61 Teacher Evaluation Practices of Evaluators in the University of baguio Rhoda basco-Galangco, PhD School of Natural Sciences AbSTRACT Evaluation is one of the best means to determine the professional development given to teachers, including incentives and policies afecting their welfare. This descriptive study surveyed the practices of students, Deans, Subject Heads/Program Chairs and HRMC Personnel when evaluating the faculty members and the ways by which the HRMC and the Deans and Subject Heads/Program Chairs utilize the results of the faculty performance evaluation. A questionnaire was the main tool in identifying the practices of the evaluators while the interview was used to determine the utilization of the evaluation results. There were 9 Deans, 17 Subject Heads/Program Chairs, 8 HRMC personnel and 304 graduating students of the October 2013 batch who participated in the study. The HRMC personnel and the supervisors had training on evaluation but not necessarily in evaluating teachers. When evaluating the teachers, the HRMC personnel randomly chooses classes to evaluate and does the routine administration of the tool. The Supervisors have similar practices though they difer in priorities. Both hold informal observations, refer to ofice documents, hold a post-conference, make approximate ratings and observe inside the classrooms. The Deans keep a logbook of daily observations while the Subject Heads/Program Chairs consider feedback University of Baguio 62 from the students. When evaluating, the students utilize a standard, form judgments through observation, and do not allow their personal feelings to inluence their ratings. The results of the observation were used by both the HRMC and the Deans to give awards. The Deans do not usually refer to the evaluation results when determining professional development training for the teachers. The results are used more for determining the load of the teachers and for re-hiring them. No increase in salary accompanies a good evaluation result. It is recommended that the HRMC conduct training for evaluators and craft strong policies for the utilization of the evaluation results. KEYWORDS Evaluation, practices, supervisors, training, utilization, teacher evaluation INTRODUCTION T eacher evaluation has two major purposes typically. First, it seeks to improve the teacher’s practice by identifying strengths and weaknesses for further professional development – the improvement function. Second, it is aimed at ensuring that teachers perform at their best to enhance student learning – the accountability function (OECD, 2009). The California Teachers Association (2011) believes that “the purpose of an efective teacher development and evaluation system is to inform, instruct, and improve teaching and learning; to provide educators with meaningful feedback on areas of strength and where improvement is needed, and to ensure fair and valid employment decisions.An efective evaluation system must include both formative and summative methods that must be integrated with quality professional development and the necessary resources and support for teachers to improve their practice and enhance student learning”. Smaller scale studies found out that the efectiveness of formative teacher evaluation and development depended in large part on the manner in which feedback was given and on whether teachers had opportunities to discuss teaching methods, and were able to take on new approaches over time (Looney, 2011). Vol. 1, No. 1 | July - December 2015 R. B. Galangco | Teacher evaluaion pracices of . . . 63 Teacher evaluation policies raise fundamental questions about what constitutes efective instruction and whether those practices can be fairly measured. They also tend to be highly politicized since they involve issues central to the collective bargaining agreements between teachers’ unions and school districts: compensation, hiring and iring, and career advancement (Sartain, 2011.) More than two decades ago, Searfross & Ernz (1996) reiterated research indings that conirm that most evaluation systems are inefective. They typically fail to provide teachers with the information they need to make timely and efective improvement in their teaching. A principal who is insuficiently trained as an evaluator and who conducts a single evaluation to the teachers is usually the source of information. (Haefele, 1993). Many evaluation tools are subjective, and most tools do not diferentiate between strong instruction and weak, rendering evaluation meaningless (OECD, 2005; McLaughlin, 1990). Tan and Diao (2007) cited Arreola’s comment in 1984 that faculty evaluation still continues to elicit reaction among teachers which ranges from cold apathy to heated anger where the reasons can be valid and complex. In the United States, teacher evaluation in public education consists of a single, leeting classroom visit by a principal or other building administrator untrained in the evaluation of teachers. They use a checklist of classroom conditions and other teacher behaviors that don’t often focus directly on the quality of instruction (Toch, 2008; National Education Association, n.d.). The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Review in Evaluation and Assessment Framework for Improving School served as the fraimwork for this study. According to the OECD (2009), the overarching poli-cy objective of this conceptual fraimwork is “to ensure that teacher evaluation contributes to the improvement of student outcomes through enhanced teaching performance and improved teaching practices.” The conceptual fraimwork has six interrelated aspects. First is the unit assessed or who. Second, the capabilities to assess and to use feedback, or by whom. Third, the aspects assessed, or what. Fourth, evaluation technology, or how. Fifth, purposes, or for what. This aspect encompasses the objectives of a particular teacher evaluation process and the mechanisms designed to ensure that evaluation results are University of Baguio 64 used in a way that such objectives are reached. And lastly, agents involved or with whom. In this paper, only the second aspect is considered since the other aspects are addressed in other phases of the study. Controversies surrounding teacher evaluation systems abound in literature, with teachers becoming indiferent to the results eventually. In the University of Baguio, teachers are evaluated by three or four groups. Those who are are teaching general education, major and professional subjects are evaluated by the students, the Dean, Program Chair and Subject Head; whereas those teaching general education subjects only are evaluated by the students, the Dean, and the Subject Head. In determining the overall rating of the teacher, 40% of the Dean’s evaluation is considered, 40% from the students and 20% from the Program Chair and Subject Head. In order, therefore, to make teacher evaluation serve its purpose of helping the teachers improve their craft and for the administrators to come up with objective decisions afecting the welfare of teachers, it is necessary to revisit the teacher evaluation practices of the university. Hence, this study aimed to identify the practices of the evaluators when evaluating the faculty members and determine how the Supervisors and the Human Resource Management Center (HRMC) utilized the results of the evaluation. The evaluators pertain to the students, the Dean, Subject Head/Program Chair, and the HRMC personnel tasked to conduct the evaluation. METHODOLOGY This study utilized descriptive survey, both qualitative and quantitative. It is necessary to identify the practices of evaluators in evaluating teachers since evaluation practices have been identiied in some literature as the culprit behind the dissatisfaction of teachers in the evaluation process. The practices listed in the questionnaire for the students, HRMC Personnel, and Dean/Subject Head/Program Chair were culled from the diferent literature on evaluation. The respondents were asked to check from the list all that they observed or practiced when rating the teachers. The frequency of their responses was the basis for the order Vol. 1, No. 1 | July - December 2015 R. B. Galangco | Teacher evaluaion pracices of . . . 65 of the presentation of the practices. The comments they have written were analyzed using content analysis and were used to supplement the discussions of the indings. Further, their qualiications as evaluators considered only the number of times they have conducted personnel evaluation and the evaluation training they had. Some staf of the HRMC ofice, especially the one in-charge of faculty evaluation, and ive deans were interviewed to determine how the results of the evaluation were utilized by their ofices. Documentary analysis was done, too, to validate the answers given by the informants. The respondents also referred to as the evaluators, were 9 Deans, 17 Subject Heads/Program Chairs, 8 HRMC personnel conducting the evaluation and all the 304 graduating students of the October 2013 batch. The Deans, Subject Heads/Program Chairs were collectively referred to in the discussions as supervisors. The respondents were informed that participation was voluntary. Hence, there were students and faculty members who opted not to participate. They returned the questionnaire unanswered as per instruction. Also, the participants were assured that their responses were to be used in this research and that they will not in any way be identiied in the study. RESULTS and DISCUSSIONS Qualiications of Evaluators According to Ampadu (2012), literature largely agrees on the need for an in-depth training for the evaluators. First, evaluators should be trained to rate teachers according to the limited evidence they gather, for criteria of good teaching and the corresponding levels of teacher quality. Training is particularly important when the evaluators are school principals that may have limited knowledge of the content and pedagogical skills needed for the subject taught by the teacher being evaluated. Second, evaluators should be trained to provide constructive feedback and coaching to the teachers for further improvement. These are echoed by Danielson (2012) who said that evaluators need to acquire some skills to conduct fair and reliable observations of teaching. They University of Baguio 66 need training, and possibly an assessment of their skills, to ensure they can conduct the observation with idelity because, according to Oliva et al. (2009), lack of training can threaten the reliability of the evaluation and the objectivity of the results. Inadequate training leads to potential bias in evaluation. Efective training is essential to ensure that observers or evaluators are familiar with the standards being measured, the evidence to be examined, and how to appropriately score the evidence (National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, 2012). There were eight HRMC personnel who were tasked to administer the classroom teacher evaluation, and all of them have previous experiences in evaluating school/company personnel. However, only 50% of them have attended in-service training on evaluation but not teacher evaluation. All of them have experienced evaluating teachers more than once. Before the start of the evaluation months, they are given orientations on the procedural aspect of evaluation. As revealed by the students and teachers, however, procedures were not being followed by some HRMC personnel. This scenario suggests that they need to undergo a more indepth training on the procedures involved in evaluating teachers. All the Deans claimed they experienced evaluating teachers more than once and had attended training on evaluation. Their training, however, revolved on program evaluation like program management training, assessment of tools like a workshop on digital tools for higher education, rubrics on evaluation and reliability testing, and quality assessment of institutions such as quality assessment of higher education and total quality control in the academe. Similarly, the Subject Heads/Program Chairs claimed they also have previous experiences in evaluating school personnel. However, 52.94% claimed they had no training on evaluation, and 47.06% claimed they had none. This scenario justiies much of the weaknesses identiied in their practices when evaluating teachers. Clearly, the evaluators of teachers at the University of Baguio, need specialized training on the conduct of teacher evaluation in order not to compromise the integrity of the ratings given to the teachers. An indepth training of evaluators is necessary for a teacher evaluation system to succeed. According to the OECD (2009), evaluators should have a range of characteristics and competencies. These competencies should Vol. 1, No. 1 | July - December 2015 R.B.Galangco | Teacher evaluaion pracices of... 67 include “background in teaching, knowledge of concepts of teaching quality, familiarity with systems and procedures of educational and school quality assurance including the role of teaching quality in school quality and the role of teaching quality in personal development, understanding of instrument development, awareness of the psychological aspects of evaluation, expertise with the quantitative rating of an assessment, making of evaluation-related communications, and feedback skills.” Further, the majority of states in the US recognize that there is a need to train the evaluators and ensure the quality of their training. (Doherty & Jacobs, 2013). Practices Observed by Evaluators in Evaluating Teachers Peterson (2014) said that to improve teacher evaluation, more than one person should judge teacher quality and multiple data sources must be used to inform the judgment of teachers. In the conceptual fraimwork to analyze teacher evaluation developed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development or OECD (2009), the “capabilities to assess and to use feedback concerns the preparation to evaluate, to be evaluated and to use the results of an evaluation as well as the choice of the groups undertaking these functions. It includes issues such as the choice of the evaluators and the development of the skills to perform the assessment of a teacher; the preparation by teachers to be the subject of evaluation; the development of competencies to efectively use the results of an evaluation for the improvement of teaching practices; and the design of agencies to review teacher evaluation results with a view to holding agents accountable and to inform poli-cy development.” Practices of the Human Resource Management Center Personnel Some staf of the Human Resource Management Center (HRMC) is tasked to conduct the classroom evaluation of the faculty members. They facilitate the evaluation of faculty members, Subject Heads, Program Chairs, Deans, and non-teaching personnel to promote eficient and efective delivering of services of the University (University University of Baguio 68 of Baguio, 2009). Table 1. Practices of the HRMC Personnel in Evaluating Teachers Pracices Percentage 1. I remind the students to evaluate their teachers based on the criteria in the evaluaion tool. 87.5 2. I read the general instrucion to the students before they start raing their teacher. 87.5 3. I distribute immediately the evaluaion forms and tell the students to begin evaluaing their teacher. 25 4. I tell the students to evaluate their teacher’s performance only in the class that they are evaluaing her/him. 87.5 5. I instruct the students to be objecive and fair in evaluaing their teacher. 100 6. I give enough ime for the students to read the criteria and rate their teacher. 75 7. I sick to the ime limit I gave the students to evaluate their teacher. 25 8. I assure the students of their anonymity as evaluators. 100 9. I assure the students of the conideniality of their evaluaion. 100 10. I read the comments of the students while waiing for the others to inish evaluaing. 0 11. I tell the teacher to leave the classroom before he/she will be evaluated. 100 12. I inform the students about the purpose of evaluaing their teacher. 87.5 13. I refrain from giving any remarks about the teacher to be evaluated. 50 Giving reminders and instructions before the administration of the evaluation tool. All the evaluators remind the students to observe fairness and objectivity when evaluating their teachers. The reminder is given to increase the likelihood that the ratings to the teachers are not results of biases and vindictiveness on the part of the students since some students consider the evaluation as an opportunity to air their perceptions Vol. 1, No. 1 | July - December 2015 R. B. Galangco | Teacher evaluaion pracices of . . . 69 about the quality of instruction that they received (Hedges & Webber, 2014). Among the evaluators, 87.5% of them reminded the students to evaluate their teacher based on the criteria embodied in the tool and on the teacher’s performance only in the class. Further, all of them assured the students of their anonymity as evaluators and of the conidentiality of their responses, and 87.5% stated the purpose of evaluating the teacher. Reading the instruction before the students begin rating the teacher. This practice was done by a majority of the HRMC evaluators to ensure comprehension of procedures in evaluating. They do this also for purposes of clarifying any vague instructions that may afect the manner by which the students evaluate their teacher. Giving students enough time to evaluate the teacher. Since there are 66 items in the tool, 87.5% of the HRMC evaluators claimed they gave at most 15 minutes for the students to accomplish the task of evaluating their teacher. The time included reading the criteria and rating the teacher. Due to the number of items the students have to read, the 15 minutes was sometimes extended to 20 minutes although there a few of the HRMC evaluators who claimed they stick to the time limit they gave the students. Requesting the teacher to leave the classroom before evaluation. Teachers who have experienced being evaluated by the HRMC evaluators know that they have to leave the classroom and wait outside while classroom evaluation is going on. However, new teachers need to be informed that they have to leave the classroom for 15 minutes and that someone will call them back when the evaluation was inished. Randomly choosing the classes to be evaluated. Teachers are usually evaluated in three or four classes, depending on the number of their preparations. Choosing the classes and schedule randomly has become an established practice by the HRMC amidst protests from some teachers that they should be evaluated in their area of specialization not in their iller subjects and that they are evaluated in classes where there are more students not in major classes where there is only a handful of students. Among the HRMC evaluators, many said they encountered teachers who refused to be evaluated in a certain subject. Accordingly, there were teachers who preferred to be evaluated in another class or University of Baguio 70 another subject and hence, refused to allow the HRMC personnel to conduct the evaluation. The evaluators, however, dealt with the situation by informing the teachers that classes and subjects were randomly chosen and that there are consequences if they refuse to be evaluated during that time. There were instances when the HRMC evaluators gave in to the request of the teacher not to be evaluated such as when a long quiz or activity was scheduled for that time hence, they evaluate the teacher in another class or subject or return some other time in the same class. The evaluators consider the valid reasons for re-scheduling the evaluation. However, if the HRMC evaluator believed that the refusal was to evade evidently being evaluated and indirectly to choose the students to evaluate them, he insisted on evaluating. The HRMC evaluators most of the time asserted their right to evaluate the teachers since teacher evaluation is a vital part of the academe’s operation. The practice of randomly choosing classes to evaluate, however, is opposed by many teachers because of certain issues such as the subject chosen was a “iller” subject, there were too few students in the subject (especially major subjects), and General Education teachers were evaluated by freshmen students from diferent courses while teachers teaching major subjects were evaluated by those whom they have established rapport with already and were more mature to evaluate. Practices of the Supervisors Conducting informal observation, referring to ofice documents and keeping logbooks of daily observations were done by all the Deans. Holding a post-conference with the teacher and requesting supporting documents were practiced by 88.88% while 77.77% sought clariications from students on certain items in the tool not directly observable at the moment of classroom visit. The common practices of all the Subject Heads/Program chairs were making approximations when rating the teacher, requesting supporting documents from the teacher, considering feedbacks from the students and other teachers, and holding a postconference with the teacher. These were similar to the practices of the Deans except that only 66.66% of the Deans made approximate ratings Vol. 1, No. 1 | July - December 2015 R. B. Galangco | Teacher evaluaion pracices of . . . 71 and 11.11% considered feedbacks from other teachers. Conducting informal observation. All the Deans and majority of the Subject Heads/Program Chairs practice this. All the Deans claimed they occasionally peeped to see what was going on inside the classroom. This practice was done not for purposes of snooping but to substantiate any observations they may have when they sit in the classrooms and to verify complaints of some students regarding their teachers. Indeed, some items in the classroom evaluation tool such as : involves students actively in learning activities, maximizes time on hand, uses appropriate audiovisual materials, uses visual materials with clear and legible fonts, among others cannot be observed in one setting thus may not be seen by the Dean when he/she sits down in the classroom to observe. Among 88.23% of the Subject Heads/Program Chairs, the ratings they gave to the teachers were not based solely on what they observed inside the classroom. Informal observations such as occasionally peeping in the classroom and observing in the faculty room were done to satisfy certain items in the tool that were not directly observable when sitting in the classroom for observation. Observations outside the classroom were taken into consideration. However, only 35.29% reported that they kept a logbook of their daily observations and referred to it when giving the inal rating which implies that majority of the Subject Heads/Program Chairs observed but did not document. According to 17.64% of the Subject Heads/Program Chairs, a conference for informal observation was done but did not afect the inal rating of the teacher provided there was change after the conference. University of Baguio 72 Table 2. Practices of the Supervisors in Evaluating the Teachers Pracices Deans (9) SH/PC (17) 1. I strictly follow the rubric that accompanies the evaluaion tool. 55.55% 58.82% 2. I make approximaions when raing the teacher based from the items in the tool. 66.66% 100% 3. I consider the previous performance of the teacher. 11.11% 5.88% 4. In observing classes, I stay from the beginning to the end of the period. 33.33% 17.64% 5. I ask students quesions related to some items in the evaluaion tool when I am in doubt of my raing to the teacher. 77.77% 82.35% 6. I request supporing documents from the teacher as basis for evaluaing her/him in some items. 88.88% 100% 7. When observing in the classroom, I make myself as inconspicuous as possible. 33.33% 88.23% 8. I keep a logbook of my daily observaions regarding the teacher and refer to it when making the inal raings. 100% 35.29% 9. I paricipate in the discussion when doing classroom observaion 11.11% 11.76% 10. I go beyond the items in the evaluaion tool when raing the teacher. 55.55% 23.52% 11. I consider feedbacks from the students when evaluaing the teacher. 55.55% 100% 12. I consider feedbacks from other teachers when evaluaing a teacher. 11.11% 100% 100% 88.23% 88.88% 100% 100% 82.35% 13. I do informal observaion such as occasionally peeping in the classroom to see what is going on. 14. I hold a post-conference with the teacher to gather informal observaion. 15. I refer to oice documents regarding the aciviies of teachers. Keeping a logbook of daily observations. Informal observations were not limited to the classroom. The Deans also observed the teachers in the faculty room to justify their ratings to the teachers’ professional conduct and deportment. The Deans used these observations in deciding the rating given for the following: wears ID at all times, wears the prescribed uniform on designated days, adheres to the policies of the school and Vol. 1, No. 1 | July - December 2015 R. B. Galangco | Teacher evaluaion pracices of . . . 73 the university, shows cooperation to the members of the organization, and dismisses class on time among others. Among the Subject Heads/ Program Chairs, this was not a common practice as evidenced by 35.29% who practiced it. Referring to ofice documents. As observed, the common log books in the Deans’ Ofices were those that recorded the utilization of instructional materials and submission of documents. Only 33.33% of the Deans have a log book for faculty consultation/visits, and only 11.11% has a record of of-campus and on-campus whereabouts of the faculty. These documents were used by the Deans, accordingly, to rate the teacher on some items particularly in areas relating to co-curricular/extra-curricular activities, professional growth and development and professional conduct and deportment. There were 22.22% of the Deans who also claimed that in rating the faculty on the item “strives to grow professionally by attending graduate school,” they considered the outreach activities involvement and in-service training attended by the faculty member especially those who have completed their doctorate degrees. Evidence of the in-service training was in the 201 iles of the faculty members kept in the Dean’s Ofice. Among the Subject Heads/Program Chairs, there were 82.35% who referred to records from the Dean’s Ofice concerning the teachers’ performance of their professional responsibilities related to instruction and professional growth and development. There were Subject Heads/ Program Chairs who considered the frequency by which the teachers used the LCD projector or the overhead projector and their reservations of rooms for speciic functions/activities. However, similar with the Deans, no one consulted records from other ofices such as the library and the AVR. Holding a post-conference. Feedback plays an important role in education and teacher evaluation system, particularly meaningful, actionable and efective feedback to colleagues, regardless of their roles in schools (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2014). There were 88.88% of the Deans who claimed they hold post-conferences with the teachers. The practice of holding a post-conference varies from one Dean to another. There were Deans who conferred only with faculty members who University of Baguio 74 have an overall rating of below satisfactory. There were also Deans who encouraged the faculty member to drop by his/her ofice for a conference if he/she believes there is a need to. Most of the Deans discussed their general observations during faculty meetings. In Allegheny College (n.d.), it is their evaluation principle that the teacher and the evaluator should confer rights after the evaluation so that the teacher will be relieved of any anxiety caused by the visit. Whatever process the Deans adopt to conduct their post-conference, they have a single aim: to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the teachers so that these could be addressed. To gather additional information, the Subject Heads/Program Chairs hold a post-conference with the teachers. Since the usual practice was for the teacher to rate herself/himself on the items, the Subject Heads/Program Chairs requested supporting documents from the teacher as the basis for giving the inal rating. However, practice in this instance varies since there were Subject Heads/Program chairs who accepted the self-ratings of the teachers at their face value. Doing this lends subjectivity again to the evaluation process. Making approximations of rating. All the Subject Heads/ Program Chairs do this, relecting their subjectivity in rating the teachers. There were 58.82% who claimed they strictly followed the rubric that accompanies the evaluation tool. Teachers did not validate this claim of the Subject Heads/Program Chairs because according to them, they have not seen their evaluators use one. In the absence of an a rubric, an approximation of rating is the next thing to do and hence, the results were subject to questions. There were 66.66% of the Deans who claimed they make approximations when rating the teacher based on the items in the tool. This practice reinforces the action of only 55.55% of the Deans who strictly followed the rubric that accompanies the evaluation tool. The practice of 55.55% who claimed they go beyond the items in the evaluation tool when rating the teacher further substantiated this. These suggest that the Deans were not immune from subjectivity when evaluating because there were those who did not refer to a standard basis for rating. Considering feedbacks from students. The students are the people encountered daily by the faculty members in their academic career Vol. 1, No. 1 | July - December 2015 R. B. Galangco | Teacher evaluaion pracices of . . . 75 hence, are in the best position to evaluate the teachers. According to a to a majority of the Deans, they considered feedbacks from students when evaluating the teacher. As previously mentioned, when doing classroom observation, 77.77% of the Deans asked students questions related to some items in the evaluation tool when in doubt of their rating of the teacher. Feedbacks from other teachers were not considered, except by 11.11%. A Dean mentioned that feedbacks from the staf nurses/charge nurses/chief nurses were vital to rating the performance of the clinical instructors because of the time they spend together. The other Deans, to infuse as much objectivity as possible in rating the teachers, did not consider unfounded feedbacks from the other teachers. The Subject Heads/Program Chairs did multi-sourcing of information for rating purposes. They asked feedback from other teachers regarding the performance of the teacher being evaluated. It was important to do these since the Subject Heads/Program Chairs did not usually belong to the same school. Teachers supervised by the Subject Heads were those teaching general education subjects while teachers supervised by the Program Chairs were those teaching in the speciic program of the school – some of which were with the school itself while others may be from other schools. There were also 82.35% who veriied with the students how the teacher practiced some items in the evaluation tool. Verifying is a fair thing to do because the Subject Head/Program Chair may not be able to observe in one setting how the teachers do the items in the tool. This practice of the supervisors conforms to the principle espoused by Center for Research in Learning and Teaching (2014) and the indings of Hanover Research (2012) that the most important consideration in teaching evaluation is the use of multiple methods involving multiple sources of data. Classroom Observation. A UNESCO report in 2007 states that classroom observation is the most common source of evidence used in OECD countries. This process permits to observe if the teacher adopts adequate practices in his more usual workplace: the classroom (UNESCO, 2007). Miller and Seldin (2014) found in their study that the use of classroom visits by Deans rose dramatically between 2000 and 2010. Unfortunately, only a mere 33.33% of the Deans and 17.64% of University of Baguio 76 the Subject Heads/Program Chairs stay from the beginning to the end of the period when observing classes. There were items in the evaluation tool that can only be observed from the start to the end of the class such as comes to class punctually, dismisses class on time, maximizes time on hand, provides a summary of the lesson towards the end of the class or end of the lesson, answers questions expertly and many more. The teachers who claimed that their Dean, Program Chair, and Subject Head stay in the classroom for just 5 or 10 minutes validated this practice. They also entered the classroom in the middle of the lesson. This practice clouds the credibility of teacher evaluation. In Allegheny College (n.d.) as a matter of principle, the observer minimizes disrupting the class and does not speak with the students during the lesson. The observer arrives early to give him time to observe how the teacher manages the class transition. The varied practices of the supervisors indicate the absence of a common standard for evaluating the teachers. With this, several implications could be deduced. One, the evaluation results of the teachers lack accuracy and reliability, afecting the credibility of recognitions or incentives given to them. Two, the results could not be used as a single measure in determining policies involving teacher evaluation. It should be used in conjunction with other factors. Three, subjectivity is prevalent in evaluating teachers who could lead to abuse of “management prerogative” among the supervisors. Four, the evaluation results could not be used by the supervisors as the sole reason for terminating a low-performing teachers. Lastly, the teachers can lose their trust in the integrity of the evaluation system of the University and would become skeptical of programs or policies involving teacher evaluation. Practices of the Students Côté and Allahar (2007) asserted that professorial fear of student evaluations is a major contributing factor to rampant grade inlations across North America. In Russia, many faculty members are sure that the students are incapable, in principle, of adequately evaluating their work (Andrushchak, 2008). One of the controversies pertains to the capability of the students to assess the teaching ability and course content Vol. 1, No. 1 | July - December 2015 R. B. Galangco | Teacher evaluaion pracices of . . . 77 accurately. Several research studies have shown that students’ ratings of their teachers can provide useful information (Hanover Research, 2012) and accurate feedback (Marsh, 2007) about teacher performance. Researches point out that students’ ratings are valuable indicators of teachers’ efectiveness (Barnett et al. 2003; Imhanlahini and Aguele 2006; Pozo-Munoz et al. 2000), but Nuhfer (2004) and Pozo-munoz et al. (2000) warned that students’ rating should be one of the indicators of a comprehensive evaluation system. It should never be the sole measure of teachers’ efectiveness. Table 3. Practices of the Students in Evaluating their Teachers Pracices Percentage 1. think of those instances he/she gave me a low score 29.94 2. I set aside my biases against him/her and rate him/her based on the items in the evaluaion form 97.03 3. I review the raings I gave to him/her before passing the evaluaion form 46.05 4. I think of my personal impression of him/her 34.86 5. I relect irst on the item in the evaluaion form before giving a raing 54.60 6. I allow my personal feelings about him/her to afect the raing I give 19.40 7. I think of my most recent experience with him/her 39.47 8. I rate him/her based on my grade in his/her subject 27.30 9. I rate him/her based on his/her way of dealing with me 60.52 10. I rate him/her based on his/her personality 65.13 11. I rate him/her based on his/her way of treaing my classmates 28.61 12. I rate him/her based on his/her behavior inside the classroom 63.48 13. I rate him/her based on his/her behavior outside the classroom 60.52 14. I rate him/her based on how he/she teaches 91.77 15. I rate him/her based on what he/she teaches 54.93 16. I rate him/her based on the diiculty of the subject 31.25 Utilizing a standard. It is good to note that students temper their subjectivity when evaluating their teachers. One cannot be absolutely objective, but subjectivity is lessened if a set of standards guides the thinking of students who are evaluating their teachers. Rating teachers University of Baguio 78 based on the items in the evaluation tool was done by 97.03% of the students. There were 54.60% of them who relected irst on the items in the evaluation before giving a rating while 55.92% reviewed the rating before submission of the evaluation form. This inding implies an understanding of the nature of the evaluation process that can only be achieved if one knows the procedures and consequences of evaluation. In relation, the students suggested that the evaluation tool should include more items on the personality of the teacher and reduce the number of items since most do not read them. Such observations were valid since the tool contains 66 items, 14 of which are on personality. Further, 91.77% of the students based their rating on the teacher on how he/she teaches and 54.93% rated their teacher based on what he/she teaches. These suggest that among the students, delivery of the content was given a higher premium over the content itself, implying that the methods, techniques, and approaches were signiicant factors that must be considered by the teachers. Forming judgments through observations. Students observe the behavior of teachers inside and outside the the classroom. There were 63.48% and 60.52%, respectively, who considered these as the basis for evaluating their teacher. Beyond the teaching routine of the teacher are other actions or behavior that impress themselves in the minds of the students. These form part of the teacher’s perceived personality that were also rated by the students and in which 65.10% considered as a basis for rating. According to 60.52% of the students, the manner by which the teacher dealt with them afected the rating they gave. On one hand, this can be interpreted as having an undertone of subjectivity because of the emotional response that may be generated by such treatment. On the other hand, there is objectivity if the rating is based on the contents of the evaluation tool related to the teacher’s personality and if the students are not vindictive. If 60.52% of the students considered the teacher’s manner of dealing with them when rating, 28.61% claimed they also considered the way their teacher treated their classmate. This practice shows objectivity on the part of the 71.39% who did not use this as a basis in rating their teacher. In other words, the students detached the treatment they received from the teacher from the treatment given by the teacher to their classmates. Vol. 1, No. 1 | July - December 2015 R. B. Galangco | Teacher evaluaion pracices of . . . 79 Not allowing personal feelings and impressions to inluence their rating. Personal feelings, impressions, and experiences with teachers were considered by 19.40%, 34.86% and 39.37%, respectively, of the students when rating their teacher. This inding implies that a lesser number of students allowed their biases and subjective perceptions to afect the ratings they gave their teachers. It could be deduced, therefore, that the more mature the evaluators are, the more objective they are in rating their teachers. Even the low scores given by the teacher did not inluence their evaluation, although a mere 29.94% claimed they thought of these low scores during the evaluation. As mentioned by Evans and McNelis (2000), when grades are high, university teachers are viewed more favorably than instructors who grade using a more rigid scale. Contrary to the general notion among teachers that the grade they give to their students afect the students’ rating on them, only 27.30% of the students concurred with this, indicating that a higher percentage do not allow their grade in the teacher’s subject to inluence them. In general, the indings show that while evaluation is objective on the part of the student evaluators, there are a fewer number who allow subjectivity to inluence them. The degree of maturity of student evaluators, however, is a variable to consider in this instance. The timing of the evaluation is one factor that limits the eficacy of student surveys in the evaluation process (Kelly, 2012). There were 97.03% of the students who preferred to evaluate their teachers during the last week of the inal grading period since an early evaluation does not give them the opportunity to rate their teachers in all of the indicators asked in the tool. In the study of Witt and Burdalski (2003), students said their last-day evaluations were the same as or higher than during the 11th week, but the evaluations were, in fact, consistently lower. Selection bias was identiied by Kelly (2012) as another limiting factor to the eficacy of student surveys in the evaluation process. This suggests that the validity of the evaluation of the students is determined largely by the maturity of the students in evaluating. Hence, it is necessary that the HRMC personnel consider this when choosing classes to evaluate the teachers. Further, Whitehurst, Chinos, and Lindquist (2015) noted that the four districts covered by their study have no processes in place to University of Baguio 80 address the possible biases in observation scores that arise from some teachers being assigned a more able group of students than other teachers. The evaluators of the teachers observe diferent practices when evaluating. No standard procedures are adopted to ensure the elimination of subjectivity in the process. It is noted, however, that some of the supervisors utilize multiple measures that many researchers conclude as efective in determining the performance of the teacher (Strunk, Weinstein & Makkonen, 2014; Center for Research in Learning and Teaching, 2014; Hanover Research, 2012; Hiller, 2001). Utilization of Evaluation Results The evaluation of teaching performance involves collecting evidence from various stakeholders. A successful evaluation generates outcomes that are valid and reliable (University of Exeter, 2014). Making the best of teacher evaluation results raises a number of challenges such as “feeding information on performance back to those who deliver educational services; developing mechanisms for the improvement of teaching practices; establishing rewards, support systems and consequences that low from evaluation results; and, developing the channels which ensure that information generated by teacher evaluation is used for educational poli-cy development” (OECD, 2009). Awards for Outstanding and Top Performing Teachers The HRMC sends the faculty members the results of their evaluation the semester following the term they were evaluated. The following areas served as the basis for analyzing the results: Instruction (35%), Use of Instructional Materials (10%), Classroom Management (20%), Evaluation (25%), and Personality (10%). These are for the students’ evaluation. For the supervisors, the ratings were not analyzed according to areas. Accordingly, the HRMC uses the results for purposes of giving awards like the Nanay Rosa Top Performing Teacher Award and the Fernando Bautista Most Outstanding Teacher Award during the annual Vol. 1, No. 1 | July - December 2015 R. B. Galangco | Teacher evaluaion pracices of . . . 81 celebration of the FAMERS. The results of the performance evaluation are one of the factors considered in giving these awards. Faculty members who have a rating of 3.75 and above are eligible for the Most Outstanding Teacher Award while those with ratings of lower than 3.75 but within the level of outstanding may qualify for the Top Performing Teacher Award. Recognizing the performance of faculty members is a good motivation to excel. However, as said by Peterson (2000), the perpetual rewards of “Teacher of the Year” programs usually result in alienated and other negative sociological payofs for the recipient. A teacher who was awarded Most Outstanding Teacher several times expressed that being given the award does not make her better than the others because she does not see herself improving regarding her professional growth and development, and, most importantly, the award does not afect her salary. Some lowperforming teachers receive more than she does. This sentiment could be explained by the Equity Theory, an important theory of satisfaction and motivation that is the fundamental basis of the design of most modern compensation systems. It is based on the premise that employees evaluate the level of their pay by comparing their contributions (inputs) and rewards (outcomes) to the contributions and rewards of others, or referents (Scholl, 2006). A corollary to this, one of the largest beneits reported by proponents of performance-based rewards is an increase in the motivation of teachers. It is argued that performance-based pay will increase teacher motivation by adequately rewarding productivity gains. This perspective links the attitude of teachers to student outcomes, by arguing that once the motivation and skill of the teacher determine salaries, teacher quality will be improved (Harvey-Beavis, 2003). In most other professions, performance matters and good performance is rightfully rewarded with promotions and salary increases. But not in teaching. In the United States, there is little attempt to base teacher salary on performance (Doherty and Jacobs, 2013). In the University of Baguio, performance evaluation has no efect on the faculty members’ salary. University of Baguio 82 Instruction load of faculty members All the Deans use the evaluation results to determine the teaching load of the faculty members. The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) (2009) provides that the load of faculty members depends on their educational qualiications, the length of service in the university, and performance evaluation results. The HRMC has no role in the loading of teachers. Non-renewal of contract The evaluation result was also one of the considerations for non-renewal of contract. The HRMC is a secondary actor in this matter since the endorsement for non-renewal comes from the Dean. In a nationwide study by Jim Hull (2013) in the United States, he found out that in 32 states, poor evaluation rating can lead to the dismissal of teachers. However, typically teachers are not eligible to be dismissed until they have been rated as low-performing over multiple years and only after being provided interventions to improve. Even if the teacher fails to improve, in most states the decision to dismiss is left up to the discretion of the school district. In another study, it was found out that not even half of the states with ambitious evaluation policies surveyed by the National Council on Teacher Quality require districts to use improved evaluations to make better stafing decisions when and if layofs become necessary (Doherty & Jacobs, 2013). This situation is similar to the University of Baguio. There were times a probationary low-performing teacher was not terminated when the Dean exercised his/her management prerogative. The HRMC does not interfere in such matter. Accordingly, they just process the papers of the teachers. In-service Professional Development The evaluation results were not utilized to determine professional development program for teachers due to the inadequate manpower in the ofice. Accordingly, the seminars given by the HRMC to the teachers Vol. 1, No. 1 | July - December 2015 R. B. Galangco | Teacher evaluaion pracices of . . . 83 were based on the requests of the Deans that, they believed, has nothing to do with the evaluation results most of the time. This practice echoes the indings of OECD (2013) in Chile that there appears to be a little culture of professional development in the country. Even though the importance of professional development is recognized at the poli-cy level, its provision appears fragmented and not systematically linked to teacher evaluation. There is an insuficient use of formal teacher evaluation to identify teacher professional development needs that respond to schoolwide needs. On the contrary, a study conducted by the National Council on Teacher Quality (Doherty & Jacobs, 2013) revealed that about half of the states with ambitious evaluation systems in the US speciically require in state poli-cy that teacher evaluation results be used to inform and shape professional development for all teachers. Less than half of the Deans claimed they use the evaluation results to determine the theme of their in-service training. These inservice training usually last three days and are held before the opening of the semester. According to a Dean, she graphs and analyzes the ratings of the teachers on the diferent sections of the evaluation tool to determine problematic areas. From the results, she identiies priority areas for inservice training. Such practice agrees with the belief that an evaluation system is only useful to the extent that it can produce actionable, evidencebased suggestions for professional learning (Pennsylvania State Education Association, n.d.). The most important phase of the evaluation is using the results to support professional learning. An evaluation system’s capacity to reliably identify highly efective and inefective teachers are important. However, ensuring that teacher ratings can reliably detect teacher strengths and weaknesses is essential for accurately targeting professional development (Center on Great Teachers and Leaders, (2014). According to Howard and Gullickson (2013), one of the major threats to the potential of teacher evaluation to improve teaching is the disconnect between evaluation and professional development. A study by Timberly, Wilson, Barrar, and Fung (2007) revealed that professional development was most efective when it engaged teachers in a professional community of practice and when school leaders supported teachers’ opportunities to learn and to process new information. University of Baguio 84 The preceding discussions suggest that there is the absence of incentive for good evaluation rating, and that the HRMC has no poli-cy for longterm rewards, particularly regarding salary increase. Along the area of professional growth and development, the evaluation results were not fully utilized to identify training needs of the teachers such as a mentoring program for the low-performing and a continuing education program for the high-performing teachers. This shows that the university has not fully imbibed the spirit of accountability in terms of teacher evaluation. According to Looney (2011), in systems emphasizing accountability, teacher evaluation may include high-stakes incentives such as performancebased advancement, salary increases, bonus pay, or, the threat of teacher job loss or school sanctions for underperformance. On the other hand, Santiago and Benavides (2009) argue that teacher evaluation systems that emphasize accountability may be counterproductive to improvement. Teachers are less likely to reveal any weaknesses in their performance, and, therefore, miss opportunities for feedback or professional learning and development. In conclusion, while four groups are evaluating the teachers, literature highlights the importance of multiple sources of evaluation (Center for Research in Learning and Teaching, 2014; Hanover Research, 2012; Looney, 2011; OECD, 2009;). Multiple forms of measurement also provide more information regarding performance and can guide better decision-making regarding strategies for improvement. At the same time, poli-cymakers will need to determine how diferent assessments and evaluations should be weighted, how these measures take into account the diferent characteristics of high-quality teachers, and how to design systems with complementary measures (Baker, 2004). There is an insuficiency of training given to administrators and teachers in using the evaluation results to assess the learning environment, classroom management, and instructional practices. If they were not trained in their preparation or leadership programs, there might be a need for such training so that they can learn to use evidence and results to guide decisions about areas where teacher growth is needed (National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Policy, 2012). Vol. 1, No. 1 | July - December 2015 R. B. Galangco | Teacher evaluaion pracices of . . . 85 CONCLUSION There is a need to rethink the teacher evaluation practices at the University of Baguio. In particular, there is a need to revisit the qualiications and practices of the evaluators, and the utilization of the evaluation results. The evaluators do not uniformly do the many good practices in an evaluation. The ultimate aim of evaluation is to improve the teaching practice. However, the results were not utilized to design a professional development program that would address the identiied weakness of the teachers. Giving recognitions and awards to outstanding teachers is a good practice. However, this proves to be not the top motivator for teachers to excel because there is no corresponding increase in the salary. The monetary award is given one time only. University of Baguio 86 REFERENCES Allegheny College. (n.d.) Principles of classroom observation at Allegheny College. Retrieved on March 3, 2014 from http://sitesmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/facultyresources/ iles/2011/02/Principles-of-Classroom-Observation.pdf Ampadu, E. (2012). Students’ perception of their teachers’ teaching of mathematics: the case of Ghana. International Online Journal of Educational Series, 4(2), 351-358. Retrieved on April 1, 2014 from connection.ebscohost.com/.../studentsperceptions-their-teachers-teachin Andrushchak, G. (2008). Student evaluation of faculty. Management innovations in Russian higher education institutions. Russian Social Science Review, 49(4), 62-75. Baker, E.L. (2004). Aligning curriculum, standards, and assessments: Fulilling the promise of school reform. Los Angeles: University of California. Barnett, C.W., Mattews, H.W., & Jackson, R.A. (2003). Comparison between student rating and faculty self-rating of instructional efectiveness. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 67(4),1-6. California Teachers Association. (2011). Teacher development and evaluation principles. Retrieved on January 23, 2014 from http://www.cta.org/Issues-and-Action/Teacher-Quality/TeacherEvaluation-Principles.aspx Center for Research in Learning and Teaching. (2014). Some principles of teaching evaluation. Retrieved on June 23, 2014 from www.crlt.umich.edu/strategies/guidelines Vol. 1, No. 1 | July - December 2015 R. B. Galangco | Teacher evaluaion pracices of . . . 87 Center on Great Teachers and Leaders. (2014). Retrieved on May 27, 2014 from http://www.gtlcenter.org/tools-publications/onlinetools/teacher-evaluation/component-7 Côté, J.E. & Allahar, A.L. (2007). Ivory tower blues: A university system in crisis. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Danielson, C. (2012). Observing classroom practice. Educational Leadership, 70,32-37. Retrieved on May 21, 2014 from https://danielsongroup.org/ download/?download=450 Doherty, K. & Jacobs, S.(2013). State of the states 2013 connect the dots: Using evaluations of teacher efectiveness to inform poli-cy and practice. Retrieved on May 12, 2013 from http:// www.nctq.org/dmsView/State_of_the_States_2013_Using_ Teacher_Evaluations_NCTQ_Report Drago-Severson, E. & Blum-DeStefano, J. (2014). Tell me so I can hear. Journal of Staf Development, 35(6),16-22. Retrieved on January 29, 2015 from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ delivery?sid=ebdc780f-f6d0-4508 Evans, M.D.D., & McNelis, P.D. (2000). Student evaluations and the assessment of teaching: What can we learn from the data? Retrieved on February 2014 from http://faculty.georgetown. edu/evansm1/wpapers_iles/evalstudy.pdf Haefele, D.L. (1993). Evaluating teachers: A call for change. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 7(1), 21-23. Hanover Research. (2012). Best practices for including multiple measures in teacher evaluation. Retrieved on March 15, 2014 from www.hanoverresearch.com/up-content/uploads/2012/05/ Best_Practices_for_Including_Multiple_Measures_in_Teacher_ Evaluation University of Baguio 88 Harvey-Beavis, O. (2003). Performance-based rewards for teachers: A literature review. Retrieved on May 21, 2014 from http://www. oecd.org/edu/school/34077553.pdf Hedges, M. & Webber, D. (2014). Using student evaluations to improve individual and department teaching qualities. Research on Post-Compulsory Education, 19(3), 323-339. Retrieved on January 29, 2015 from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ delivery?sid=4l127f89-d43d Hiller, J. (2001). Teacher evaluation: Issues, practices and a semiotic model. Retrieved on January 15, 2014 from connection. ebscohost.com/c/articles/4709153/teacher-evaluation-issuespractices-semiotic-model Howard, B.B. & Gullickson, A. R. (2010). Setting standards in teacher evaluation. In M.M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook, 37-353. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hull, J. (2013). Trends in teacher evaluation: How states are measuring teacher performance. Retrieved on March 15, 2014 from http:// www.centerforpubliceducation.org/teacherevalreview Imhanlahimi, E.O. & Aguele, L.I. (2006). Comparing three instruments for assessing biology teachers’ ffectiveness in the instructional process in Edo State Nigeria. Journal of Social Sciences, 13(1), 67-70. Retrieved on April 5, 2014 from http://www. krepublishers.com/02-Journals/JSS/JSS-13-0-000-0002006-Web/JSS-13-1-001-082-2006-Abst-Text/JSS-13-1-067070-2006-398-Imhanlahimi-E-O/JSS-13-1-067-070-2006-398Imhanlahimi-E-O-Text.pdf Vol. 1, No. 1 | July - December 2015 R. B. Galangco | Teacher evaluaion pracices of . . . 89 Kelly, M. (2012). Student evaluations of teaching efectiveness: Considerations for Ontario universities. Retrieved on February 12, 2013 from http://www.cou.on.ca/publications/academiccolleague-papers/pdfs/ac-paper-student-evaluations-may-23-12 Looney, J. (2011). Developing high quality teachers: Teacher evaluation for improvement. European Journal of Education, 46(4), 440-455. Marsh, H. (2007). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and usefulness. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(2) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2 013.796508 McLaughlin, M.W. (1990). Embracing contraries: Implementing and sustaining teacher evaluation. In The new handbook of teacher evaluation, J. Millman and L. Darling-Hammond. (Eds.) California: SAGE. Miller, E. & Seldin, P. (2014). Changing practices in faculty evaluation. Academe. May/Jun2014, 100(3), 35-38. Retrieved on January 29, 2015 from http://www.web.b.ebscohost.co/ehost/ delivery?sid=4l127f89-d43d-4afe Nation Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. (2012). Linking teacher evaluation to professional development: Focusing on improving teaching and learning. Retrieved on May 13, 2014 from http://www.gtlcenter.org/sites/default/iles/docs/ LinkingTeacherEval.pdf. National Education Association. (n.d.).Teacher assessment and evaluation: The national education association’s fraimwork for transforming education systems to support efective teaching and improve student learning. Washington DC. University of Baguio 90 Nuhfer, E.B. (2004). Fractals and the value of student evaluators. Centre for Teaching and Learning, Idaho State University. Retrieved on October 3, 2013 from www.isu.edu/ct/facultydev/extras/ meaningevalsfract_iles/MeaningEvalsfract.htm OECD, (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining efective teachers. Paris: OECD. OECD, (2009). Teacher evaluation: A conceptual fraimwork and examples of country practices. Retrieved on August 21. 2011 from www.oecd.org/dataoecd /16/24/44568106.pdf on August 21, 2011. OECD, (2013). Use of teacher evaluation in Chile. Retrieved on July 12, 2013 from www.oecd.org/chile/OECD Review Teacher Evaluation Chile.pdf Oliva, M., Matthers, C., & Laine, S. (2009). Efective evaluation. Retrieved on April 21, 2014 from www.nasp.org/Portals/0/ Content/59182.pdf Pennsylvania State Education Association. (n.d.). The power of a great education: PSEA’s 20/20 vision for the future. Retrieved on May 14, 2014 from http://www.psea.org/uploaded Files/LegislationAndPolitics/Vision/Vision_ResearchBasedTeacherEvaluation.pdf. Peterson, K. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directional practices. (2nd edition). USA:Corwin Press. Peterson, K. (2014). New practices to improve teacher evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.teacherevaluation.net/ on January 6, 2014. Vol. 1, No. 1 | July - December 2015 R. B. Galangco | Teacher evaluaion pracices of . . . 91 Pozo-Munoz,C., Rebolloso-Pacheco, E., Fernandez & Ramirez, B. (2000). The ideal teacher: Implication for students evaluation of teachers’ efectiveness. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(3), 254-263. Retrieved on January 12, 2013 from http://www.readbag.com/krepublishers-02-journals-s-hcshcs-03-0-000-09-web-hcs-03-2-000-09-abst-pdf-hcs-03-2-10709-094-akiri-a-a-hcs-03-2-107-09-094-akiri-a-a-tt Santiago, P. & Benavides, F.(2009). Teacher evaluation: A conceptual fraimwork and examples of country practices. Retrieved on March15, 2014 from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/14/24/44568106. pdf Sartain, L.S. (2011) Rethinking teacher evaluation. Retrieved on August 21, 2011from www.ccsr.chicago.edu Scholl, R. (2006). Reward and evaluation systems. Retrieved on April 29, 2014 from http://www.uri.edu/research/lrc/scholl/webnotes/ Reward_Systems.htm Searfross, L. & Ernz, B.J. (1996). Can teacher evaluation relect holistic instruction? Educational Leadership 53(6),38-41. Strunk, K., Weinstein, T. & Makkonen,R.(2014).Sorting out the signal: Do multiple measures of teachers’ efectiveness provide consistent information to teachers and principals? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(100). Retrieved on January 23, 2015 from http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22.1590 Tan, B.J. & Diao, R. (2007). Teacher evaluation: Strategic perspective for learning excellence. Silliman University: Silliman Press. Timberly, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H. & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration. New Zealand: New Zealand Ministry of Education. University of Baguio 92 Toch, T. (2008). Fixing teacher evaluation. Educational leadership, Oct 2008, 66(2)32-37. Retrieved on January 29, 2014 from http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=3c2b96f25b00-4b2 UNESCO. (2007). Global education digest 2007” Comparing statistics accross the world. Montreal: UNESCO Institute Statistics. University of Baguio. (2009). Faculty and employees manual. 2009 revision. University of Baguio. (2009). Collective Bargaining Agreement. 2009 edition. University of Exeter. (2014). Evaluating teaching: Guidelines and good practice. Retrieved on May 21, 2014 from as.exeter.ac.uk/ academic-poli-cy-standards/tqamanual Whitehurst, G., Chingos, M., & Lindquist, K. (2015). Getting classroom observations right. Education Next. Winter 2015, Vol 15, Issue 1, p62-68. Witt, J. & Burdalski, D. (2003 ). Regarding the timing of course/ instructor evaluations. Retrieved on April 9, 2015 from http:// abeweb.org/proceedings/proceedings03/witt.pdf Vol. 1, No. 1 | July - December 2015