This study explored principals’ reactions to findings from a survey regarding their teachers’ evaluation beliefs. As participants in a longitudinal study, these principals were invited to focus group meetings to discuss the teacher survey data, which were sent to them for review prior to the meetings. They were asked to consider data that were puzzling, surprising, inconsistent, or consistent with their perceptions of conducting teacher evaluation. The focus group data were analyzed using the Johari Window, consisting of four domains of awareness. Based on the Johari Window analysis, principals shared teachers’ awareness of a checklist approach to observations but maintained different beliefs about a checklist's intentions and efficiencies. Principals were unaware of or disagreed with the following teacher beliefs: (a) principal feedback is marginally effective for teachers’ instructional improvement, (b) the evaluation ratings are applied unfairly, and (c) too much of principals’ time is allotted to the evaluation process. This study illustrates that principals and teachers have contradictory beliefs regarding the practice and value of teacher evaluation. The researchers suggest that principals should consider applying the Johari Window construct to reveal and explore teacher perceptions that could hinder an effective supervision and evaluation process.
BazermanMHTenbrunselAE (2011) Blind Spots: Why we fail to do What's Right and What to do About it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
2.
BerlandA (2017) Using the Johari Window to explore patient and provider perspectives. International Journal of Health Governance22(1): 47–51.
3.
Darling-HammondL (2015) Getting Teacher Evaluation Right: What Really Matters for Effectiveness and Improvement. New York: Teachers College Press.
4.
DerringtonMLCampbellJ (2013) The changing conditions of instructional leadership: Principal perceptions of teacher evaluation accountability mandates. In: BarnettBGShohoARBowersAJ (eds) International Research on School Leadership: Vol. 4. School and District Leadership in an Era of Accountability. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc., 231–251.
5.
DerringtonMLCampbellJW (2015) Principal concerns and superintendent support during teacher evaluation changes. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice12(3): 11–22.
6.
DerringtonMLCampbellJW (2017) Teacher evaluation policy tools: Principals'selective use in instructional leadership. Leadership and Policy in Schools. 17(4): 568–590. 10.1080/15700763.2017.1326143.
7.
DerringtonMLMartinezJ (2019) Teacher perspectives of evaluation: Five years following reform. NASSP Bulletin103(1). 10.1177/0192636519830770.
8.
FinsterMMilanowskiA (2018) Teacher perceptions of a new performance evaluation system and their influence on practice: A within-and-between school level analysis. Education Policy Analysis Archives26(41): 1–39.
9.
FuhrmanSElmoreR (2004) Redesigning Accountability Systems for Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
GlickmanCCGordonSPRoss-GordonJM (2010) Supervision and Instructional Leadership: A Developmental Approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
12.
HallingerPHeckRHMurphyJ (2014) Teacher evaluation and school improvement: An analysis of the evidence. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability26(1): 5–28.
13.
HalpernH (2009) Supervision and the Johari Window: A framework for asking questions. Education for Primary Care20(1): 10–14.
14.
HenemanHGMilanowskiAT (2003) Continuing assessment of teacher reactions to a standards-based teacher evaluation system. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education17: 173–195.
JanasM (2001) Getting a clear view. Journal of Staff Development22(2): 32–34.
17.
KiddPSPashallMB (2000) Getting the focus and the group: Enhancing analytical rigor in focus group research. Qualitative Health Research10(3): 293–308.
18.
LavigneAL (2020) Examining individual- and school-level predictors of principal adaptation to teacher evaluation reform in the United States: A two-year perspective. Educational Management Administration & Leadership48(2): 379–395.
19.
LiamputtongP (2009) Qualitative Research Methods. 3rd ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
20.
LiamputtongP (2011) Managing and Making Sense of Focus Group Data. Focus Group Methodology: Principles and Practice. London: Sage Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781473957657.
21.
LillejordSBorteK (2019) Trapped between accountability and professional learning? School leaders and teacher evaluation. Professional Development in Education46(2): 274–291.
22.
LochmillerCR (2016) Examining administrators’ instructional feedback to high school math and science teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly52(1): 75–109.
23.
LuftJ (1969) Of Human Interaction. Palo Alto, CA: National Press Books.
24.
LuftJInghamH (1955) The Johari Window: A graphic model of interpersonal awareness. In: Proceedings of the western training laboratory in group development. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.
25.
Mireles-RiosRBecchioJA (2018) The evaluation process, administrator feedback, and self-efficacy. Journal of School Leadership28(4): 462–487.
26.
MorganD (2019) Basic and Advanced Focus Groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781071814307.
27.
Morris-MathewsHStarkKRJonesND, et al. (2021) Danielson's framework for teaching: Convergence and divergence with conceptions of effectiveness in special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities54(1): 66–78.
28.
NorrisJvan der MarsHKulinnaP, et al. (2017) Physical education teacher perceptions of teacher evaluation. The Physical Educator74(1): 41–62.
29.
OliverSDuncanS (2019) Editorial: Looking through the Johari window. Research for All3(1): 1–6.
30.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD (2013) Teachers for the 21st Century: Using Evaluation to Improve Teaching. Paris: OECD Publishing.
PauflerNASloatEF (2020) Using standards to evaluate accountability policy in context: School administrator and teacher perceptions of a teacher evaluation system. Studies in Educational Evaluation64: 1–15.
33.
RamaniSKöningsKMannKV, et al. (2017) Uncovering the unknown: A grounded theory study exploring the impact of self-awareness on the culture of feedback in residency education. Medical Teacher39(10): 1065–1073.
34.
ReddyLADudekCMPetersS, et al. (2017) Teachers’ and school administrators’ attitudes and beliefs of teacher evaluation: A preliminary investigation of high poverty school districts. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability30: 47–70.
35.
RobinsonM (14 December 2017) Music teachers’ perceptions of high stakes teacher evaluation. Arts Education Policy Review 120(1): 45–56. doi:10.1080/10632913.2017.1373 380.
36.
RyanTGottfriedJ (2012) Elementary supervision and the supervisor: Teacher attitudes and inclusive education. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education4(3): 563–571.
37.
SullivanS (2016) High-stakes accountability and the demise of formative supervision of instruction: The case of New York City. In: GlanzJZepedaS (eds) Supervision: New Perspectives for Theory and Practice. Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield, pp. 145–163.
38.
TuytensMDevosG (2010) The influence of school leadership on teachers’ perception of teacher evaluation policy. Educational Studies36(5): 521–536.
39.
TuytensMDevosG (2011) Stimulating professional learning through teacher evaluation: An impossible task for the school leader?Teaching and Teacher Education27(5): 891–899.
40.
TuytensMDevosG (2014) How to activate teachers through teacher evaluation? School effectiveness and school improvement. An International Journal of Research. Policy and Practice25(4): 509–530.
41.
WilsonV (1992) Focus groups: A useful qualitative method for educational research?British Educational Research Journal23(2): 209–224.
42.
ZepedaSJ (2017) Instructional Supervision: Applying Tools and Concepts. 4th ed. New York: Taylor & Francis.
