Page 45 - 2018_Jour_85-1_Societal-Issues
P. 45

Schools and Societal Issues                                                    45



                   Structured Post-Observation


                   Conversations and Their

                   Influence on Teachers’  Self-


                   Reflection and Practice

                   By Carla C. Hozebin



                        eachers do not always receive consistent, quality feedback from observers in post-observation
                   Tconferences.  The purpose of the qualitative descriptive exploratory research study explained
                   here was to determine the efficacy of structuring post-observation conversations through the use
                   of subjective objective assessment plan (SOAP) notes to incorporate key principles of effective
                   feedback as evidenced by teachers’ perceptions.  Additionally, the researcher sought to determine
                   how SOAP-formatted post-observation conversations influenced teachers’ self-reflection and
                   practice. Data were collected in the natural setting through a pre- and post-intervention survey,
                   observations, post-observation SOAP-formatted conversations, and interviews. The significance
                   of this study is to provide evaluators with the SOAP framework as a tool for structuring meaningful,
                   rich post-observation conversations that influence teachers’ self-reflection and practice and ensure
                   consistency among evaluators. The findings of the study indicated that teachers perceived SOAP-
                   formatted post-observation conversations to be effective and that such conversations positively
                   influenced teachers’ self-reflection and strengthening of practice.


                   Why Teacher Evaluation Is Not Influencing Teacher Practice
                       Along with goal-setting, feedback is the most powerful predictor of successful overall
                   evaluation of instruction (Hattie, 2008). Feedback must be immediate, frequent, ongoing,
                   quality, objective, direct, and actionable (Cleveland, Lim, & Murphy, 2007; Feeney, 2007).
                   One such approach is that used in the medical field, known as the subjective objective
                   assessment plan (SOAP). School leaders owe it to students and teachers to conduct
                   SOAP-formatted post-observation conversations that will make teachers more likely to
                   internalize the feedback and self-reflect; the result will be clear goals for improvement and
                   true pedagogical development when this structure to promote reflective inquiry is provided
                   (Marzano, Frontier, & Livingston, 2011).
                       Over time, education reformers have called for the adoption of teacher-evaluation
                   systems to improve teacher practice and increase student achievement. Unfortunately, steps
                   involved in these systems can become routine, and those involved often go through the
                   motions. The teacher-evaluation process, in turn, is thus perceived by many as an exercise
                   that is ineffective in improving instruction (Sullivan & Glanz, 2000).
                       The authors of the New Teacher Project (2010) study concluded, “In many districts we
                   studied, teachers overwhelmingly reported that evaluations don’t give them useful feedback
                   on their performance in the classroom” (p. 3). Too often, teachers do not perceive principals
                   and other evaluators as instructional leaders because they have too many managerial
                   responsibilities and are reluctant to confront poor teaching; therefore, they have difficulty
                   making instructional improvement a priority (Johnson, 2011). In many cases, the focus of
                   evaluation for the teacher is on pleasing the principal or other evaluator, not on student
   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50