来源：百度文库 编辑：汝南网 时间：2019/09/24 17:36:32
The construction of Teacher job performance is the theory basis of teacher job performance appraisal. At present, it is a very important theory problem in the teacher research area. It is also a basic theory study of teacher research. For ages, teacher psychological research has primarily paid attention to probing into teacher quality; however, teacher management research has primarily paid attention to inquiring into teacher appraisal. These two kinds of study have always been discussed in two distinct areas for a long time. This study inquired into an important issue of teacher development and teacher management from a fire-new perspective------ teacher job performance. This point of view combines three areas research -----personnel psychology, education psychology and development psychology----- with each other. It shifted from the tradition of separately discussing teacher quality and teacher appraisal to integrate these two kinds of research into dividing teacher appraisal type. It divided teacher appraisal type into three sorts: teacher competence appraisal, teacher performance appraisal and teacher effectiveness appraisal. We thought that each kind of teacher appraisal has different function and should be use in different stage of teacher education and teacher management. We also suggested that teacher quality is teacher competence, the construction of teacher quality is the basis of teacher competence appraisal, but the construction of teacher performance is the basis of teacher performance appraisal, teacher quality is the basis of teacher selection, but teacher performance is the basis of teacher management and teacher education or training. Through more than two years’ experimental study, this dissertation systematically explored such questions:
(1) the construction of teacher job performance;
(2) the construction consistency and diversity of different appraisers;
(3) influential factors to different appraisers’ rating results ;
(4) the compare of different raters’ appraisal results。
This study used the approach of combining theory with practice. It embed in practice, advanced problem from practice, researched and settled problem in practice. The problem was presented by practice-----the need of teacher appointment system reform. It advanced by the need of elementary and middle school’s reform. In more than two years of embedding in practice, we used key incidence interview, key incidence survey systematically investigated large numbers of teachers. We also systematically analysis literature of personnel psychology, education psychology and development psychology. Then, on the basis of teacher quality construction theory, we suggested the construction of teacher performance. We carried through empirical research in five schools. Then we did confirmative analysis to teacher performance construction.
In order to explore the teacher job performance construction, we based our research on the broad review of related research literatures. We adopted open-ended survey, individual interview，critical incident interview and critical incident survey to analysis the teacher job. On the basis of teacher quality construction theory, we put forward our view of the mining and construction of teacher job performance. We suggested that: teacher job performance is teacher’s behavior that is in accordance with teaching and education aim in the process of teaching and education. Teacher job performance involved six dimensions, such as :occupational morality, job dedication, assistance and cooperation, teaching effectiveness, teacher-student interaction and teaching value. The six dimensions could be generalized into two high-layer factors: contextual performance and task performance. The front three dimensions belong to contextual performance, and the last three belong to task performance. We suggested that teacher’s job has high autonomy. So contextual performance would have high contributions to total performance. Moreover, contextual performance would have correlation with task performance. But their influential factors would be different. Cognition factors would mostly influence task performance. But personality factors would mostly influence contextual performance.
According to above construction, we formed our teacher performance rating scale. In Beijing and Hangzhou , we let different evaluators rate the same teacher using the same performance rating scale. In student rating , we adopted fixed interval sample method. We respectively let five to twenty students to evaluate one teacher. In the colleague rating, we respectively selected two to ten peers by lots to evaluate one teacher. In the administrator evaluation, we adopted directive superior rating. Two to seven superiors rated each teacher. 312 teachers were rated by students. Therein, 168 teachers were rated by their superiors and peers. 181 teachers had self-rating data. We used Confirmative Factor Analysis (CFA) to analyze student’s rating data. In the following, in order to explore the construction consistency and diversity of different appraisers, we also used CFA to analyze peer rating data, superior rating data and self- rating data. Then we analyzed the influential factors to student rating, superior rating and peer rating. In the end, we analyzed the influence of rating method to rating results.
(1)Teacher job performance involves six dimensions. The six dimension is: occupational morality, job dedication, assistance and cooperation, teaching effectiveness, teacher-student interaction and teaching value. The six dimensions generalized into two high-layer factors: contextual performance and task performance. Contextual performance and task performance do not independent each other. They have high correlation. In teacher performance, contextual performance markedly influence total performance.
(2) Different rating methods have different constructions. Self rating has evidently different construction with other methods. In self-rating, assistance and cooperation dimension incorporates with teacher-student interaction. It belongs to task performance. Student rating, peer rating and superior rating have the same construction. But student rating has good construction validity. Peer rating’s construction validity takes the second place. Superior rating’s construction validity is bad. The validity analysis based on the correlation of four kinds rating results shows that: in all these four, student rating has the highest validity; self rating has the worst validity; peer rating and superior rating have common validity.
(3) Information used by different raters to draw performance judgment is different. Rating method has very marked influence to rating results. In different rating methods, contextual performance has different influence to total performance. In superior rating, contextual performance contributes more to total performance than task performance. In student and peer rating, task performance contributes more to total performance than contextual performance. Superior rating thinks much more of contextual performance. But student and peer rating think much more of task performance.
(4) Representatives of knowledge and experience, such as technical post, educational level, teaching age and so on, influence task performance more evidently. But personality influence contextual performance more markedly. Personality has different influence to different rater. Conscientiousness has more influence on superior’s rating of contextual performance. Openness to experience influences student’s rating on task performance more. But agreeableness has more influence on peer’s of task rating in the opposite direction. Neuroticism has evident influence on peer’s rating of contextual performance.
(5) Factors, such as technical post, educational level, teaching age and so on, have non-linear influence to performance. There is a key technical post, educational level, teaching age. In this stage, ratee has best performance.
(6) Superior rating is greatly influenced by stereotype. Superior is markedly influenced by sex and educational level stereotype.
Based on the results, we mainly discussed five problems: (1) Teacher performance involves contextual performance and task performance. In different rating methods, the contents of contextual performance and task performance have difference. (2) Rating method has evident influence on the rating results. Different rater relies on different information to draw their performance judge. So their performance judges have discrepancy. (3) Factors that influence contextual performance and task performance are different. Knowledge and experience mainly influence task performance. Personality mainly influence contextual performance. Affective factor has evident influence on performance rating. (4) Reflection on present performance appraisal research. We suggest that: some issues in present performance appraisal research restrict the depth of study. These issues are: basing performance on direct observed behavior do not suit some job; when contextual performance affects one’s pay and promotion, it will not be contextual behavior again; attention paid to organization system and technical condition is not enough. (5) This study’s further direction. This research needs to extend its sample numbers, carry repeated studies, and explore different rating method’s construction further. It needs to construct teacher personal performance casual model.