|Abstract or Summary
- Teachers and administrators spend many hours of work reviewing
the State of Oregon Guidelines and drafting district guidelines in an
attempt to make the process of evaluation positive and productive.
Most districts agree the primary purpose of evaluation should be for
the improvement of instruction.
The amended state law, ORS 342.850, does specify that the
process include pre-conference, data collecting, and post conference.
These are the primary elements of the clinical cycle of supervision.
The review of related research revealed that the research concentrates
on the effectiveness of evaluation models in collecting evaluation
data, not on their affect on attitude, or on improving instruction.
Therefore, research that measures the effect of one model, clinical
cycle of supervision, on attitude is justified.
This research focused on a null hypothesis. "There is no significant difference in the attitude of teachers toward the evaluation
process in districts that have a clinical cyle for evaluation and those
districts that do not. " The null hypothesis was tested at the . 05 level
The procedure for generating data and testing the null hypothesis
was as follows:
1. Develop a Likert Style scale based on Rensis Likert's research
as outlined in Oppenheim's (1966) text "Questionnaire Design and
2. Establish the validity of the scale by using the Known Group
Process (Criterion Related Validity).
3. Test the scale for reliability by using the split half method
4. Select the school districts based on how well their evaluation
process meets the criteria in this study. (Clinical cycle, district
package, trained evaluators, and supervision and evaluation
5. Sample by using the random sampling technique with a sample
approximately twenty-five percent of total population.
6. Use the one-way ANOVA to determine the acceptance or rejection
of the null hypothesis based on the . 05 level of significance.
The scale for measuring teacher's attitude had a validity quotient
of .3584 which suggests a small but definite correlation between the scale and its ability to measure attitude. The reliability quotient was
.6471 which indicates a substantial relationship between the scale and
its ability to produce the same result with different populations.
The primary analysis based on the results of a one-way ANOVA
indicated the null hypothesis must be rejected. The Least Significant
Difference Test established the fact that the district labeled "D" had a
significantly lower score than the districts labeled A, B, and C.
The item analysis indicated that of all the various elements in the
evaluation process, those that are directly connected to the clinical
cycle (Pre-conference, data collecting, and post conference) are viewed
in a positive way by teachers. Unsolicited comments by the respondents
indicate that there is a wide discrepancy between what the districts outlined
in writing as the process of evaluating and the teacher's perception
of that procedure.
The complete analysis of the data indicated a need for further
research into other attitude objects (interpersonal relationships) and
the importance of each component of the evaluation process on teachers' attitudes. (Clinical cycle, evaluation package, trained evaluators,
separation of evaluation and supervision.)
The results of this study suggest that careful application of evaluation
procedures and modifications, identified in this project, will provide
valuable information to districts in their attempt to improve
teachers' attitudes through the evaluation process.