Identification of valid, reliable, discriminating criteria for use in developing evaluation instruments for substitute teachers

Abstract

CHAPTER!. INTRODUCTION Reason for the Study The public education system in this nation comes under close, continual scrutiny. From the conversations over the backyard fence to the comprehensive examinations of sdiools at the national level, educators face a gallimaufry of reports, both praising and criticizing the system. This gallimaufry, or collection of reports, covers a wide range of educational issues. One topic of conversation that often arises in discussions concerning school issues, but rarely surfaces at the research level, is evaluation of substitute teachers (Wallendorff, 1989). Traditionally, theorists devote very little attention to substitute teaching because of its relative "unimportance" in relation to the multitude of issues surrounding regular full-time classroom instructors (Steltenpohl, 1974). There is minimal research available on any of the aspects of day-today substitutes (Grieder, 1972). Before 1978, the scarcity of research on the topic of substitute teachers further increased the need for attention to this neglected educational population (Jentzen and Vockell, 1978). The research indicates a dearth of attention to the population, but considerable agreement is apparent among educators that something should be done about the problem (Pascale, King, & Mastrian, 1984). One research report in 1981, showed that during one school year, substitutes throughout the nation taught nine million teacher days (Dahlin, 1981). Projecting this figure to today, it surely represents a higher number, accenting the need for providing quality teaching experiences for students in the classroom without the regular classroom teacher. It is essential that those nine million teacher 2 days not be wasted. Attention to evaluation of substitute teachers can and should be made an integral part of the evaluation system of a district (Sime, 1989). Although evaluation of substitute teachers has been largely ignored, much attention has been paid to areas of proficiency for substitute teachers. Nine dimensions were identified as essential in orientation programs for substitute teachers: student information, community characteristics, building staff personnel, school philosophy, physical facilities, building procedures, curriculum and instruction, lesson plans, and classroom discipline (Pascale, King, & Mastrian, 1984). Other researchers have expanded this list by stressing that substitute teachers should be flexible, have teaching experience, subject area knowledge, and be able to manage classroom adversity (Warren, 1988). A study emphasizing the importance of increasing substitute teacher pools stressed the need for curriculum training, teaching strategies, classroom management, and a knowledge of policies and procedures (Hinkemeyer, 1988). All these dimensions deserve scrutiny. Other areas have also been explored. Non-education graduate students working as interns have served as substitute teachers after receiving training in classroom management, record keeping, and questioning strategies (Soares, 1988). It has been hypo...

Identification of valid, reliable, discriminating criteria for use in developing evaluation instruments for special education teachers

“…The process to identify discriminating, reliable, and valid criteria which can be utilized by schools to create evaluation instruments for special education teachers was successful with all 49 items discriminating at least at the .05 level of significance. These results support the findings of the Menne and Tolsma (1971) methodology employed by Edwards (1989), Hidlebaugh (1973), Judkins (1987), Look (1983), Lueders (1987), Uhl (1988, Green (1990), andRuebling (1991). This study also reaffirms the long-term research by the School Improvement Model (SIM) project at Iowa State University that was a source of 23 of the validated criteria.…”

“…The design and layout of the questionnaire was based upon instruments used in similar studies to identify performance criteria for various educational personnel (Edwards, 1989;Green, 1990;Hidlebaugh, 1973;Look, 1983;Lueders, 1987;Ruebling, 1991;Uhl, 1988).…”

“…Employment of the Menne and Tolsma (1971) methodology for determining item discrimination power utilized by Edwards (1989), Green (1990), Hidlebaugh (1973), Judkins, (1987), Look (1983), Lueders (1987), Ruebling (1991), and Uhl (1988) was used in this study to analyze the 49 criteria on the Special Education Teacher Performance Item Discrimination Questionnaire.…”

“…Statistically and practically significant results can be obtained, resulting in identification of criteria that target the characteristics of effective performers. In a series of studies by the School Improvement Model" Projects at Iowa State University criteria for teachers (Hidlebaugh, 1973), substitute teachers (Green, 1990), counselors (Uhl, 1988), principals (Look, 1983), assistant principals (Edwards, 1989), superintendents (Lueders, 1987), and curriculum coordinators (Ruebling, 1991) have been identified in this manner.…”

The development of an assessment center for cooperating teachers

“…Haberman and Harris (1982) (Blair, David, & Bacharach, 1984 Cruickshank and Armaline (1986) suggested one very specific criteria for the selection of cooperating teachers:…”