Lesson Observation Sample Clauses
The Lesson Observation clause establishes the right of a party, typically an employer or educational institution, to observe lessons conducted by an instructor or teacher. This clause usually outlines the circumstances under which observations may occur, such as with prior notice or at random, and may specify who is authorized to conduct the observation. Its core practical function is to ensure quality control and provide feedback on teaching performance, thereby supporting professional development and maintaining educational standards.
Lesson Observation i. The evaluator shall conduct a series of observations which shall include:
(1) one or more pre-arranged formal classroom visitations; and
(2) two or more unannounced formal classroom visitations, but in any event no more than six formal classroom visitations unless the teacher and the evaluator otherwise agree.
Lesson Observation. After identifying the personal DSG the educator needs to be evaluated, for the purpose of determining a “baseline” evaluation with which subsequent evaluation(s) can be compared in order to determine progress. By this time the educator will have completed a self-evaluation and will have determined strengths as well as areas in need of development. This evaluation must be preceded by a pre-evaluation discussion. The evaluation should be done by both members of the DSG. Should an educator request for an additional member to serve on the DSG, the request may be granted by the SDT. A reasonable request may not be refused. The purpose of this evaluation by the DSG is: to confirm (or otherwise) the educator’s perception of his/her own performance as arrived at through the process of self-evaluation. to enable discussion around strengths and areas in need of development and to reach consensus on the scores for individual criteria under each of the Performance Standards and to resolve any differences of opinion that may exist. to provide the opportunity for constructive engagement around what the educator needs to do for him/herself, what needs to be done by the school in terms of mentoring and support (especially by the DSG) and what INSET and other programmes need to be provided by, for example, the District/Local office. to enable the DSG and the educator (together) to develop a Personal Growth Plan (PGP) which includes targets and time frames for improvement. The PGP must primarily be developed by the educator with refinements being done by the DSG. to provide a basis for comparison with the evaluation for Performance Measurement purposes which is carried out at the end of the year. In subsequent years the summative evaluation (for PM) becomes the baseline evaluation for the following year. This means that after 2004 all educators (except new teachers entering the system for the first time) will only be evaluated once per annum.
Lesson Observation. 6.5.1 Lesson observations will be undertaken by the immediate supervisor as part of the mid-year and annual appraisal process;
6.5.2 The resource person may also participate in the lesson observation process;
6.5.3 More lesson observations are encouraged, depending on the need;
6.5.4 The purpose of the lesson observation is: o To appraise the performance of the educator o To confirm (or otherwise) the educator’s perception of his/her own performance in the classroom; o To provide a basis for the assessment of the educator’s pedagogical skills.
Lesson Observation. Using a voice recorder with a good quality microphone, I audio-recorded 95 lessons of Years 8 and 10 French and German, in total, across all three case study sites; approximately, three times a week during my time in each school. I needed a sustained amount of time for observations in order to establish how to choose my samples, identify the general patterns of the lesson and to allow some time to work out where it was best for me to position myself in the classroom, and to accustom the students to my presence as best I could. During the lessons, my role varied. I took detailed notes, some analytical, relating to my proposed guiding questions for interviews, with some relating to practical matters, such as additional detail that would subsequently help to make sense of the audio. There were also times when I assumed a more active and participatory role as teacher/helper. ▇▇▇ (1999) divides researcher involvement into four main types, but they are not seen as separate categories, but rather, as being on a continuum, exactly as I experienced. The researcher can be a ‘complete observer’, solely backgrounded and passive, whilst in direct contrast, he or she can be a ‘complete participant’. This is described as fully involved, but not open about research intentions and so, effectively, ‘under cover’. Between these two poles on the continuum, and where I decided to position myself, are the ‘participant-observer’, becoming fully involved in the place of research and transparently conducting the research, and ‘observer-participant’, a non-member of the place of research, but a clear conductor of research. As a teacher, there were times when I moved from observer and data-gatherer, to firmly in teacher/co-teacher role. I see myself as having been fluidly occupying this middle space on ▇▇▇’▇ continuum (1999, pp.89-99). Nonetheless, as I undertook my observation, I became aware of what ▇▇▇▇▇ (1970, p.32) refers to as the ‘observer’s paradox’, contending that, ‘the aim of linguistic research must be to find out how people talk when they are not being systematically observed; yet we can only obtain the data by systematic observation’. While my observations would offer some rich insight, there are ‘problems in making inferences about people’s abilities or understanding on the basis of what they happen to do when you are observing them’ (▇▇▇▇▇, 1994, p.27). That is to say, that while I did want to record the degree of participation in the TL, I had to also be mindful tha...