Welcome to the InfoSci Platform
University Supervisors' and Mentor Teachers' Evaluations of Teaching Episodes

University Supervisors' and Mentor Teachers' Evaluations of Teaching Episodes

Melissa M. Goldsmith, Janice A. Dole, Mary D. Burbank
Copyright: © 2019 |Pages: 24
ISBN13: 9781522562498|ISBN10: 1522562494|EISBN13: 9781522562504
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-6249-8.ch022
Cite Chapter Cite Chapter

MLA

Goldsmith, Melissa M., et al. "University Supervisors' and Mentor Teachers' Evaluations of Teaching Episodes." Handbook of Research on Field-Based Teacher Education, edited by Thomas E. Hodges and Angela C. Baum, IGI Global, 2019, pp. 518-541. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-6249-8.ch022

APA

Goldsmith, M. M., Dole, J. A., & Burbank, M. D. (2019). University Supervisors' and Mentor Teachers' Evaluations of Teaching Episodes. In T. Hodges & A. Baum (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Field-Based Teacher Education (pp. 518-541). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-6249-8.ch022

Chicago

Goldsmith, Melissa M., Janice A. Dole, and Mary D. Burbank. "University Supervisors' and Mentor Teachers' Evaluations of Teaching Episodes." In Handbook of Research on Field-Based Teacher Education, edited by Thomas E. Hodges and Angela C. Baum, 518-541. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2019. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-6249-8.ch022

Export Reference

Mendeley
Favorite

Abstract

Teacher candidates receive mentorship and evaluations from university supervisors and cooperating teachers, qualified educational professionals and stakeholders performing two different roles. The study examined to what extent university supervisors and cooperating teachers agreed and disagreed on effective teaching. University supervisors and cooperating teachers were asked to watch three videos of teaching episodes and rate them using a 20-question observation instrument. Follow-up focus groups were held to discuss reasons for the ratings. Results indicated that these groups generally agreed on many aspects of quality teaching, but substantive differences existed as well. Raters varied by role when rating facets of language development for language learners, instructional strategies and assessment. Differences in ratings between these groups were explained by the way they view their roles and responsibilities in the classroom as well as the way they interpreted the components of the observation instrument.

Request Access

You do not own this content. Please login to recommend this title to your institution's librarian or purchase it from the IGI Global bookstore.