aton & ganotice_ppt

8/9/2019 Aton & Ganotice_ppt

1/20

for Scoring

evelopment and Validation of

Analytic Scoring Rubric

Teaching Demonstration

D

2nd

National Conference on Educational Measurement and Evaluation


2/20

2


3/20

3


4/20

4


5/20

Dimensions of the Rubric

Dimension Number of Indicators

Lesson Planning 7

Teacher Personality 6

Content 6

Utilization of InstructionalMaterials 11

Teaching Methods andInstructional Delivery 21

Classroom Management 7

Questioning Skills 11


6/20

Percentage for

Each Dimension TeacherPersonality5%

Lesson

Planning,

5%

Content,35%

Utilizationof

Instructional

Materials,

5%

TeachingMethods

andInstructional

Delivery,25%

Classroom

Management

20%

QuestioningSkills

5%


7/20

Steps Considered in the

Development of the Rubric


8/20




9/20




10/20

Content ValidationThree experts checked and reviewed

the items that were constructed.

Content validation was attained inthis study by presenting to these 3

experts the draft items where they

gave their comments. Their valuable

suggestions were considered for thedesired improvement of the

instrument.


11/20

Inter-Rater ReliabilityIn this instrument, the inter-rater

reliability was established by requesting 3qualified faculty members (by expertise) to

simultaneously rate the performance ofstudent teachers as they perform teachingtasks. This was done to measure thehomogeneity of ratings between and amongthe two or more raters using the same

instrument (Arter, 2001).


12/20

Inter-rater Reliability & Homogeneity

Dimension r Description F test P F critical

Teacher Personality .93 Very strong 0 1

4.256495

Lesson Planning .91 Very strong1 0.405344

Content .89 Very strong 0.5 0.622431

Utilization of Instructional

Materials .70 Very strong 1.3333 0.31105

Teaching Methods and

Instructional Delivery.87 Very strong

0.3 0.747947

Classroom Management .96 Very strong 0.9 0.440235

Questioning Skills .52 Strong

3 0.100388Over-all .83 Very strong Description No significant difference

Legend: (Rosenthal, 2001)

Correlation Size of Association Strength of Association

About +/-.10 small weak

About +/-.30 medium moderate

About +/- .50 large strong

About +/- .70 very large Very strong


13/20

Criterion-Related ValidationIn this study, criterion-related validity was

established by correlating the performance of thestudent teachers in their demonstration to their

performance in the final examination in one of theirmajor subjects. This was done in 3 selected stateuniversities. The final examination used wasdepartmental examination given across all studentsenrolled in the particular major subjects in the state

universities where the pilot testing was conducted.


14/20

Criterion-Related Validation

Criterion-related validation results in 3 state universities

* Significant at p>.05

State

University

Students

Average Score

in TeachingDemonstration

Students

Average

Grade inMajor Subject

Correlation

Coefficient

1 92.40 93.27 0.76*

2 91.67 92.07 0.86*

3 89.20 92.27 0.55*


15/20

The Scoring ProcedureBelow are the steps in grading the whole demonstration

teaching using this rubric:

1. In evaluating students performance against a set of

criteria articulated in this rubric, the evaluator is

expected to be very objective by going through each

item in every dimension and identify if the said item isclearly observed.

2. To determine the grade for each dimension, count the

number items with X mark and identify the performance

level corresponding to the score (e.g., two Xs isequivalent to 2 which is qualitatively described as in-

progress). Write in the evaluator column (please

identify your number whether you are evaluator 1. 2 or

3) the score for that dimension. Take note that the

highest score must be 4.


16/20

The Scoring Procedure

3. Take note that there is corresponding percentage for everydimension which should serve as multiplier of the score pointsobtained by student. The following are the percentage for eachdimension:

Dimension Weight inPercent

1. Teacher Personality 5%2. Lesson Planning 5%3. Content 35%4. Utilization of Instructional Materials 5%5. Teaching Methods and Instructional

Delivery25%

6. Classroom Management 20%7. Questioning Skills 5%

Total 100%


17/20

The Scoring Procedure

4. Transmute the weighted rating by referring to the table below to

determine the grade for demonstration teaching:

Rubric RatingEquivalent

Grade in Percent

4 - Exceeds Expectations 1003 Meets Expectations 90

2 In Progress 80

1 Novice 70

5. To get the equivalent grade of weighted rating that is a mixednumber, refer to the table above for the equivalent of the wholenumber and then every 0.1 decimal would be translated to %(e.g., 2.4 would mean 84% while 3.6 would mean 96%).


18/20

Scale Equivalence and Interpretation

Scale

Equivalent

Gradein % Interpretation

4 100You are excellent! Congratulations! That means you have

shown the characteristics of a good teacher as measured in

this instrument. Keep up the good work.

3 90

You did it well! You could be an outstanding teacher in the

future. But remember, there is still a room forimprovement. Try to work on those indicators you have

ignored.

2 80

You got a passing grade but such grade indicates that youneed to exert much effort to meet the standard of

excellence in teaching. Go over the evaluation result as

reflected in this rubric and try to reflect on the indicatorsyou ignored.

1 70

You got a failing mark which means that there is a needfor you to try again for the better. Remember to give

your best in teaching the second time around and nevergive up. Please see your teacher for help.

Note: Round off decimals to the nearest whole number to figure out the interpretation of grades.


19/20

Theimagecannot bedisplayed.Your computer may nothaveenough memorytoopen theimage,or theimagemay havebeen corrupted.Restartyourcomputer,and then open thefile again.If thered x stillappears,you may havetodeletetheimageand then insertitagain.


20/20

The researchers like to acknowledge the invaluable comments and

suggestions of the following:

Dr. Marilyn Ubina-Balagtas Philippine Normal University

Dr. Elmer Dela Rosa Central Luzon State University

Ms. Ruby Leah S. Lising Harris Memorial College

Ms Jonalyn B Villarosa Palawan State University

For further inquiries, please email

[email protected] or

[email protected]

aton & ganotice_ppt

Documents