The practice of teacher evaluation

12

Chapter 2 Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

As stated in Chapter 1, the questions that guide this study are: 1 what is the nature of Indonesian English language teachers’ pedagogic habitus dispositions and beliefs? and 2 to what extent are Indonesian English language teachers’ pedagogic habitus capable of change as a result of engagement in mediated self-evaluation? Accordingly, this chapter reviews relevant literature on teacher self-evaluation, Vygotsky’s sociocultural perspectives, and Bourdieu’s sociological theory. The first part of this chapter focuses on teacher evaluation in general, including how the performance of English teachers in Indonesia is evaluated. It includes the descriptions of teacher self-evaluation and its instruments and practices, which remain a relatively new notion in the Indonesian contexts. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory including its interrelated pedagogical concepts, mediation, internalization, and the Zone of Proximal Development ZPD as well as research on sociocultural theory in teacher professional development are also discussed in this chapter. This chapter also incorporates a review of the literature on teacher professional identity and possible-selves theory. In addition, this chapter focuses on Bourdieu’s work, in particular, his concept of habitus, capital, field, and practice, and follows with the discussion on reproduction and transformation of habitus and studies on Bourdieu’s sociological theory in education and teacher professional development in the last part of this chapter. Drawing on the literature, it is argued that teacher self-evaluation activity causes teachers to reflect upon their instructional practice, a reflexivity which crucially underpins teachers’ learning and growth. Teacher self-evaluation, in particular, can be an affective mediational activitytool helping Indonesian teachers to notice both strengths and limitations in their instructional practice and can be a means for changing their habitus adapting to their field and developing their professional identity.

2.1 The practice of teacher evaluation

Teachers have long been recognized as a significant resource driving student learning, school improvement and educational change. Garet et al. 2001 state that not only do students rely upon their teachers to form and guide their learning opportunities, but researchers agree that the quality of teachers largely determines the success of 13 educational improvement and reform initiatives. One way to gauge the productivity of teachers is through the reflexivity of their teaching and the degree to which they reflect on what they do. For this reason, reflexivity and reflection need to be built into the practices of teachers. Elliott 1988 points out that reflexive practice includes the teacher’s interpretation of their teaching and the self for the purpose of making changes and improvements. Meanwhile, reflection involves “finding ways of identifying and questioning existing assumptions which underlie practice and the context for practice in the widest terms as well as bringing in new perspectives” Morberg, Lagerström, Dellve, 2012, p. 232. One of the effective methods to help teachers to be reflexive and reflective is through self-evaluation, which will be discussed further in Section 2.2 of this chapter. Generally speaking, there are two kinds of evaluation: formative and summative. Formative evaluations are connected with the personal progress of teachers. It then provides teachers with feedback about enhancing their performance and what types of professional development opportunities might improve their practice. Summative evaluations, on the other hand, are designed to influence consequential decisions on factors such as salary, tenure, personnel assignments, transfer, or dismissals Mathers, Oliva, Laine, 2008. These two types of evaluation are related to each other. Formative evaluation is a means of obtaining satisfactory results in summative evaluations. In other words, only by having formative evaluations will teachers receive both positive and negative feedback on their teaching. The negative aspects of teaching need to be improved to achieve positive outcomes in summative evaluations. Principals, heads of departments, specially assigned evaluators, peers, or even students are the ones who usually conduct evaluations of teacher’ performance. Most teacher evaluation systems are based on a single dichotomous scale, such as “satisfactory,” “needs improvement,” and the like. Other evaluation systems depend on rating scales such as from “1 to 4”, “low, medium, and high,” or “needs improvement, satisfactory, and outstanding,” or similar headings Danielson McGreal, 2000, p. 4. These scales then will be used to inform how well the teachers have done in their teaching. In Indonesian contexts, in particular in university, summative evaluations are conducted through student questionnaires, administered near the end of every semester. Students are required to complete questions that invite them to share their perceptions about the course and the performance of their teachers. After the questionnaires are 14 completed, they are then sent to a specific unit of the university. The unit then analyzes the questionnaire results and sends them to each school. The head of school then gives the results to each teacher. The teacher receives the results in the form of a Likert scale. The school usually uses the result as a basis for deciding how many credits or subjects can be taught for the next semester. The better the result is, the more credits a teacher can teach. However, this kind of evaluation creates some significant concerns such as 1 misunderstandings on the part of students in answering questions; 2 the subjectiveness involved in answering the questions; and 3 a feeling of reluctance to answer questions completely and honestly. Students often misinterpret the questionnaire because of their lack of knowledge to respond accurately. For example, one question asked if the teacher had given the students a lesson plan at the beginning of the semester. However, some students do not understand what lesson plan is so they just answer the questions randomly. The questionnaire also invites subjective responses reflecting students’ preferences towards the teacher. They could respond positively solely on the basis of their personal feelings towards the teacher. An additional problem is that many students feel reluctant to answer the questionnaire completely and honestly because there are usually too many items to complete within the time allocated. Furthermore, Indonesian teachers do not get useful or comprehensive insights from their evaluation, including information about what should be maintained or improved in their teaching because the statistical information they receive as the feedback provides inadequate insights into their practice. Consequently, contemporary teacher evaluation methods do not adequately support or guide the professional growth of teachers as educators. Researches on teacher evaluations Danielson McGreal, 2000; Peterson, 2000; Weisberg, et al,, 2009 also indicate that contemporary teacher evaluation practices neither accurately inform teachers about what happens in classrooms nor help improve their confidence or teaching practices. Furthermore, as Nevo 1994 argues, “teacher evaluation is usually perceived as a means to control teachers, to motivate them, to hold them accountable for their services, or to get rid of them when their performance is poor. Thus, teacher evaluation has the image of something that was invented against teachers rather than for teachers” p. 109. In short, teacher evaluations should aim to help teachers identify both the positive and negative aspects of their teaching. However, contemporary teacher evaluation practices are 15 commonly used to judge performance rather than to promote improvement or contribute to their professional development.

2.2 Teacher self-evaluation as a tool to enhance the instructional practice of teachers