https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-vEO2wwtXpOMzk5ZTk1YjMtZTJmMC00YzM2LTgzZDktM2E4YjViNGFiNTVk
A modified version of the Text Rendering Protocol was used. Members formed pairs and went over the models, choosing the ones they thought reflected a fair, clear and comprehensive system of evaluation, and identified main criteria for evaluation. They then dicussed with their partners their choices and offered revisions or additions. In the last 15 minutes, each pair presented their choice and explained their reasoning.
Berna and Nilhan chose the Adams County model, saying they liked the idea of a whole cycle. Sinan and Betti chose the PUSD model, saying the criteria were very relevant.Tunç and Simge also chose the Adams County model, saying it was detailed yet easy to assess, with well defined criteria and rubrics. Hande and Amanda liked the Pre Conference form. All groups agreed and suggested that teacher's personal qualifications might be added to a chosen model. Betti pointed out that these should never become a check list; and the lack of such personal qualifications should never be used to penalize them. Common personal qualifications cited were:
- quality of relationships/communication with students/parents/collegaues
- being approachable
- patience
- positive attitude
- respectfulness
- depth of experience ( outside school as well)
- fariness
- passion for teaching/subject matter
- life skills
- interest in world affairs/arts/culture/reading/hobbies
- future goals
Betti collected all the proposals and will use the results from this session, as well as the results from similar sessions that will be conducted on the same issue by the other groups, as input to the construction of a campus wide teacher evaluation model.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder