• Overview of Chinese core journals
  • Chinese Science Citation Database(CSCD)
  • Chinese Scientific and Technological Paper and Citation Database (CSTPCD)
  • China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI)
  • Chinese Science Abstracts Database(CSAD)
  • JST China
  • SCOPUS
ZHANG Yang, YANG Zhengyu. Teaching for Quality: Implications of the FFT Teaching Evaluation Framework[J]. Journal of South China normal University (Social Science Edition), 2022, (2): 119-131.
Citation: ZHANG Yang, YANG Zhengyu. Teaching for Quality: Implications of the FFT Teaching Evaluation Framework[J]. Journal of South China normal University (Social Science Edition), 2022, (2): 119-131.

Teaching for Quality: Implications of the FFT Teaching Evaluation Framework

More Information
  • Received Date: December 17, 2021
  • Available Online: April 24, 2022
  • The quality of teaching is the core of education quality and the improvement of teaching quality is related to the construction of the high-quality educational system. Communicating with the typical and representative teaching evaluation framework in the world and drawing high-quality core elements from it is the key measure for constructing the evaluation system of teaching with Chinese characteristics to show its international vision. The Framework for Teaching (FFT), developed by Professor Danielson of ETS, focuses on the process quality of teaching, upholding the high-quality teaching concept of higher-order thinking, constructive learning, purposeful activities and professional guidance, involving 4 modules, 22 assessment points and corresponding observation points. The FFT framework crosses space and time in terms of the assessment object and the method, collects data for judging the teachers' teaching work, provides teachers with feedback for their promotion of professional development and implementation guide for their quality of teaching, and realizes the improvement of the input and process quality and the students' academic achievements. The FFT framework informs us that, in the dynamic harmonious relationship between freedom and rules, process and results, importance should be attached to the teachers' professional responsibility and quality excellence, and a high-quality classroom teaching system with Chinese characteristics in the new era under a global vision should be built by creating learning culture and promoting deep learning. The corresponding classroom teaching quality evaluation system and monitoring tools should be developed to achieve high-quality development of education.
  • [1]
    联合国教科文组织. 全民教育全球检测报告2005: 提高质量势在必行[M]. 北京: 中国对外翻译出版公司, 2005: 21.
    [2]
    PIGOZZI M. What is the quality of education?[EB/OL]. (2006-06)[2021-09-14]. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/.
    [3]
    STEINBERG P, KRAFT A. The sensitivity of teacher performance ratings to the design of teacher evaluation systems[J]. Educational researcher, 2017, 46(7): 378-396. doi: 10.3102/0013189X17726752
    [4]
    MASTER B. Staffing for success: linking teacher evaluation and school personnel management in practice[J]. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 2014, 36(2): 207-227. doi: 10.3102/0162373713506552
    [5]
    乔尔·斯普林. 美国教育[M]. 张弛, 张斌贤, 译. 合肥: 安徽教育出版社, 2010: 1.
    [6]
    DANIELSON C. Enhancing professional practice: a framework for teaching[M]. 2nd ed. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2013.
    [7]
    迪安·韦布. 美国教育史: 一场伟大的美国实验[M]. 陈露茜, 李朝阳, 译. 合肥: 安徽教育出版社, 2010.
    [8]
    DOMINA T, SALDANA J. Does raising the bar level the playing filed?Mathematics curricular intensification and inequality in American high schools, 1982—2004[J]. American educational research journal, 2012, 49(4): 685-708. doi: 10.3102/0002831211426347
    [9]
    赵中建. 美国80年代以来教师教育发展政策述评[J]. 全球教育展望, 2001(9): 72-78. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-WGJN200109012.htm
    [10]
    CLOSE K, BEARDSLEY A, COLLINS C. State-level assessments and teacher evaluation systems after the passage of the every student succeeds act: some steps in the right direction[EB/OL]. (2018-06-05)[2021-08-15]. http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/state-assessment.
    [11]
    Center on Education Policy. State high school exit exams: trends in test programs, alternate pathways, and pass rates[EB/OL]. (2009-07-09)[2021-08-15]. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED513306.PDF.
    [12]
    Department of Education. Race to the top[EB/OL]. (2009-11-12)[2021-08-15]. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/factsheet.html.
    [13]
    Department of Education. Every student succeeds act[EB/OL]. (2015-12-10)[2021-08-15]. https://www.ed.gov/essa?src%3Drn.
    [14]
    CLOSE K, AMREIN-BEARDSLEY A, COLLINS C. An ESSA progress report: mapping America's teacher evaluation plans[J]. Phi Delta Kappan, 2019, 101(2): 22-26. doi: 10.1177/0031721719879150
    [15]
    KINCHELOE J, WEIL D. Standards and schooling in the United States: an encyclopedia 2002[M]. Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio Inc, 2002: 342.
    [16]
    GORDON M. Between constructivism and connectedness[J]. Journal of teacher education. 2008, 59(4): 322-331. doi: 10.1177/0022487108321379
    [17]
    SCRIVEN M. Duties of the teacher[J]. Journal of personnel evaluation in education. 1994, 8(2): 151-184. doi: 10.1007/BF00972261
    [18]
    National board for professional teaching standards. What teachers should know and be able to do[EB/OL]. (2016-09-06)[2021-08-15]. http://www.nbpts.org/standards-five-core-propositions/.
    [19]
    DWYER, CAROL A. Psychometrics of Praxis Ⅲ: classroom performance assessments[J]. Journal of personnel evaluation in education, 1998, 12(2): 163-187. doi: 10.1023/A:1008033111392
    [20]
    GOLDIN C, KATZ L. The race between education and technology[M]. Cambridge: Harvard University, 2008: 352.
    [21]
    KIM P, SUH E, SONG D. Development of a design-based learning curriculum through design-based research for a technology-enabled science classroom[J]. Educational technology research and development, 2015, 63(4): 575-602. doi: 10.1007/s11423-015-9376-7
    [22]
    BUDSANKOM P, SAWANGBOON T, DAMRONGPANIT S, et al. Factors affecting higher order thinking skills of students: a meta-analytic structural equation modeling study[J]. Educational research and reviews, 2015(19): 2639-2652.
    [23]
    GONZALEZ-MARCOS A, ALBA-ELIAS F, NAVARIDAS-NALDA, et al. Student evaluation of a virtual experience for project management learning: an empirical study for learning improvement[J]. Computers & Education, 2016, 102: 172-187.
    [24]
    ALAN J. The ethical demand in teaching and learning[J]. Teaching and teacher education, 2019, 86(2): 1-9.
    [25]
    梁文艳, 李涛. 基于课堂观察的教师教学质量评价: 框架、实践与启示[J]. 教师教育研究, 2018(1): 64-71. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GDSZ201801010.htm
    [26]
    叶澜, 吴亚萍. 改革课堂教学与课堂教学评价改革——"新基础教育"课堂教学改革的理论与实践探索之三[J]. 教育研究, 2003(8): 42-49. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-8169.2003.08.014
    [27]
    COHEN J, GOLDHABER D. Building a more complete understanding of teacher evaluation using classroom observations[J]. Educational researcher, 2016, 45(6): 378-387. doi: 10.3102/0013189X16659442
    [28]
    JACK Z. Social studies for the twenty-first century[M]. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2007: 4.
    [29]
    崔允漷. 论课堂观察LICC范式: 一种专业的听评课[J]. 教育研究, 2012(5): 79-83. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JYYJ201205015.htm
    [30]
    郝志军. 中小学课堂教学评价的反思与建构[J]. 教育研究, 2015(2): 110-116. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JYYJ201502014.htm
    [31]
    何菊玲, 赵小刚. 新中国乡村教师队伍建设政策演进的历史逻辑与优化策略——基于政策文本的分析[J]. 陕西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2021(4): 71-91. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SXSS202104009.htm
    [32]
    李政涛. 智能时代是"双师"协同育人的新时代[J]. 当代教师教育, 2021(1): 1-4. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SXSD202101001.htm
  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(1)

    1. 聂长飞,刘路伟. 中国南北经济差距的演化格局与驱动因素:1978—2022年. 经济论坛. 2025(01): 25-40 .

    Other cited types(0)

Catalog

    Article views (977) PDF downloads (198) Cited by(1)

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return