Sunteți pe pagina 1din 20

EVALUATING TEACHING PERFORMANCE AS

PERCEIVED BY STUDENTS

JOHNITO O. GALAN, Ed.D.


RATIONALE
Over the years, student evaluation on teaching
performance has become a common practice
among faculty members in the higher education.
To name a few, it has served several purposes: to
safeguard and improve the quality of instructions
received by the students (Aslam, 2013); and
provide formative feedback to faculty for
improving teaching, course content and structure
(Chen & Hoshower, 2003).
RATIONALE
However, the usefulness of student
evaluation data with regards to teaching
performance is severely undermined or
has never been practiced in public basic
education. Thus, this action research is
made to improve the delivery of basic
services to its clients.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
 Improve the delivery of quality basic education among
learners
 Evaluate the performance of teachers as part of the
requirements of ISO Certification
 Enhance the pedagogical skills of teachers
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
1) What is the demographic profile of MCHS teachers in terms of:
1.1 Gender;
1.2 Educational qualifications;
1.3 Teaching experience?
2) What is the level of teaching performance of MCHS teachers in
terms of:
2.1 Course organization;
2.2 Quality of teaching;
2.3 Assessment and feedback?
3) Is there a significant difference between the demographic profile
and the teaching performance of MCHS Teachers?
4) What are common feedbacks of the learners generated from the
open-ended questions?
5) Based on the findings of the study, what Enhancement Program
shall be designed?
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE IN
TERMS OF GENDER

52
13
MALE FEMALE
GENDER
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE IN TERMS OF
SCIENTIFIC QUALIFICATIONS

38
21
1 0 5
DOCTORATE DOCTORAL MASTERAL MASTERAL UNITS BACHELOR'S
DEGREE UNITS DEGREE
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE IN TERMS
OF NO. OF YEARS
30

12
10
7 6

1 - 5 YEARS 6 - 10 YEARS 11 - 15 YEARS 16 - 20 YEARS 21 AND ABOVE


Table 1
Level of Teaching Performance in terms of Lesson Organization

ITEM MEAN STANDARD DESCRIPTIVE


DEVIATION VALUE
1. Presented the lesson in 4.25 0.56 Evident
systematic and orderly
manner.
2. Spent time and efforts in the 4.18 0.54 Evident
preparation of the lesson.
3. Prepare instructional materials 4.14 0.53 Evident
needed.
4. Effectively used a definite 4.16 0.51 Evident
method of presenting the lesson.
5. Has adequate knowledge 4.30 0.48 Evident
of the subject matter both
specific and related
OVER-ALL MEAN 4.23 0.49 Evident
Table 2
Level of Teaching Performance in terms of Quality of Teaching

ITEM MEAN STANDARD DESCRIPTIVE


DEVIATION VALUE
1. Succeeded in having most of the 4.08 0.47 Evident
students participate in the
activities of the period
2. Encouraged and allowed 4.24 0.51 Evident
students to express their
thoughts.
3. Asked a variety of questions to 4.26 0.50 Evident
help or encourage students to
think and express themselves.
4. Expressed his/her thoughts 4.26 0.56 Evident
clearly.
5. Maintained an orderly 4.02 0.48 Evident
atmosphere in the class.
6. Used the blackboard effectively 4.08 0.65 Evident
to make the lesson
uderstandable
7. Spoke in audible voice. (Heard 4.35 0.41 Evident
by the students)
OVER-ALL MEAN 4.18 0.45 Evident
Table 3
Level of Teaching Performance in terms of Assessment and Feedback

ITEM MEAN STANDARD DESCRIPTIVE


DEVIATION VALUE
1. The students were free to interact with 4.15 0.50 Evident
their teacher.
2. The teacher showed his/her sincere 4.25 0.49 Evident
interest in having students learn through
his/her comments and responses
3. The teacher made students feel at ease. 3.96 0.52 Evident
4. Teacher practically explained part of the 4.10 0.55 Evident
lesson not understood by the students.
5. The teacher is careful with his/her words 4.20 0.55 Evident
in following up erring students or in
commenting on their responses.
OVER-ALL MEAN 4.20 0.44 Evident
DIFFERENCE ON TEACHING PERFORMANCE
IN TERMS OF GENDER
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval of the

Std. Error Difference

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Difference Lower Upper

LESSONORGANZIATION Equal variances assumed .934 .337 -1.006 63 .318 -.15212 .15115 -.45416 .14993

Equal variances not assumed -.878 16.026 .393 -.15212 .17327 -.51939 .21516
QUALITYOFTEACHING Equal variances assumed .018 .895 -.786 63 .435 -.10519 .13389 -.37275 .16236
Equal variances not assumed -.720 16.777 .482 -.10519 .14617 -.41389 .20351
ASSESSMENTFEEDBACK Equal variances assumed .755 .388 -1.048 63 .299 -.14250 .13603 -.41434 .12934

Equal variances not assumed -.888 15.638 .388 -.14250 .16047 -.48333 .19833
The mean in lesson organization between male and
female teachers did not differ t(63) = -1.06 ; p =
0.318.

The mean quality teaching between male and female


teachers did not differ t(63) = -7.86 ; p = 0.435.

The mean in assessment and feedback between male


and female teachers did not differ t(63) = -1.048 ; p =
0.299.
DIFFERENCE ON TEACHING PERFORMANCE IN
TERMS OF SCIENTIFIC QUALIFICATIONS
ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.


LESSONORGANIZATIO Between Groups 1.313 3 .438 1.921 .136

Within Groups 13.896 61 .228


Total 15.209 64
QUALITYOFTEACHING Between Groups 1.131 3 .377 2.140 .104
Within Groups 10.748 61 .176
Total 11.879 64
ASSESSMENTFEEDBACK Between Groups .533 3 .178 .919 .437

Within Groups 11.803 61 .193

Total 12.336 64
The mean in lesson organization when categorized
according to scientific qualifications did not differ
t(61) = 1.91 ; p = 0.13.
The mean in quality of teaching when categorized
according to scientific qualifications did not differ
t(61) = 2.140 ; p = 0.104.

The mean in assessment and feedback when


categorized according to scientific qualifications did
not differ t(61) = 0.919 ; p = .437.
DIFFERENCE ON TEACHING PERFORMANCE IN
TERMS OF YEARS IN SERVICE
ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

LESSONORGANIZATIO Between Groups 1.300 4 .325 1.401 .244

Within Groups 13.909 60 .232


Total 15.209 64
QUALITYOFTEACHING Between Groups .720 4 .180 .967 .432
Within Groups 11.160 60 .186
Total 11.879 64
ASSESSMENTFEEDBACK Between Groups .374 4 .093 .469 .758
Within Groups 11.962 60 .199

Total 12.336 64
Deliver the
lesson in
clear and
logical
manner

Teaching
Give advices Performance
Mastery of
and (Lesson
reminders to
Organization, the subject
Quality of Teaching,
students Assessment & matter
Feedback)

Provide
opportunities for
students to
participate in class
Busy doing other
works resulted to
skipping classes or
very late in
coming to class

Using Teaching
Performance Still using
cellphones (Lesson lecture
during Organization,
his/her class Quality of Teaching, method,
Assessment & bookish
time Feedback)

Bullying students,
using foul words
when get upset
Enhancement Program
 Intensify monitoring of classes by the Department Heads and
Master Teachers
 Implement the mentoring and coaching strategy in improving
the teaching-learning process
 Conduct in-service training of teachers through SLAC
IMPLICATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
 Evaluation tool will be subjected for thorough validation to
establish reliability and validity.
 Evaluation of teaching performance will be done twice a year
 Increase number of student-respondents
 Encouragement teachers to go further professional
development
 That School Heads of Cluster 6 shall conduct intensive
monitoring and evaluation of teachers.