008 |
|
090417s2005 xxu e eng d |
020 |
|
|a0542204126
|
035 |
|
|a(UnM)AAI3180355
|
035 |
|
|aAAI3180355
|
040 |
|
|aTMUE|beng|cTMUE|dTMUE
|
066 |
|
|c$1
|
100 |
1
|
|aHillyerDale
|
245 |
10
|
|aA case study of teacher evaluation and supervision at a high performing urban elementary school|h[[electronic resource]]
|
260 |
|
|aAnn Arbor, Mich : |bUMI, |c2005
|
300 |
|
|a124 p
|
500 |
|
|aSource: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 66-06, Section: A, page: 2042
|
500 |
|
|aAdviser: Stuart Gothold
|
500 |
|
|aSchool code: 0208
|
502 |
|
|aThesis (Ed.D.)--University of Southern California, 2005
|
520 |
|
|aThe purpose of this case study was to describe the current teacher evaluation process and other factors of instructional supervision that impact teacher practices at a high performing urban elementary school setting. The evaluation process was defined as the actual process of teacher observation according to state and district mandated policy and supervision was defined as any other processes occurring at the school site in which the teachers and/or administrators have a role as participants and there is a perceived impact on teacher performance
|
520 |
|
|aUsing quantitative and qualitative data obtained from one single high performing urban elementary school in Orange County, statistical, interview response from teachers and administrators, document review, and observation at the school site were examined. This case study was one of fourteen in a thematic group dissertation process. Each individual case study used the same research questions, methodology, and instrument for research. There were four instruments used by each member in the thematic group. The first was a 52 question teacher survey administered to all teachers (43) at the study site. The second instrument used was a 23 question teacher/administrator interview administered to a total of nine teachers and administrators. Both instruments, the survey and interview, were divided into six categories for ease in analysis. The six subgroups were policy, teacher evaluation, teacher supervision, school efforts, school culture, and teacher beliefs. The third instrument employed was observation of school site meetings and collaborations. Finally, the fourth instrument was document review. Data analysis and interpretation was done through the use of Creswell's 6-Step process, which presented emergent themes and concluded with an interpretation of the data
|
520 |
|
|aAnalysis of the data from the four instruments revealed the teacher evaluation tool and process used at the study site was perceived to be an effective tool. However, the evaluation had little impact to the overall schoolwide improvement. Four themes emerged from the data that were perceived to have the greatest impact at the school site on student achievement. These four themes were staff collaboration, quality leadership, professional development, and an emphasis on student achievement
|
650 |
0
|
|aEducation, Administration
|
650 |
0
|
|aEducation, Elementary
|
710 |
2
|
|aUniversity of Southern California
|
856 |
7
|
|uhttp://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3180355|z連接論文全文
|