Evaluating online teachers is different than evaluating teachers (f2f) in a brick-and-mortar environment, although it may be more thorough. F2f teachers are generally evaluated qualitatively through direct observation. Sometimes students surveys are conducted too. Online teachers operate in a highly transparent environment. There is lots of data on interactions with students. Data can be found in course management system logs, e-mail and discussion board logs, phone records, and shadow students. Other industries have long used data to improve their product/service and become more efficient. I am optimistic that this data will be beneficial to both students and teachers. Given the digital nature of the online learning environment and interactions, I am hopeful that schools can start to mke a direct connection between what teachers do and student achievement. New courses and teaching techniques could be tested to see if they improve student achievment. NACOL provides a comprehensive template for creating an evaluation of online teachers. It is a good starting point, although some of the questions are too specific to a technology (rather than a skill) and some questions don’t apply if teachers don’t have control over the curriculum.
I believe that professional development is an important component of great schools (online or f2f). Online school teachers have potentially more time to collaborate on students, pedagogy, and curriculum. By contrast, f2f teachers usually cite lack of time and their number one job dissatisfaction complaint. This collaboration can occur when teachers are geographically dispersed. If the teachers are physically located in the same place, then there is even greater collaboration potential. And, the possibility to build a common culture and teaching philosophy. Although culture seems like a minor intangible, the most successful businesses point to a common mission and culture as keys to their success.
Thank you to Alejandro Heyworth (link) for a post that stirred me to write a comment that lasted several paragraphs. One of Alejandro’s many excellent points was about teachers being actors if they had no involvement in the curriculum design. I think that online schools should have their own instructional designers and that teachers should be required to collaborate with them to make the courses better.
I continue to be very optimistic about the future of online, but the notion of a hybrid schools intrigues me more. Teacher evaluations should be based on observation of teaching skills, curriculum design (or collaboration with designers), responsiveness to students, commitment to continually improve (and help others), and student surveys.
Random Thoughts
- I wonder if f2f instruction should be a prerequisite for online instruction?
- At what age has a child socialize enough to be able to handle online interaction productively?
Response to #1 random thought: I don't see why it should, although if we are talking about kids, then some experience with kids should be a requirement. But for adults--I feel it's so different that one should not depend on the other.
ReplyDeleteResponse to #2 random thought: I don't know the answer but you would think if they are old enough to read and text, then they could do discussions online. At this point, I think the general consensus is middle school, except for a blended learning environment where a teacher monitors.