the problems of qualitative– descriptive evaluation in - webs

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 796

MARCH 2013

VOL 4, NO 11

The Problems of Qualitative– Descriptive Evaluation in Relation to the Curriculum

Elements

Seyed Hossein Ebadi

Ph.D student of curriculum planning, Azad Islamic univ., Khorasgan, Isfahan, Iran

ABSTRACT

This investigation, performed to examine the problems in implementation of qualitative- descriptive evaluation

(QDE)(gradually substituting the quantitative/ score –oriented evaluation in Iranian grade schools as related to other

curriculum elements) uses the descriptive-survey method. The population was limited to the first- third grade

teachers and principals of the schools implementing the QDE plan in district 4, Isfahan (, Iran) (663 individuals).

Data were collected through responses of 113 teachers and 27 principals, selected by stratified random sampling, to

a researcher-made questionnaire, validity of which was confirmed by experts; and reliability , determined to 0..875

using Cronbach alpha. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics and independent t-test as well

as single-variable t-test for two-level variables and variance analysis for multi-level variables. The results indicate

many problems in implementing QDE regarding other curriculum components (objectives, content,

teaching/learning methods, and timing) or inconsistency of this evaluation method with other curriculum elements .

Keywords: Academic Achievement Evaluation, Traditional Evaluation, Qualitative-Descriptive evaluation

1. Introduction

The evaluation methods have been subject to dramatic changes and innovation along with the advancements in

psychology and proposition of novel theories on learning. The ultimate goal of the shift from traditional evaluation

methods in educational systems is to enhance the learning experience at school and to achieve better results

throughout the learning process (West & Crigton,1999).

New approaches to the evaluation of academic achievement rely on various and documented evidence and

information continuously collected and organized in the learning/teaching process, fully reflecting the

multidirectional learning and apparent performance of the learners. Such a view considers the evaluation as an

integral and inseparable part of learning process and instead of trying to classify the learners with labels of grade

points and scores, would commit itself to direct their learning.

Positive, motivating feedback and lack of emphasis on memory-orientation, process-thinking and continuous and

step-by-step assessment are some of the most important traits of a new approach to the academic achievement

evaluation (Black & Etal, 2000), traits which have been represented to a high extent in the new evaluation approach

used at Iranian grade schools, known as the qualitative-descriptive evaluation. The effective role of class evaluation

and how it used to be implemented during the recent years have received a lot of attention from the experts to the

extent that in the new approaches to learning/teaching it is emphasized that teachers, changing their attitudes and

practices towards the academic evaluation, may turn it into a useful instrument to improve the pupils‟ learning.

Therefore, considering the pathological studies of the traditional system of academic achievement evaluation and by

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2013

VOL 4, NO 11

tracking the shortcomings undermining the dynamism, efficiency and effectiveness of our educational system,

finally the revision of academic achievement evaluation methods was proposed in early 2000‟s, making the

qualitative-descriptive method the official evaluation program for the first to fifth grades in 2012.

The qualitative-descriptive evaluation is a more complete version of continuous evaluation which, by shifting from

final evaluation and tendency toward developmental and process-based evaluation, by using qualitative-descriptive

feedback and by applying a qualitative scale (very good, good, acceptable, requiring more effort) instead of

quantitative scale or the grade points (0-20), employs many instruments to gather and organize the needed

information for judgment about the pupils‟ academic achievement so that it considers some room for self

assessment and peer assessment , too.

Apart from either integrationist or separationist approaches to the teaching and learning area, the former supporting

the interweaving of the two and the latter denying any necessary links between them (Mehre Mohammadi, 2008)

desirable implementation of descriptive evaluation requires an understanding of the very close relationship between

curriculum elements. Although there is no consensus on what such elements are, and they include a broad range

from one to nine, the most common approach in this area considers the curriculum as containing four elements:

goals/objectives, content, learning/teaching methods and evaluation (Mehre Mohammadi, 2008). Frances Klein

identifies the curriculum with nine elements: objectives, content, learning activities, teaching methods, learning

materials and resources, evaluation, timing, space or environment, and grouping (Maleki, 2007).

A desirable curriculum is a balanced, coherent and cohesive combination of all the mentioned elements which has

been formulated logically during the curriculum planning process. Obviously, every teaching method will not

achieve the curriculum objectives and any content requires a particular method of teaching. The effects of

appropriate timing and environment on any of curriculum elements can not be ignored, though; and one may design

and offer suitable content presentation methods, with attention to other elements, only by using various learning

activities, from written and illustrated forms to out-of-school activities such as visits and excursions. On the other

hand, the learners evaluation should be proportional to the objective, content, learning/teaching methods, offered

learning activities, timing and environment. No doubt the qualitative evaluation is not consistent with traditional

teaching methods, lectures and monologic explanations by the teachers because an education system‟s identity is not

separated from its meaning, curriculum areas and objectives. Therefore any innovation in evaluation methods would

fail without a revision of content, teaching/learning methods and curriculum objectives. While the curricula are still

being formulated with contents and objectives adopted from behavioral approaches, one may not hope to obtain any

outcomes from the implementation of qualitative-descriptive evaluation which has originated from a constructivistic

approach, focusing on assessment of thought, understanding, reasoning, problem-solving and application of the

things learned. The physical and psychological atmosphere of the classroom, too, should be organized appropriately

to the new evaluation approach in a flexible and alterable manner to realize various and multi-layer activities and

objectives of qualitative-descriptive evaluation; and only in this case the classroom‟s physical and psychological

environment will enhance the pupils‟ self-esteem, self-control, prosocial behavior, sexual identity, logic thinking,

creativity and problem-solving capability (Whitebread, 2000). Now the question is, whether or not relevant changes

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2013

VOL 4, NO 11

has been made in other elements of curriculum along with the changes in the traditional evaluation method and

introduction of qualitative-descriptive method as an alternative approach in Iran‟s grade schools; whether or not

Iranian educational system‟s fascination towards quick promotion of descriptive evaluation method has led to

inconsistencies between evaluation elements and other curriculum elements of elementary program. Considering

questions like the foregoing, the present paper tries to find the problems raised in implementation of descriptive

evaluation in terms of other curriculum elements.

2. Literature Review

An examination of the studies performed in the qualitative-descriptive evaluation area indicates that although many

investigations have focused on the comparison of score-oriented traditional evaluation and descriptive evaluation

since 2003 (the plan‟s onset year) , generally supporting the positive impact of the new approach on issues such as

psychological health and pupils‟ learning improvement, little attention has been paid to the issues treated by the

present paper (Ebadi, 2011).

One may briefly list the most important difficulties of qualitative-descriptive evaluation in terms of attention to other

curriculum elements, reported in domestic investigations as secondary findings, as follows:

2.1. The massive amount of textbook contents and their contradictions with the objectives of descriptive evaluation

(Khosh Kholgh and Pasha Sharifi, 2010).

2.2. Discord between traditional teaching methods nad descriptive evaluation (Khosh Kholgh and Pasha Sharifi,

2010).

2.3. Lack of precise and comprehensive criteria for curriculum objectives formulation (Khosh Kholgh and Pasha

Sharifi, 2010).

2.4. Intrinsic discord among effective components of curriculum planning and inconsistency between descriptive

evaluation requirements and the actual curriculum (Mohaghegh Moiin,2003; Amini,2003)

2.5. The time consuming nature of descriptive evaluation and disproportionality of teaching‟s timing and

application of its varied tools (Hasani and Ahmadi, 2004).

In the instigations abroad in the descriptive evaluation area- not as a new evaluation model but as a version of

developmental evaluation- some studies investigating the qualitative feedbacks in the pupils‟ academic achievement

evaluation have been reviewed by the researcher.

Similarly to the domestic investigations, Turner (2000), Black and William (1998), Fuchs et al.(1999), Lachiver and

Taradif, Moya and Malley (1994), Eggen and Kauchak (2001), Lan, Park and Stone (2002) have demonstrated the

positive impact of qualitative evaluation – accompanied by descriptive feedbacks- on pupils‟ cognitive, affective

and psychomotor development and learning enhancement.

Leahy, Lyon, Thompson and William (2005) and Patton (2010) have reported similar results. Hebdige (2003) and

Waddell (2004) also obtained similar results. On the other hand, teachers‟ failure in applying appropriate evaluation

methods in accord with the curriculum content has been reported by Gioka (2006) (Ebadi, 2011).

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2013

VOL 4, NO 11

3. Research Purpose

The general goal of the present paper is to determine the problems raising during the implementation o qualitative –

descriptive evaluation in Iran in terms of its consideration of curriculum elements (goals, content, learning/teaching

methods, timing) and solutions to improve it. To achieve this, the following questions have been taken into

consideration:

3.1. To what extent is the implementation of qualitative-descriptive evaluation problematic in association wit other

elements of curriculum (goals, content, teaching/learning methods, and timing)? Is the qualitative –s=descriptive

evaluation in Iranian schools consistent with other curriculum elements?

3.2. Are there any differences among the teachers‟ and principals‟ views concerning the first question above in

terms of demographic factors (sex, position, educations and service records)?

4. Research Methods

As the present paper tries to reflect and describe the views of grade school teachers and principals of district four of

the city of Isfahan (Iran) concerning the executive/operational problems of qualitative-descriptive evaluation as

related to other curriculum components, it is a descriptive paper; and given the examination of respondents‟

comments in the mentioned area, is a survey-type one.

5. Population, Sample and Sampling Method

The population for the present investigation includes all the teachers of first to third grade and principals of

elementary schools throughout the fourth district of the city of Isfahan, who have evaluated the pupils‟ academic

achievements using the qualitative-descriptive approach during the academic year 2011-12, whose total number,

based on the official statistics of the General Office of Education in the province of Isfahan, is 663. From them, 533

are teachers and the remaining 130, principals. In order to predict the sample size, a preliminary study was

performed on 30 grade school teachers and principals of Isfahan‟s fourth district and using variance estimation and

Cochran formula, the sample size was determined to include 113 the teachers and 27 principals. It must be noted

that stratified random sampling, proportional to the population, has been used due to heterogeneities in teaching

grades (position) and sex.( Table 1)

6. Data Collection Tool

Considering the previous studies and due to the lack of a standardized questionnaire for the present paper‟s purpose,

a researcher-made questionnaire containing 11 closed answer was used for data collection. The questionnaire‟s

formal and content validity was confirmed using the comments of educational professionals and university

professors and its reliability was verified in two stages. In the first stage, after preliminary administration, Cronbach

alpha was 0.974; and after final administration, it was 0.875 which indicates the tool‟s proper reliability.

7. Data Analysis Method

The research data were analyzed using appropriate statistical tests in descriptive and inferential levels. For

descriptive analysis of the data produced by the research tool, appropriate descriptive statistics such as ratio,

percentage, classification and statistical tests such as chi-square were used for a preliminary description of results. In

the inferential analysis, after an examination of the scores‟ distribution normality through Kolmogorov - Smirnov

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2013

VOL 4, NO 11

test, relevant parametric tests such as single variable t-test and independent t-test were used for two-level variables;

and variance analysis test (F), for multi-level variables; and Mann- Ehitney U and Kruskal – Wallis non-parametric

tests were used for more certainty.

8. Findings

8.1. The first question (3.1)

An analysis of the respondents‟ answers to the items relating to this question and the average weight of 4.40 out of 5

indicate ( Table 2) that respondents believed that the implementation of qualitative- descriptive evaluation has

many problems in terms of its consideration of other curriculum elements.

The highest average (4.60) belongs to items 3 and 10; and the lowest (4.16), to item 4.

For inferential analysis purposes, first the normality of the scores‟ distribution was confirmed using Kolmogorov -

Smirnov test, and then the single-variable t-test (Table 3) was applied.

The results of inferential analysis indicate a significance level of <0.0005; and since this value is smaller than 0.01,

therefore the observed difference is statistically significant in 99% certainty level. In other words, the respondents

believed that the implementation of qualitative-descriptive evaluation has serious problems/shortcoming in terms of

its consideration of curriculum elements (goals, content, teaching/learning method and timing). That is, the

qualitative- descriptive being performed in Iranian grade schools is not consistent with other elements of the

curriculum.

8.1.1. Item-by-Item Analysis Results

The followings are the results obtained from the analysis of individual items .( Table 4)

According to the inferential analysis results in all items, the significance level was lower than 0.05 that is, the results

are statistically significant in 95% certainty level. In other words, in all the items, the difference observed between

assumed average and average was significant. That is, the evaluations of items, indicate by „high‟ and „very high‟,

are significant.

8.1.2. Other Findings

8.1.2.1. Rating the Executive Problems of Qualitative-Descriptive Evaluation in Relation with the Curriculum

Elements

Friedman test was used to rate the problems and shortcomings of qualitative- descriptive evaluation‟s

implementation I n relation to the elements of curriculum (goals, content, teaching/learning methods, and timing).

The results are presented below.

8.1.2.1.1. Descriptive Results

Table 5 summarizes the results of rating the executive problems of qualitative-descriptive evaluation in relation with

the curriculum elements. Considering the fact that the larger the average ratings, the more serious the impact of that

particular problem, here the problem outlined by Item 10 has the highest rating (impact) and the one indicated by

Item 4 has the lowest rating (impact).

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2013

VOL 4, NO 11

8.1.2.1.2. Inferential Results

Freidman test revealed( Table 6) that the difference between average ratings obtained was statistically significant in

99% certainty level.

Results of Freidman test indicated that the problem outlined in Item 10 had the highest rating (impact) and the ones

presented by Items 6 and 7 occupied the second and third positions, respectively.

8.2. Second Question (3.2)

The following statistical hypothesis was verified in order to answer the second question of the present

investigation, pointed out in the section 3.2 above.

8.2.1. Statistical hypothesis:

There is no significant differences among the respondents‟ views on the executive problems of descriptive

evaluation as related to curriculum elements in terms of demographic factors (sex, position, educations and work

records). The results did not reject the above statistical hypothesis. In other words, male and female respondents

with different education background and work records, provided the same comments about any of the research

questions.

8.2.1.1. Sex

This result on the sex variable was supported both by independent t-test (first assuming variances equality by the

aid of Levene‟s test and then by assuming the averages equality for both variance equality and inequality modes)

and non-parametric Mann–Whitney U -test.

According to results (Tables 7&8) the assumption of variances equality applies because in this question the

significance level (p value) is bigger than 0.05. Thus one could say that variances are equal and therefore the

information test has been written assuming the equality of variances.

Also, according to above table, the difference observed between male and female averages is not significant because

in these questions the significance level is higher than o.05. that is, male and female respondents have provided the

same comments. It should be noted that the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U demonstrates the same results.(

Table 9)

Based on the multi-valued nature of other demographic variables (position, educations, work records)the F-test or

ANOVA was used.

8.2.1.2. Position

Tables 10& 11 summarize Frequency, average and standard deviation for the position variable ANOVA results

concerning the first research question.

Based on the results, the difference observed between respondents with different positions is not significant (p>0.05)

that is, respondents with different positions have provided similar comments. It must be noted that since the

averages difference was not significant, there was no need for use of follow-up tests to determine which averages

were different. Also, the non-parametric Kruskal – Wallis yielded the same results. (Table 12)

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2013

VOL 4, NO 11

8.2.1.3. Educations

Tables 13&14 summarize Frequency, average and standard deviation for the educations variable ANOVA results

concerning the first research question .

Based on the results, the difference observed between respondents with different educations is not significant

(p>0.05) that is, respondents with different academic degrees have provided similar comments. It must be noted that

that since the averages difference was not significant, there was no need for use of follow-up tests to determine

which averages were different. Also, the non-parametric Kruskal – Wallis yielded the same results. (Table 15)

8.2.1.4. Work Records

Tables 16&17 summarize Frequency, average and standard deviation for the Work Records variable and ANOVA

results concerning the first research question .

Based on the results, the difference observed between respondents with different Work Records is not significant

(p>0.05) that is, respondents with different work records have provided similar comments. It must be noted that that

since the averages difference was not significant, there was no need for use of follow-up tests to determine which

averages were different. Also, the non-parametric Kruskal – Wallis yielded the same results. (Table 18)

9. Discussion and Conclusion

The accelerated spread of qualitative- descriptive evaluation in Iran‟s educational system is an indication of the

authorities‟ decisiveness towards ending the 100-year long prevalence of traditional score-oriented evaluation

approach and establishing the new approach making it the alternative evaluation system even in guidance and high

schools. This approach seeks to return the role of assessment and evaluation to the scene of pupils‟ learning and its

goals, principles, features, methods, data gathering and information organizing tools all serve a better and more

sustainable learning.

Relative achievement of such objectives, together with improvement of psychological health in the learning

environment and the positive effect on the pupils‟ cognitive, affective and psychomotor characteristics have been

proved by domestic studies which, as in the present paper, have called the education experts and professionals

through a presentation of opportunities and threats and pointing out some executive problems of qualitative-

descriptive evaluation, challenging the unconditional interest of our educational system in replacing a fully

qualitative evaluation system. This does not mean that the values of courage, innovation and change-which are

necessary for the dynamism and health of any educational system- are ignored but is a reminder of the need of the

educational system for receiving constructive feedback and criticisms so that the qualitative-descriptive would

actually serve the learning and advancement of the society throughout the nation. The present investigation was

performed aiming at determination of problems in qualitative-descriptive evaluation as related to other curriculum

elements (goals, content, teaching/learning methods, and timing) using the comments of teaches and principals who

put their hopes in resolution of problems and growth of the academic evaluation system with their 8-year experience

in performing it and with their efforts and patience. The results indicated that the level of problems in qualitative-

descriptive evaluation in terms of its consideration of other curriculum elements was high, requiring serious

monitoring by those involved in order to prevent the repetition of problems and shortcomings of traditional score-

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2013

VOL 4, NO 11

oriented evaluation and emergence of the academic achievement evaluation deficiency phenomenon by tracing such

problems and considering the presented solutions. Coordination and proportionality of curriculum elements, as an

inevitable requirement, is emphasized by many educational experts and scholars. The results of the present research

showed that qualitative-descriptive evaluation faces many problems in the mentioned area (coordination with other

curriculum elements). As one major factor in emergence of this problem one may pint out the fact that the

qualitative-descriptive evaluation originates from the constructivism approach in learning while the contents of

many elementary textbooks have been formulated based on the behavioral objectives and the teachers insist on

entering the information into the pupils‟ minds using the traditional teaching/ learning activities. Another example

of the inconsistency between the new evaluation method and the curriculum elements is the time- disproportionality.

The qualitative-descriptive evaluation, due to its process-based nature and its emphasis on continuous and step-by-

step evaluation tools and methods, requires a timing more extended than the one currently made available by the

grade schools‟ daily executive calendar and this time limitation threatens the effectiveness and efficiency of the new

approach. Another part of emerged discords is a consequence of inappropriate actual organization of textbook

contents and a result of insistence on traditional teaching methods.

The results of the present paper indicated that among the executive problems corresponding to the curriculum

elements, the “disproportionality of timing and learning opportunities” had the highest rating (impact); and the “lack

of change and innovation inn learning/teaching activities along with the changes in evaluation approach” and the

“lack of revision and change while organizing of teaching methods” had the second and third ratings, respectively.

These findings are consistent with those obtained by the investigation titled “assessing the pilot implementation of

descriptive evaluation in fourth and fifth grades elementary in some educational regions of Iran” performed in 2010

with the endeavors of Dr. Iraj Khosh Kholgh and the supervision of Dr. Hassan Pasha Sharifi. According to the said

investigation, the qualitative-descriptive evaluation faces some problems in its implementation including

contradictions between textbooks‟ sizes and contents as well as its non-coordination with traditional

teaching/learning methods.

Also, the present findings are consistent with those of Mohaghegh Moiin (2003) and Amini (2003) which point out

the discrete structural link with the curriculum and the internal discord between effective curriculum elements as the

implementation problems of qualitative-descriptive evaluation, respectively.

No doubt the discord between the qualitative –descriptive evaluation element with other actual curriculum elements

of elementary program will be removed by revising the contents, goals, teaching methods and class timings and the

required coherence will be achieved. The following suggestions are presented based on the present findings.

9.1. Revising the elementary curriculum goals and goal-setting to meet the learners‟ eventual needs towards

sustainable learning (comprehension, inference, judgment, evaluation, problem-solving,…)

9.2. Revising the sizes and contents of elementary textbooks so that they would provide for the evaluation

opportunities simultaneously with the teaching/learning activities

9.3. Reformulating the lessons so that to teach them would require modern teaching methods and urge the teachers

to this new area

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2013

VOL 4, NO 11

9.4. Revising the class calendar and providing for the opportunities to perform the tasks which are appropriate to

the descriptive evaluation

9.5. Decentralization in textbook compilation and participation of lower organizational levels for curriculum

planning and for the design of localized projects based on the learners‟ regional and local conditions

9.6. Professional training for the teachers in application of novel teaching/learning methods and revising the

teacher training programs incorporating novel evaluation methods

9.7. Restructuring the learning environment, class and school and providing for healthy physical and

psychological environments appropriate to the novel teaching/learning activities

9.8. Preparing teachers’ guides in national level containing lists of behaviors, performance tests, and challenging

tasks for each lesson, meeting the teachers‟ needs and saving their planning times to the teaching time‟s interest,

thereby relatively removing the problem of time-consuming nature of descriptive evaluation

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2013

VOL 4, NO 11

References

1. Amini Tehrani, Manoochehr (2003), “an assessment of qualitative-descriptive evaluation‟s automatic

enhancement (goals, principles and approaches)”, educational management M.A. dissertation, Isfahan, Management

and Planning org. for the province of Isfahan

2. Hasani, Mohammad and Ahmadi, Hossein (2004), “ report of pilot implementation of descriptive evaluation plan

in Iran‟s selected schools in academic year 2003-4”, Tehran, Education research center

3. Khosh Kholgh, Iraj and Sharifi, Hassan Pasha (2007), “an assessment of trial implementation of descriptive

evaluation in primary schools of some regions of Iran (2005-6)”, education quarterly, no.4, vol. 22, pp 117-147

4. Khosh Kholgh, Iraj and Sharifi, Hassan Pasha (2010), “a report of assessment results of trial implementation of

descriptive evaluation (in fourth and fifth grades primary schools of some regions of Iran (2005-6)”, Tehran ,

education research center

5. Ebadi, Seyed Hossein (2011), “ a study of qualitative-descriptive evaluation problems in the views of grade

school teachers and principals of Isfahan‟s fourth district”, curriculum planning M.A. dissertation

6. Mohaghegh Moiin, Mohammad Hossein (2003), “an assessment of pre-trial implementation of descriptive

evaluation plan: an investigative report”, Tehran, Academic and educational evaluation office, general education

Vice Ministry of Education

7. Maleki, Hassan (2007), “curriculum planning”, 9tth edition, Tehran, Payame Andisheh publishers

8. Mehre Mohammadi, Mahmood et al. (2009), “curriculum planning and its relationship with other majors in

educational sciences”, research paper published in “Curriculum: views, approaches and perspectives”, Tehran,

Astane Ghodse Razavi publishers

10. Block. M. E etal (2002) coping with conflicting demands: student assessment in Dutch primary school, studies

in educational evaluation, V. 28,pp. 177-188

11. Eggen. P, kauchak.D.(2001). Edicational psychology.(5th

ed). Upper saddle river, NJ: prentice hall.

12. Fuchs.L&Fuchs. D., karnes, K. hanlett, C., & katzararoff, M.(1999). Mathematics performance assessment in

the classroom, effects on theacher planning and student problem solving. American educational research journal, 36,

609-646.

13. Lachiver, R. & Taradif, G. L. (2002). Teacher evaluation, student self-evaluation. Journal of Learning

disabilities, 13(5).

14. Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & William, D.(2005) classroom assessment: minute by minute, day by

day. Educational headership. 63, PP:19-24.

15. Moya, N. & Malley, G. (1994). A portfolio assessment model for ESI. Educational Issues. Spring, 18-36.

16. Patton, M. Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to enhance innovation and

use. NewYork: Guilford press.

17. Turner, C.E (2000). Investigating washback from empirically derived rating scales: background and initial step

in a study focusing on ESL speaking at the secondary level in Quebec schools, paper presented at the annual

language testing research collo quium, van couver, BC.22,nd

.

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2013

VOL 4, NO 11

18. West, R&crighton, J.(1999). Examination reform in central and eastern Europe issues and trends assessment in

Education. Vol, No. 2. PP 35-45.

19. Whitebread ,D.(2000)The psychology of teaching and learning in the primary school,Cambridge: Cambridge

university press

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2013

VOL 4, NO 11

Annexure

Stratum title

(position)

Male Female Total

Population Sample Population Sample Population Sample

First grade

teachers

15 3 231 49 246 52

Second grade

teachers 17 4 224 47 241 51

Third grade

teachers

15 3 31 7 46 10

Principals 67 14 63 13 130 27

Total 114 24 549 116 663 140

Table 1. Frequency Distribution of the Population in terms of Sex, grade and Position

In your view, which of the followings may represent

one of the qualitative evaluation‟s executive

problems?

Very

low

Low Medium High Very

high

Average

1. Impossibility of using the

descriptive evaluation approach in all

subject matters

Frequency 0 1 19 72 48

4.19

Percentage 0 .7 13.6 51.4 34.3

2. Inconsistency between the

implementation of descriptive

evaluation and the actual contents of

elementary text books

Frequency

0

1

7

70

62

4.38

Percentage 0 .7 5 50 44.3

3. Unachievement of descriptive

evaluation goals due to the actual size

and variety in the textbooks

Frequency 0 0 8 40 92 4.60

Percentage 0 0 5.7 28.6 65.7

4. Non-achievement of elementary

curriculum objectives through

descriptive evaluation

Frequency 0 3 22 65 50 4.16

percentage 0 2.1 15.7 46.4 35.7

5. Inconsistency between descriptive

evaluation and elementary education

goals as compared with the score-

oriented evaluation

Frequency 0 1 17 75 47 4.20

Percentage 0 .7 12.1 53.6 33.6

6. Lack of changes and innovations in Frequency 1 1 15 45 78 4.41

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2013

VOL 4, NO 11

learning process along with the

changes in evaluation approach

Percentage .7 .7 10.7 32.1 55.7

7. Lack of revisions and changes in

teaching methods for desirable


evaluation

Frequency 0 3 11 53 73 4.40

Percentage 0 2.1 7.9 37.9 52.1

8. Inappropriateness of actual

organization of elementary textbooks

for desirable implementation of


Frequency 0 1 8 44 87 4.55

percentage 0 .7 5.7 31.4 62.1

9. Unachieved objectives of

descriptive evaluation regarding

special pupils (special needs, learning

disorders,…)

Frequency 2 5 12 47 74 4.33

Percentage 1.4 3.6 8.6 33.6 52.9

10. Non-proportionality of timing and

educational opportunities for


evaluation compared with the timing

assigned to learning/teaching process

Frequency 0 1 2 35 95 4.60

Percentage 0 .7 6.4 25 67.9

11. Undesirable efficiency and

effectiveness of descriptive

evaluation without extended teaching

times

Frequency 0 0 8 41 91 4.59

Percentage 0 0 5.7 29.3 65

Total (curriculum elements including:

goals, content, teaching/learning

methods, and timing)

Average

frequency

0 2 12 53 73 4.40

percentage 0 1.4 8.6 37.9 52.1

Table 2. Respondents’ Answers to the First Question’s Items

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2013

VOL 4, NO 11

Assumed

average

Average Standard

deviation

t df Significance

4 4.40 .362 13.099 139 <.0005

Table 3. Results of Single-Variable t-Test as Related to the First Question

Items Average Standard

deviation

t df Significance level Evaluation

Item 1 4.19 .688 3.317 139 .001 High

Item 2 4.38 .617 7.258 139 <.0005 High

Item 3 4.60 .597 11.885 139 <.0005 Very high

Item 4 4.16 .761 2.443 139 .016 High

Item 5 4.20 .670 3.532 139 .001 High

Item 6 4.41 .768 6.383 139 <.0005 High

Item 7 4.40 .728 6.504 139 <.0005 High

Item 8 4.55 .638 10.194 139 <.0005 Very high

Item 9 4.33 .855 4.393 139 <.0005 High

Item 10 4.60 .644 11.028 139 <.0005 Very high

Item 11 4.59 .599 11.720 139 <.0005 Very high

Table 4. Results of Single-Variable t-Test, Comparing the Average with the Assumed Average 4 in Individual Items

Related to the First Question

Item Executive Problems of Qualitative-Descriptive Evaluation in Relation

with the Curriculum Elements

Average Rating Rating

10 Non-proportionality of timing and educational opportunities for

implementation of descriptive evaluation compared with the timing

assigned to learning/teaching process

6.89 1

11 Undesirable efficiency and effectiveness of descriptive evaluation without

extended teaching times

6.83 2

3 Non-achievement of descriptive evaluation goals due to the actual size

and variety in the textbooks

6.79 3

8 Inappropriateness of actual organization of elementary textbooks for

desirable implementation of descriptive evaluation

6.63 4

6 Lack of changes and innovations in learning process along with the

changes in evaluation approach

6.07 5

7 Lack of revisions and changes in teaching methods for desirable 6.02 6

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2013

VOL 4, NO 11

implementation of descriptive evaluation

9 Unachieved objectives of descriptive evaluation regarding special pupils

(special needs, learning disorders,…)

5.96 7

2 Inconsistency between the implementation of descriptive evaluation and

the actual contents of elementary text books

5.75 8

5 Inconsistency between descriptive evaluation and elementary education

goals as compared with the score-oriented evaluation

5.06 9

1 Impossibility of using the descriptive evaluation approach in all subject

matters

5.03 10

4 Non-achievement of elementary curriculum objectives through


4.96 11

Table 5. Rating the Executive Problems of Qualitative-Descriptive Evaluation in Relation with the Curriculum

Elements

Curriculum elements Number df Chi-square Significance level

140 10 104.423 <.0005

Table 6. Freidman Test Results

Sex Frequency Average Standard Deviation

Male 24 4.43 .362

Female 116 4.40 .364

Table 7. Frequency, Average and Standard Deviation, Differentiated by Sex

Levene’s Test (Variances Equality) t-Test (Averages Equality)

F Sig t df Sig 2. Taol d

.068 .795 .396 138 .693

Table 8. Independent t- Test Results for the Sex Variable

Asymp. Sig z Wilcoxon W Mann-Ehitney U

.741 .331 8118.5 1332.5

Table 9. A Summary of Mann–Whitney U Data for the Sex Variable

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2013

VOL 4, NO 11

Position Frequency Average Standard Deviation

1st Grade Teacher 52 4.40 .356

2nd

Grade Teacher 51 4.43 .359

3rd

Grade Teacher 10 4.51 .433

Principal 27 4.31 .357

Table 10. Frequency, average and standard deviation for the First Question, Differentiated by Position

Origin of

Changes

Sum of Squares df Squares

Average

F Sig

Inter-group .367 3 .122

.930

.428

Intra-group 17.897 136 .132

Total 18.264 139

Table 11. ANOVA Results (Position Variable)

Asymp.Sig df Chi-Square

.448 3 2.654

Table 12. Summary of Kruskal – Wallis Test Data (Position Variable)

Degree Frequency Average Standard Deviation

High school diploma 15 4.42 .412

Junior college diploma

(undergraduate)

58 4.47 .363

Bachelor‟s 65 4.34 .342

Master‟s and higher 2 4.09 .386

Table 13. Frequency, average and standard deviation for the First Question, Differentiated by Educations

Origin of

Changes


Average

F Sig


1.904

.132

Intra-group 17.528 136

.129 Total 18.264 139

Table 14. ANOVA Results for Educations Variable


.084 3 6.650

Table 15. Summary of Kruskal – Wallis Test Data for Educations Variable

ijcrb.webs.com



MARCH 2013

VOL 4, NO 11

Work Records

(in years)

Frequency Average Standard Deviation

1 - 10 6 4.38 .352

11- 20 42 4.40 .336

21 - 30 92 4.40 .378

Table 16. Frequency, average and standard deviation for the First Question, Differentiated by Educations

Origin of

Changes


Average

F Sig


.013

.987

Intra-group 18.261 137

.133 Total 18.264 139

Table 17. ANOVA Results for Work Records Variable


.941 2 .121

Table 18. Summary of Kruskal – Wallis Test Data for Work Records Variable

the problems of qualitative– descriptive evaluation in - webs

Documents