> -.011 width="48"> .129 width="48"> .265

A4 width="47">   width="48">   width="48">   width="48"> 1 width="48"> .601** width="48"> .335** width="50"> .022 width="48"> .208** width="48"> .217

A5 width="47">   width="48">   width="48">   width="48">   width="48"> 1 width="48"> .514** width="50"> .021 width="48"> .156 width="48"> .224**

A6 width="47">   width="48">   width="48">   width="48">   width="48">   width="48"> 1 width="50"> .531** width="48"> .416** width="48"> .787

A7 width="47">   width="48">   width="48">   width="48">   width="48">   width="48">   width="50"> 1 width="48"> .710** width="48"> .270*

A8 width="47">   width="48">   width="48">   width="48">   width="48">   width="48">   width="50">   width="48"> 1 width="48"> .419**

A9 width="47">   width="48">   width="48">   width="48">   width="48">   width="48">   width="50">   width="48">   width="48"> 1

**.  Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*.  Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed).  

Inter-item correlation analysis shows relatively stronger inter-item correlation ranging from r = .899 to r = .270.  Moreover, all the items have significant and positive relationship with majority of the other items in the factor which reveals that these items can contribute to the factor formulation. The inter-item for correlation for certain items is insignificant but there relationship with the majority of the items is significant. Therefore, the items can be retained for the final scale.

Table 4: Inter-item Correlation for the Sub-scale: Classroom Management

> > > > > > > > >

width="46"> B1 width="51"> B2 width="51"> B3 width="51"> B4 width="51"> B5 width="51"> B6 width="51"> B7 width="51"> B8 width="51"> B9

B1 width="46"> 1 width="51"> .716** width="51"> .545** width="51"> .122 width="51"> -.178 width="51"> .267* width="51"> .265* width="51"> .078 width="51"> -.237

B2 width="46">   width="51"> 1 width="51"> .715** width="51"> .240** width="51"> -.148 width="51"> -.210 width="51"> -.189 width="51"> -.165 width="51"> .057

B3 width="46">   width="51">   width="51"> 1 width="51"> .435** width="51"> .349 width="51"> .199** width="51"> .179** width="51"> -.232 width="51"> -.084

B4 width="46">   width="51">   width="51">   width="51"> 1 width="51"> .379** width="51"> .214** width="51"> .167 width="51"> .164 width="51"> .245**

B5 width="46">   width="51">   width="51">   width="51">   width="51"> 1 width="51"> .418** width="51"> .399** width="51"> .190 width="51"> .078

B6 width="46">   width="51">   width="51">   width="51">   width="51">   width="51"> 1 width="51"> .506** width="51"> .378** width="51"> .156**

B7 width="46">   width="51">   width="51">   width="51">   width="51">   width="51">   width="51"> 1 width="51"> .698** width="51"> .145

B8 width="46">   width="51">   width="51">   width="51">   width="51">   width="51">   width="51">   width="51"> 1 width="51"> .150

B9 width="46">   width="51">   width="51">   width="51">   width="51">   width="51">   width="51">   width="51">   width="51"> 1

**.  Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*.  Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed).  

Analysis of inter-item correlation reflects that inter-item correlation ranges from r = .156 to r = .716.  The analysis shows that there exists relatively moderate correlation between different items of the sub Scales.  Moreover, all the items have a significant and positive relationship with a majority of the other items in the factor which reveals that these items can contribute to the factor formulation. The inter-item for correlation for certain items is insignificant but their relationship with the majority of the items is significant. Therefore, the items can be retained for the final scale.

 

 

Table 5. Inter-item Correlation for the Sub-scale: Assessment

> > > > > > > > >

width="50"> C1 width="49"> C2 width="49"> C3 width="49"> C4 width="49"> C4 width="49"> C6 width="49"> C7 width="49"> C8 width="49"> C9

C1 width="50"> 1 width="49"> .793** width="49"> .785** width="49"> .689** width="49"> .354** width="49"> .134 width="49"> .024 width="49"> .042 width="49" valign="top"> .037

C2 width="50">   width="49"> 1 width="49"> .787** width="49"> .738** width="49"> .439** width="49"> .313* width="49"> .109 width="49"> .152 width="49" valign="top"> .032

C3 width="50">   width="49">   width="49"> 1 width="49"> .688** width="49"> .535** width="49"> .353** width="49"> .173** width="49"> .249** width="49" valign="top"> .222**

C4 width="50">   width="49">   width="49">   width="49"> 1 width="49"> .625** width="49"> .395** width="49"> .176 width="49"> .044 width="49" valign="top"> .083

C5 width="50">   width="49">   width="49">   width="49">   width="49"> 1 width="49"> .545** width="49"> .136 width="49"> .542** width="49" valign="top"> .034

C6 width="50">   width="49">   width="49">   width="49">   width="49">   width="49"> 1 width="49"> .687** width="49"> .635** width="49" valign="top"> .345**

C7 width="50">   width="49">   width="49">   width="49">   width="49">   width="49">   width="49"> 1 width="49"> .654** width="49" valign="top"> .365**

C8 width="50">   width="49">   width="49">   width="49">   width="49">   width="49">   width="49">   width="49"> 1 width="49" valign="top"> .565**

C9 width="50">   width="49">   width="49">   width="49">   width="49">   width="49">   width="49">   width="49">   width="49" valign="top"> 1

**.  Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*.  Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed).  

Analysis of inter-item correlation reflects that inter-item correlation ranges from r = .122 to r = .793.  The analysis shows that there exists a relatively stronger correlation between most of the items.  Moreover, all the items have a significant and positive relationship with the majority of the other items in the factor which reveals that these items can contribute to the factor formulation. The inter-item for correlation for certain items is insignificant but their relationship with the majority of the items is significant. Therefore, all the items were retained for the final scale.

Table 6. Inter-Factor Correlations

> > >

width="120"> Teaching and Learning width="144"> Classroom Management width="113"> Assessment

Teaching and learning width="120"> 1 width="144"> .649* width="113"> .601**

Classroom management width="120">   width="144"> 1 width="113"> .574**

Assessment width="120">   width="144">   width="113"> 1

The inter-factor correlation for the sub scales reflects a strong relationship between teaching and learning and classroom management (r=.649). Similarly, Teaching and learning and Assessment (r = .601) are also strongly correlated.  Moreover, a strong relationship was again observed between classroom management and assessment (r = .574).

To determine the strength of each factor with its different items Confirmatory Factor Analysis was also calculated. The results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis are shown in the table below

Table 7. Factor Analysis

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Item ID width="121"> Teaching and  Learning width="127"> Classroom Management width="125"> Assessment

A1 width="121"> .769 width="127">   width="125">

A2 width="121"> .879 width="127">   width="125">

A3 width="121"> .787 width="127">   width="125">

A4 width="121"> .769 width="127">   width="125">

A5 width="121"> .495 width="127">   width="125">

A6 width="121"> .596 width="127">   width="125">

A7 width="121"> .407 width="127">   width="125">

A8 width="121"> .386 width="127">   width="125">

A9 width="121"> .380 width="127">   width="125">

B1 width="121">   width="127"> .771 width="125">

B2 width="121">   width="127"> .726 width="125">

B3 width="121">   width="127"> .688 width="125">

B4 width="121">   width="127"> .325 width="125">

B5 width="121">   width="127"> .336 width="125">

B6 width="121">   width="127"> .591 width="125">

B7 width="121">   width="127"> .681 width="125">

B8 width="121">   width="127"> .563 width="125">

B9 width="121">   width="127"> .318 width="125">

C1 width="121">   width="127">   width="125"> .763

C2 width="121">   width="127">   width="125"> .809

C3 width="121">   width="127">   width="125"> .852

C4 width="121">   width="127">   width="125"> .843

C5 width="121">   width="127">   width="125"> .723

C6 width="121">   width="127">   width="125"> .667

C7 width="121">   width="127">   width="125"> .434

C8 width="121">   width="127">   width="125"> .390

C9 width="121">   width="127">   width="125"> .330

Eigen value width="121"> 3.290 width="127"> 2.901 width="125"> 3.941

%age of Variance width="121"> 37.012 width="127"> 3.910 width="125"> 43.769

The above table describes factor loadings obtained through factor analysis.  Nelson (2005) stated that those items are included in an instrument which has at least 0.30 factor loading on its scale and is less than 0.30 on other scales.  Hence all the items of the scale administered are retainable.

Moreover, the above table indicates percentages of the variance for teaching and learning (36.522) classroom management (31.547) and assessment (43.772).  Eigen values for the sub-scales are 3.287, 2.889 and 3.939 respectively. The percentages of variance and Eigen values also indicate a strong structure of 27 items with their respective sub-scales.

Table 8. Final Scale Statistics

>

Mean width="84"> Variance width="118"> Std.  Deviation width="145"> N of Items

95.29 width="84"> 43.243 width="118"> 5.979 width="145"> 27

N= 236

> >

Reliability Calculations

Cronbach's Alpha width="202"> Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items width="115">      Total Items

.821 width="202"> .831 width="115"> 27

N= 236

The reliability coefficient for the final scale was calculated as .822 which is quite acceptable for the social sciences (Creswell, 2012).  The final questionnaire thus developed is given as an appendix.

Table 9. Reliability of Sub-scales

> > >

Name of Sub-Scale width="137"> Total items width="106"> Reliability Coefficient

Teaching and learning width="137"> 9 width="106"> .789

Classroom management width="137"> 9 width="106"> .585

Assessment width="137"> 8 width="106"> .877

Reliability coefficients for the sub scales of the questionnaires revealed that all the sub scales had significant reliability (? = .789, .585 & .877). Therefore, the scale is worth using for assessing the teachers’ teaching skills employed by them during classroom instruction. It possesses strong inter-item as well as inter-factor correlation and has an acceptable level of reliability coefficient. The final scale thus developed is given as Appendix.

Conclusion, Implications and Limitations

The present study focused upon the development of a scale for the assessment of teachers’ teaching skills. The scale comprises of three sub-scales viz. teaching and learning, classroom management and assessment of students, having 9 items each. The scale is highly reliable having coefficient of reliability = .821. The coefficients of reliability for the sub-scales are also high reflecting their reliability. 

Although the scale is developed for teachers, it can also be used to assess the teaching skills of the regular teachers working in different schools. A limitation of the study is that the focus of the study was on the teachers trained in the one year degree program of teacher education. The study may be replicated selecting other degree programs and also for re-establishing its reliability and validity.

Uppsala Universitet (2012) Assessing Teaching Skills in Higher Education, Office for Development of Teaching and Interactive Learning, (UPI). Uppsala University Appendix

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Factor width="43"> Item ID width="382"> Statements of items

By the end of their teacher preparation course the Prospective Teachers are Committed

Teaching and learning width="43"> A1 width="382" valign="top"> To seek enabling their students in attainment of the curriculum objectives

A2 width="382" valign="top"> To the development of student critical thinking skills

A3 width="382" valign="top"> In developing problem solving capabilities with learners

A4 width="382" valign="top"> To the high standards of student performance

A5 width="382" valign="top"> To the use of group work in learning

A6 width="382" valign="top"> To show their interest in wider student welfare

A7 width="382" valign="top"> To seek the development of maximum student interest in learning

A8 width="382" valign="top"> To develop and enrich their own teaching skills  further

A9 width="382" valign="top"> To develop and enrich the earning skills of all their students

Classroom management width="43"> B1 width="382" valign="top"> To appreciate the key role of the students in the learning process

B2 width="382" valign="top"> To recognize the importance of peer relationships in learning

B3 width="382" valign="top"> To take responsibility for establishing a constructive climate in the classroom

B4 width="382" valign="top"> To respect democratic values in the classroom

B5 width="382" valign="top"> To have a positive attitude towards classroom participation of the students

B6 width="382" valign="top"> To provide a conducive climate of the classroom for learning

B7 width="382" valign="top"> To establish good classroom social behavior

B8 width="382" valign="top"> To generate and employ the best resources possible

B9 width="382" valign="top"> To develop group work classroom activities

Assessment width="43"> C1 width="382" valign="top"> Committed to the encouragement of high attainment standards

C2 width="382" valign="top"> Willing to use a wide variety of assessment techniques

C3 width="382" valign="top"> Committed to objectivity and integrity in all assessment

C4 width="382" valign="top"> Willing to evaluate student learning against agreed objectives

C5 width="382" valign="top"> Committed to assess skills beyond recall of memorized materials

C6 width="382" valign="top"> Willing to spend time and energy in o?ering constructive assessment feedback

C7 width="382" valign="top"> Aware that assessment data is only an approximate estimate of performance

C8 width="382" valign="top"> Committed to employing assessment to enhance learning

C9 width="382" valign="top"> To develop the skills in using a wide variety of assessment techniques

References

• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research : planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson.
• Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Govt. of Pakistan (2009). National professional standards for teachers in Pakistan. Policy and Planning Wing, Islamabad: Ministry of Education.
• Hammond, L. D. (2010). Evaluating teacher effectiveness: how teacher performance assessments can measure and improve teaching. New York: The Center for American Progress.
• NEA (2011).Teacher assessment and evaluation, Washington: National Education Association.
• Nelson, L. R. (2005). Some observations on the Screen test, and on coefficient alpha. Thai Journal of Educational Research and Measurement: 3 (1), 1- 17.
• OECD (2005).Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers, OECD, Paris.
• OECD (2009a), Teacher Evaluation A Conceptual Framework and examples of Country Practices, OECD, Paris.
• OECD (2009b), Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS, OECD, Paris.
• Rike, C.J. & Sharp, L.K. (2008). Assessing preservice teachers' dispositions: A critical dimension of professional preparation. Childhood Education, 84, 150-155. Schulte Uppsala Universitet (2012) Assessing Teaching Skills in Higher Education, Office for Development of Teaching and Interactive Learning, (UPI). Uppsala University