Basbas, A. C, & Buenaventurada, L. D. (2022).Criterion-based review of teachers’ classroom performance in the Philippine school in Dubai: Administrators’ perception vs. Teachers’ self-review, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 10(1), 35-46.

 

Criterion-Based Review of Teachers’ Classroom Performance in The Philippine School in Dubai: Administrators’ Perception vs. Teachers’ Self-Review

Arturo C. Basbas1*orcid, Buenaventurada D. Libot1orcid

1University of Bohol, Graduate School & Professional Studies, Bohol, Philippines, e-mail: arturo.basbas2019@gmail.com; libotbenny@yahoo.com

 

Original scientific paper

Received: December, 01.2021.
Revised: February, 24.2022.
Accepted: March, 13.2022.

doi: 10.23947/2334-8496-2022-10-1-35-46

 

UDK
37.091.12:005.963.5(536.2)
37.091.21

Abstract: Many Philippine schools overseas encounter unyielding challenges, with the irresistible majority of teachers getting outstanding ratings, making it challenging to classify which teachers are genuinely exceptional. In specific instances, the evaluation of teachers’ classroom performance validates the organizational policies of classroom management. Otherwise, the effect of poor classroom performance is immense, predominantly on the part of students. It is because of this motivation that the authors utilized a quantitative research design to examine the level of teachers’ classroom performance using the criterion-based review model on various criteria. The measure is based on weighing the perspectives of purposely selected school administrators and teachers at The Philippine School in Dubai. This paper also explored the significant relationship between the teachers’ profile and classroom performance, and the difference between the perspectives of school administrators and teachers’ self-review to facilitate and impede meaningful performance review. The results adhere to continuing practices that will increase knowledge, enable impactful learning, develop critical thinking skills, improve problem-solving ability, and equip teachers with pedagogical competence. The findings revealed that both school administrators and teachers shared realistic feedback about teachers’ classroom performance.
Keywords: classroom performance, teacher evaluation, teacher performance, criterion-based review.

Introduction

As teaching has become a fundamental emphasis of educational policy attention, teacher evaluation is currently the leading means being encouraged to enrich it. Teacher evaluation, in general, refers to the official process by which a school reviews and rates teachers’ performance and effectiveness in the classroom. The results of these evaluations would ideally be utilized to provide feedback to teachers and guide their professional growth (Sawchuk, 2015). One of the most common procedures for teacher assessment is the school administrator’s classroom observations, which are increasingly used around the world for a variety of purposes (Bell et al., 2019). School administrators can assess general teaching practices as well as subject-specific strategies, and the frequency should be determined by what the administration hopes to learn from the process. This has historically been seen as one of the critical tasks within the institute, and it has become a priority as reflected in every faculty evaluation system to presage teaching performance and competence. It is also seen to be the most direct technique to moderately align with student achievement, depending on the instrument (Little, Goe and Bell, 2009).
Despite claims that the assessment of teaching practices is an imperative means for enhancing teacher efficiency, sources outlining policies intended to guide teacher evaluation are crucial for schools and need an overhaul (Darling-Hammond, 2013, p.1). There is uncertainty in the evaluation procedure and associated instrument, or the model being used, wherein the majority of the evaluations considered were summative rather than formative. As a result, most evaluations were utilized for high-stakes, collective purposes, and there was less indication that they were used in a reliable and legitimate manner.
Rater dependability is another major challenge. There is no guarantee that the ratings of school administrators on teachers’ performance are efficient, which means that various evaluators may assign different scores to the teacher based on their own perceptions of good teaching. In this instance, a teacher’s effectiveness as measured by rigorous observations can change, jeopardizing the reliability of the methods (Little, Goe and Bell, 2009). On the other hand, to eradicate the unbiased application of this process, it requires parallel assessment, which emboldens the involvement of the teachers to evaluate their own theoretical knowledge, work practices, and actual connections with the class. This is a sort of introspection in which teachers can measure their own strengths and areas for improvement. These elements have resulted in a questionable method and model, and intricate teacher evaluation policies, impeding an appealing basis of research.
In The Philippine School (TPS) in Dubai, as in many other Philippine schools overseas (PSOs), a great deal of the teacher evaluation system has been devoted to improving the assessment process. But TPS does not give sufficient information to support the self-review process, which resulted in a poor rating and has been recommended to review lesson observation procedures in order to provide useful information to support self-review and action planning (DSIB, 2020). This is not to imply that TPS’ systems of evaluation did not previously exist or efficient. Indeed, the school system was not only intended to bring an evaluation system into the decision-making process but also a more inimitable way to obtain the greatest advantages. Though the above claims, as stated, do not speak for all PSOs, it is convincing that the same patterns may be determined by other PSOs on the subject of teachers’ evaluation process. This led the authors to the creation of a framework by adopting a criterion-based review model to assess teachers’ classroom performance.
Furthermore, other elements contributing to the high caliber of teachers’ productivity are the range of teachers’ backgrounds and experiences (OECD, 2018). Recognizing that teachers cannot be expected to stay in the same role for 30 years (Stewart, 2012, p.110) and to prove the essence of teachers’ background, one of the purposes of this study is motivated by a desire to carry out the impact of the teacher’s demographic profile on those who possess qualifications that contribute to teachers’ productivity. Indeed, the practice of profiling respondents is necessary and widely accepted as it is an integral component of the success of the research industry, and it is essential for explaining the methodology selected, as well as contextualizing impacts, results, and conclusions (Brooks, 2016).

Philippine schools overseas (PSOs), Filipino overseas students, and teacher interactions
With the tremendous number of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFW) around the world, which was estimated at 2.2 million (Mapa, 2020), brings challenges ranging from dependents like school-aged children to the requirements of educational opportunities in the host countries, and thus bring boundless concern for the Philippine Department of Education (DepEd) in delivering basic education. Presently, there are 42 operational PSOs in nine countries around the globe. These duly registered Philippine schools running outside the country adopted and implemented the Philippine basic education curriculum (Department of Education Memo. No. 479, 2009). The operation and the management of PSOs are under the umbrella of the Inter-Agency Committee on Philippine Schools Overseas (IACPSO) to demonstrate standards within the scope of the Philippine educational system. This policy-making body continuously supervises all the PSOs about the fundamental concerns of school management and undertakings, cooperating efficiently with the host government. However, despite the existence of IACPSO and the finest efforts to attain quality educational policies, there are still existing dilemmas concerning the supervision of PSOs.
In fact, many PSOs face some challenges, with the irresistible majority of teachers getting outstanding ratings, making it challenging to classify which teachers are genuinely exceptional. Certainly, conflicts and disagreements arise in organizations composed of multicultural teams like Philippine Schools Overseas (Acosta and de Guzman, 2017). Similarly, as alluded to by the school administrators, the Philippine schools in Jeddah have less concern with their teachers in terms of assessment and professional growth, which requires system change to benefit their teachers (Sapungan, 2013).
Furthermore, teacher interactions with students in the classroom predict student performance (Allen et al., 2019). It is certain that, in specific instances, the evaluation of teachers’ classroom performance validates the organizational policies of classroom management. Or else, the effect of poor classroom performance is colossal, predominantly on the part of the students. This is why the PSOs have been established to provide children of overseas Filipino workers with the kind of education equivalent to the Philippine education system (Commission on Filipinos Overseas, Od). This adds to the fundamental concerns of quality Filipino students from PSOs, and poses a challenge to the Philippine Department of Education. Somehow, these students will also join the Filipino diaspora in different countries in the future. However, the poor academic performance of Filipino students was reflected in an international assessment test conducted by Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). The Philippines ranked last among 58 countries in high school mathematics (TIMSS, 2019). This report underlines the challenge that all Philippine schools overseas have to create more sustainable development in attaining quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all Filipino students, both from local and international schools. Filipino students today are therefore competing not just with students in the country but with students globally.

Criterion-based review of teachers’ classroom performance
In the context of teacher review, one of the key issues that most educational systems face is the requirement to build a reliable personnel evaluation system that is based on a solid theoretical framework. Evaluators cannot easily be held accountable for how their judgments regarding teacher performance were reached unless the criteria for evaluating teachers are derived from tested theories on teacher and school effectiveness (Kyriakides, Demetriou and Charalambous, 2007). Chism (2007) points out the best method to combat the idiosyncratic type of performance review, which is driven by the unexamined biases of the individual reviewer and subject to the structural biases of the institutional cultural context, is to establish an explicit structure for performance review.
Notwithstanding this applicability, the criterion-based review of teachers’ classroom performance intends to measure certain characteristics of teaching, and it is widely accepted that criterion-based evaluation is a collection of pre-specified traits or criteria, with no reference to the achievement of others (Kollöffel and de Jong, 2016). However, each approach has its advantages and downsides, such as the risk of developing ineffective approaches to teacher assessment if an appropriate understanding of the elements involved is not obtained. Such notions insinuate teachers’ self-review, wherein teachers get the chance to observe their own performance as if from another’s position, to tenaciously assess their own classroom management, content knowledge, approaches, and ways of interfacing with the students. The teacher’s point of view is imperative because it allows teachers to convey their own opinions about their performance and reflect on the personal, organizational, and institutional elements that influenced their teaching (OECD, 2018).
Of central concern, therefore, such concepts decisively highlight the intentness of a solid theoretical framework, which best describes the variables unified in searching for the level of teachers’ classroom performance in different dimensions using the criterion-based model. The authors believe in the principle that teachers’ classroom productivity can be increased by recognizing critical issues that may form patterns in their responses to the classroom environment in which they are guided and supported by certain criteria. Exploring in the periphery of all PSOs, there is no uniform system of teacher evaluation. Teacher evaluation was conducted solely by principals, in others, department heads and subject coordinators assessed teachers as well. This study, interestingly, may persuade a certain decision intended for the standardization of the teacher evaluation system in all PSOs. However, each school is unique and has an individual approach to achieving its enhancement goals. Therefore, is it conventional for all schools to follow certain criteria.
In this study, the pre-qualified criteria are set per weighing the perspectives of school administrators as well as the teacher’s self-review on identifying the level of the teachers’ classroom performance and the explicit structure for criterion-based that emphasizes the value of the teacher’s performance, such as: (1) Content Knowledge—this criterion is an affirmation of Neumann, Kind, and Harms (2019) whole idea that a teacher’s knowledge is significantly essential to the enhancement of the teaching and learning process, and reverberates on students’ performance; (2) Creating an Inclusive Classroom—many approaches that teachers can implement to create a productive, dynamic, and inclusive classroom situation. Thus, this criterion resulted in how teachers create a fair and inclusive classroom that respects students’ differences, beliefs, cultural diversity, and ethnicity (Chism, 2007); (3) Use of Instructional Materials and Strategies - instructional materials and learning resources are substances, people, or other aspects of the environment that can be used to aid in any learning activity (Dhakal, 2017). This criterion elicits how the effectiveness of instructional materials and strategies is determined by their use and the extent to which they meet the essential needs of the teacher and student; (4) Rapport with and Responsiveness of the Students – this criterion elicits how teachers create a positive learning environment that is always conducive to students’ learning. Chism (2007) also conveys that teachers need to be successful within the classroom setting, and they need to take the necessary steps to nurture a strong rapport with the students; and (5) Impact Learning - this criterion is deliberated with high importance as it reflects the outcome of the teaching-learning process within the students’ ability as they go through life (Beauchamp and Kennewell, 2010).

The purpose of the research study
The authors aimed to assess the critical distinction between the school administrator’s perception and the teacher’s self-review by administering the criterion-based review model. Specifically, this paper addresses the following questions: (1) What is the level of teachers’ classroom performance as perceived by school administrators and teachers’ self-review using the criterion-based review in terms of Content Knowledge, Creating an Inclusive Classroom, Utilization of Instructional Materials & Strategies, Rapport with and Responsiveness of the Students, and Impact Learning?; (2) Is there a substantial association between teachers’ age, highest educational attainment, and length of service and their classroom performances?; and (3) Is there a significant degree of difference between the perception of school administrators and the teachers’ self-review on the level of teachers’ classroom performance?

Materials and Methods

This study utilized a quantitative method to deliver a clear outline of the survey procedure. This method produces quantifiable data and precise measurements of behavior, opinions, or knowledge (Indrawati, 2015). Purposive sampling was employed in selecting The Philippine School (TPS) in Dubai, United Arab Emirates as the core respondent of this study. This study was conducted during the second semester of the academic year 2019-2020. The twenty-five (25) school administrators, comprising the school principal, subject coordinators, and department heads, were identified as one group of respondents, and the other group were the 110 classroom teachers in both elementary and secondary education.
The instrument used for this study was adapted from the Centre for Teaching Support and Innovation (2017) at the University of Toronto. This measure is based on the frameworks of Chism (2007) and the University of Minnesota (2009) Peer Review of Teaching Guide. This criterion-based peer review is a widely used assessment instrument to measure the critical issues and level of classroom management. In this study, this instrument was utilized for the two groups of respondents, teachers, and school administrators. The teacher-respondents rated themselves by completing the review form, being as objective and impartial as possible about their own classroom performance. At the same time, the school administrators were requested to rate the corresponding teachers under their supervision using the same questionnaire based on classroom observations and pre-implementation interviews.
Part I of the survey contained questions to elicit the demographic profile of the respondents, such as age, highest educational attainment, and length of service. This part measures the magnitude of the relationship between the teachers’ profile and their classroom performance. Part II of the questionnaire contained 45 questions on the provisions of the criterion-based review model, consisting of five (5) criteria such as Content Knowledge; Creating an Inclusive Classroom; Utilization of Instructional Materials & Strategies; Rapport with and Responsiveness of the Students; and Impact Learning. For each question, the two groups of respondents expressed their agreement on a four-point Likert-type scale by marking the corresponding number on the scale that best represents their agreement with the question. High scores indicated high agreement (4 = Highly Evident, 3 = Moderately Evident, 2 = Less Evident, 1 = Not Evident).
The responses of both respondents were compared and tabulated using SPSS. For the first research question, descriptive statistics, including mean, and simple percentages, were used to determine the level of teachers’ classroom performance. The authors allotted scales with an equivalent description of the level of teachers’ classroom performance in order to attain a certain interpretation of the scales in the questionnaire. The Pearson Chi-square test and the descriptive-correlational method of research were used for the second research question based on a series of assumptions with linear-by-linear association on each value and likelihood ratio, which is a commonly used technique to analyze the relationship between categorial variables and nominally structured categories (Sharpe, 2015). The Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test was used to test the degree of difference between the perceptions of school administrators and teachers’ self-review of the level of classroom performance as demanded by the third research question.

Results and Discussion

Level of teachers’ classroom performance using criterion-based review

Content knowledge
Extracted from a criterion-based review of both school administrators and teachers, it was revealed in Table 1 that teachers’ content knowledge was predominantly rated as “Moderately Evident” with a composite mean of 3.49. Ultimately, three out of five items demonstrated an “Excellent” classroom performance review of the teachers, predominantly in how the teachers’ statements are precise according to the standards of the field, with the highest mean of 3.59. Certainly, it can be concluded that the teachers have the key components of content knowledge and pedagogical competence according to the standards of the field, as well as expertise to communicate the reasoning process behind operations or concepts. Yet, seemingly not reassuring, considerable points in how the teachers identify sources, perspectives, and authorities in the field, with a mean of 3.41, as well as in how the teachers incorporate current research in the field, with the lowest mean of 3.36. This suggests that the teachers have a certain level of scrutiny when looking at different types of resources but probably haven’t been able to critically appraise the substantiation and use the appropriate material for the right context. The teachers, somehow, haven’t been able to incorporate the current research fully into the field to expand and enrich their teaching skills. Nevertheless, it may be challenging for them to look more closely into their own teaching practice and to conduct research right in their own classroom.
These findings are parallel to the study of Roberto and Madrigal (2019), which profoundly determined the significant difference in the level of teaching standards, competence, and performance of teachers. Thus, the findings have shown that the level of teaching competence and performance of basic education teachers have substantial components of content knowledge and pedagogical competence. Indeed, Van Driel and Berry (2010) implied that content knowledge influences teachers in ways that will best stimulate students’ learning for understanding. Certainly, it can be concluded that, based on this criterion, the teachers of TPS have the key components of content knowledge and pedagogical competence according to the standards of the field, as well as expertise to communicate the reasoning process behind operations or concepts.

Table 1
Teachers’ Classroom Performance in terms of Content Knowledge

Table1

Legend:

Range Descriptive Value
3.51 – 4.00 Highly Evident (HE)
2.01 – 3.50 Moderately Evident (ME)
1.51 – 2.00 Less Evident (LE)
1.00 – 1.50 Not Evident (NE)

Creating an inclusive classroom
This criterion has been proportionately placed within the mean range of 3.51-4.00 and measures teachers of TPS as “Excellent” in creating an inclusive classroom with the composite mean of 3.63, as shown in Table 2. This perception indicates that the teachers have evidently implemented the quality of the social dynamics in the classroom situation to create a productive and inclusive climate for all learners. The item with the highest mean considerably validated the perception of school administrators and teachers’ self-review in terms of creating an inclusive classroom, especially in how the teachers convey the belief that all students can learn and succeed, and express openness and warmth to interact with others in the same way.
However, it is shown in Table 2 that the items with the lowest mean and such mean depletions have considerably substantiated the perception of school administrators and teachers’ self-review in terms of creating an inclusive classroom, especially in how the teachers provide text, resources, and learning materials in the classroom that reflect the diversity of culture, ethnicity, faith, and language, and differences in socioeconomic status, physical ability, and family structure, with a 3.59 mean; in how they use a variety of assessment tasks so that students with different learning styles can achieve success, with a 3.56 mean; and in how they use resources that present both local and global images and perspectives, with the lowest mean of 3.51. So, by no means an indication that the teachers are partly driven by creating an inclusive classroom where the teachers provide resources and learning materials that reflect the diversity of culture, ethnicity, language, and differences in socioeconomic status.

Table 2
Teacher’s Classroom Performance in terms of Creating an Inclusive Classroom
Table2

TPS teachers, therefore, exhibit openness and warmth and encourage students to interact with others in the same way. Remarkably, they use technology to provide additional visual, oral, aural, and/or physical support for students who need it. However, the least rated statements indicate that the teachers are partly driven by creating an inclusive classroom, wherein the teachers slightly administer a variety of assessment tasks so that students with different learning styles can achieve success, and partly use resources that present both local and global images and perspectives.

Utilization of instructional materials and strategies
On this criterion, and as for the rest of the school administrators’ and teachers’ remarks, it essentially raged up to the uppermost mean of 3.76 on the utilization of instructional materials and strategies, specifically, in how teachers help students apply theory to solve problems and in how the timing of classroom activities considers attention spans, which implies that in the utilization of instructional strategies, the teachers performed above the framework of helping students apply theory to solve problems and engaging students’ ability to maintain attention spans.

Table 3
Teachers’ Classroom Performance in terms of Utilization of Instructional Materials and Strategies
Table3

As for the rest of the remarks in Table 3, they essentially raged down to the lowest mean of 3.46 in how the teachers help students apply theory to solve problems, and a 3.31 mean in how the timing of classroom activities considers attention spans. This implies that in the utilization of instructional strategies, the teachers performed below the framework of helping students apply theory to solve problems and engaging students’ ability to maintain attention span, which diminishes throughout the classroom activities. It is the authors’ considered theory that the teachers of TPS surpassed the expected excellent utilization of instructional strategies such as collaborative discussion with the students by helping them extend their responses, allowing them to complete active learning tasks, and mediating conflict or differences of opinion and encouraging them to do the same. These results confirmed that there is a certain gravity to the multidimensional utilization of instructional strategies practiced by the teachers of TPS, particularly the support from the school that provides explicit directions for active learning tasks. It is likewise a reality that in delivering the lesson objective is hampered by the perceived and actual unavailability of instructional materials and hinders students’ personal goals (Ogbaji, 2017).

Rapport with and responsiveness to students
It is an understandable assumption that the vast majority of teachers are excellent at conveying rapport with and responsiveness to students with a 3.56 composite mean. With these collective results in Table 4, the implication that can be drawn is that the teachers’ disposition and their subsequent repercussions for establishing rapport with and responsiveness to students are highly evident, especially in demonstrating flexibility in responding to students’ concerns or interests and using positive reinforcement.

Table 4
Teachers’ Classroom Performance in terms of Rapport with and Responsiveness to Students
Table4

More so, the three low-rated items in this section are in the mean range of 2.01–3.50 and are perceived as “Good” particularly on whether the atmosphere of the classroom is participative, with a 3.46 mean; in how the teachers provide students an opportunity to mention problems or concerns with the class, either verbally or in writing, with a 3.41 mean; and if the teachers are available before or after class, with the lowest mean of 3.19. This criterion is merely meant to improve the teachers’ determination to nurture a strong rapport with the students in a participative classroom atmosphere, giving them the opportunity to mention problems or concerns with the class, either verbally or in writing, and to intensify the teachers’ availability before or after classes. Hence, establishing a positive learning environment for students should always be considered for students to learn (Waldman, 2016), and if teachers allow students to use various methods to reach a particular learning goal, they can choose to express themselves in the way that best fits them (Kumar, 2010).
Impact learning
While it is true that impact learning is deliberated with high-importance as it reflects the outcome of the teaching-learning process (Beauchamp and Kennewell, 2010), the fine-grained data in Table 5 identifies that TPS teachers make moderate effort in striving for excellent impact in learning as perceived by school administrators and teachers’ self-review with a composite mean of 3.49. The highly rated items attribute that teachers have “Excellent” performance in how they encourage the development of students’ analytic ability, broaden students’ views, and help students develop an awareness of the process used to gain new knowledge. However, it is also shown in Table 5 that the lowermost mean, in turn, influences the teachers’ classroom performance in terms of impact learning, particularly in how they stimulate independent thinking, with a 3.47 mean; how they foster respect for diverse points of view, with a 3.40 mean; and more importantly, how they help develop critical thinking skills and problem-solving ability, with the lowest mean of 3.39.

Table 5
Teachers’ Classroom Performance in terms of Impact Learning

Table5

The foregoing responses demonstrate how excellent the teachers are in encouraging the development of students’ analytic ability to broaden student views and develop an awareness of the process used to gain new knowledge. Of the five (5) areas of criterion-based review of classroom performance, Impact Learning is one of the least rated criteria by both school administrators and teachers. This is evident in how the teachers develop the students’ critical thinking skills and problem-solving capabilities.

Teachers’ profile and classroom performance
In the world of research, the practice of profiling respondents is necessary and widely accepted. It is an integral component of the success of the research industry, and it is essential for explaining the methodology selected, as well as contextualizing impacts, results, and conclusions (Brooks, 2016). This study, subsequently, involves a simple profiling method to obtain the background of the teachers, such as age, highest educational attainment, and length of service, in correlation to their own classroom performance.
Age. It pointed out that the majority of the respondents are between the ages of 30 and 34, comprising 39, or 28.9% of the respondents. To determine the direction of the relationship between age and teacher classroom performance, the data were subjected to a Chi-square test with the seven grouped-data (age bracket) versus the two most commonly used interpretations (Good and Excellent) of the level of the teachers’ classroom performance, yielding a p-value of 0.171. Clearly, the computed p-value is less than the 0.05 level of significance, which permits acceptance of the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant relationship between age and the classroom performance of the teachers. In other words, teachers’ age does not influence their classroom performance. Though the large age indicates teachers’ level of maturity in their beliefs and attitudes toward this dimension of classroom performance, these findings have important implications for practice because most teachers in TPS are relatively young.
Highest Educational Attainment. The majority of the respondents finished their Bachelor of Secondary Education, which consists of 66, or 48.9% of the total population. While 33, or 24.4%, have earned a Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education. Accordingly, 21 teachers and six school administrators have acquired M.A. units, which comprises 27 or 20% of the total respondents. Besides, two teachers and four school administrators are M.A. graduates, which is 4.4% of the total respondents. Only three school administrators, or 2.2%, earned doctoral units, but no one of the respondents has acquired a doctoral degree yet. The Chi-square test enabled us to identify the significant relationship between the independent variables. Whereas the computed probability of 0.848 is greater than the 0.05 level of significance. The null hypothesis, that there is no significant relationship between teachers’ highest educational attainment and their classroom performance, is accepted. This feedback indicates that the highest educational attainment of the teachers in TPS has nothing to do with their classroom performance. This differed, somehow, from the high qualifications being imposed by the institutions that attract highly qualified and certified teachers who are more effective than teachers with low licensure requirements or less qualified teachers.
Length of Service. Most of the teachers have 1–5 years of service, and most of the school administrators have 6–10 years of service. The Chi-square test in determining the relationship with the given group data on length of service and classroom performance shows that the computed p-value of 0.502 is greater than the 0.05 level of significance. The null hypothesis, that there is no significant relationship between the length of service and the classroom performance of the teachers, is accepted. In other words, the number of years spent in the teaching field could not be associated with the classroom performance of the teachers. These results also have sound implications for practice and institutional perspective. It gives rise to an underlying and interesting interpretation between novice and experienced teachers if it is teaching experience or life experience that may cause this difference in the teachers’ classroom performance. In fact, the greater part of the teachers in TPS have 1–5 years of service, and they are dominated by less experienced ones.

Administrators’ perceptions vs. teachers’ self-review
To answer the key question in this study, the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test identified the data collected from both school administrators and teachers on their perceptions of the level of classroom performance. Results shown in Table 6 indicate that the p-value of 0.981 is greater than the 0.05 level of significance, which means that it is conventional to accept the null hypothesis that there is no significant degree of difference between the perceptions of school administrators and teachers’ self-review on the level of classroom performance. In other words, both school administrators and teachers are reasonably harmonious in their perceptions of the level of classroom performance.

Table 6
Administrators’ Perceptions vs. Teachers’ Self-review

Table6

Undoubtedly, these results overwhelmingly point to the leniency of ratings by the school administrators, which reflects the realistic feedback of the teachers. It is also becoming clear that teachers who use peer observation and feedback systems ostensibly benefit from the greater opportunity to collaborate with one another (Amrein-Beardsley, 2020) and the reality of the model and method used.

Conclusion

It can be assertively concluded that a great number of exceptional teachers in The Philippine School (TPS) in Dubai made the classroom an exciting and interesting place for Filipino learners. It indicates that TPS teachers have evidently implemented the quality of the social dynamics in the classroom situation to create a productive and inclusive climate for all learners. But the results of criterion-based review can be imprecise, especially for the lowermost criteria such as Content Knowledge and Impact Learning, which determine that by far the most significant influencing factor in schools, TPS teachers have less convincing power to help develop more impactful learning. This is evident, and somehow the teachers have fewer key components of content knowledge and pedagogical competence according to the standards of the field and develop critical thinking skills and problem-solving ability.
Interestingly, there is a large extent of relationship that the teachers’ profile in terms of age, highest educational attainment, and length of service couldn’t be associated with their classroom performance. Though the most important consideration is that the large age indicates the teachers’ level of maturity in their beliefs and attitudes towards classroom performance, these findings have important implications because most teachers in TPS are relatively young. This gives rise to the concept of knowledge that, with such an underlying and interesting interpretation between novice and experienced teachers, whether it is teaching experience or life experience, may not cause a difference in the teachers’ classroom performance.
With the excellent results, both school administrators and teachers have the same review about the level of classroom performance of the TPS teachers, which points to the realistic and objective feedback of the two groups of respondents. By some means, the criterion-based review of teachers’ performance is the unsurpassed method to combat a distinctive type of peer review of teachers, which is driven by a common understanding instead of the vague or unclear views of the individual reviewer. This is a sort of introspection in which teachers can assess their own strengths to irradicate bias in assessment.
Above all, the core dilemmas described in this study have been identified, and when it comes to policy implications, the Philippine Department of Education (DepEd) should continue to implement the programs that will increase the content knowledge, improve the proficiencies, and equip the teachers and school administrators in all PSOs with constructive attitudes and principles that will complement the educational trends and address issues in education in order to ensure unwavering results, especially on the part of the students. It is essential to conceptualize an enhancement program to improve the different dimensions of teachers’ classroom performance to help achieve a higher number of teachers and meet part of the challenges for the Philippine schools’ administrators and Filipino teachers in Dubai. More importantly, improving the education policy, which is expected to contribute to the attainment of the goals of the components of the Philippine educational system, along with the fundamental goals of the IACPSO, could make a paramount contribution incoherent with the standards of the Dubai Schools Inspection Bureau (DSIB).
Finally, this is an appealing source of future research with similar instruments and procedural matters that could be used to administer to other Philippine schools around the world, particularly the non-accredited institutions.

Acknowledgements

It is a genuine pleasure to express our deep sense of thanks and gratitude to the noteworthy individuals and organizations for their indispensable contributions, especially the Filipino teachers and school administrators of The Philippine School (TPS) in Dubai, UAE.

Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Acosta, A., & de Guzman, A. (2017). A panorama of conflict mediation experiences of a selected group of administrators representing the Philippine School Overseas. International Journal of Educational Policy Research and Review, 4(7), 158-168. https://doi.org/10.15739/IJEPRR.17.017
Allen, J., Gregory, A., Mikami, A., Lun, J., Hamre, B., Pianta, R., & VanDerHeyden, A. (2019). Observations of Effective Teacher–Student Interactions in Secondary School Classrooms: Predicting Student Achievement with the Classroom Assessment Scoring System. Secondary, School Psychology Review, 42:1, 76-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2013.12087492
Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2020). Policies and practices of promise in teacher evaluation: The introduction to the special issue. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(55). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.5443
Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & education, 54(3), 759-766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.033
Bell, C. A., Dobbelaer, M. J., Klette, K., & Visscher, A. (2019). Qualities of classroom observation systems. School effectiveness and school improvement, 30(1), 3-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1539014
Brooks, A. (2016). Sample 101: Profiling. Brookmark. Retreived from: https://www.brookmark.com/sample-101-profiling/
Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation. (2017). Peer observation of teaching: Effective practices: Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation, University of Toronto. Retrieved from: https://teaching.utoronto.ca/teaching-support/peer-observation-of-teaching/part-iii-tools-instruments-observation/#POT3e
Chism, N.V.N. (2007). Peer Review of Teaching: A Sourcebook. Nancy Van Note Chism. Second Edition. Bolton, Mass.: Anker Publishing Company, Inc. XVII; 209.
Commission on Filipinos Overseas. (Od.). Commission on Filipino Overseas - About Us. Retrieved from: https://www.cfo-pso.org.ph/
Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Think systemically. Getting teacher evaluation right: what really matter for effectiveness and improvement. (Pp. 1-6). Oxford, England: Teachers College Press.
Department of Education Memo. No. 479. (2009). List of Accredited Philippine Schools Overseas: Department of Education, 2009. [Data file]. Available from Department of Education Web site. Retrieved from: https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/DM_s2009_479.pdf
Dhakal, K. (2017). Availability and Utilization of Instructional Materials in Teaching Geography in Secondary Schools. The Third Pole: Journal of Geography, 17, 51-58. https://doi.org/10.3126/ttp.v17i0.19982
DSIB. (2020). The Philippine School-Inspection Report 2019-2020. Dubai Knowledge: Dubai Schools Inspection Bureau (DSIB). Retrieved from: https://tpsdxb.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/The-Philippine-School-Inspection-Report_-Amina-Ali_3_25_2-1.pdf
Indrawati, P. (2015). Management and business research methods. Bandung: PT. Refika Aditama.
Kollöffel, B., & de Jong, T. (2016). Can performance feedback during instruction boost knowledge acquisition? Contrasting criterion-based and social comparison feedback. Interactive learning environments, 24(7), 1428-1438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1016535
Kumar, K. (2010). Use of a conference model within an introductory science course to accommodate student diversity and to promote student engagement and creativity. Poster presented at the 30th annual meeting of the Society for Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, Toronto, ON.
Kyriakides, L, Demetriou, D & Charalambous, C. (2007). Generating criteria for evaluating teachers through teacher effectiveness research. Educational Research, 48:1, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880500498297
Little, O., Goe, L., & Bell, C. (2009). A Pratical Guide to Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness, National comprehensive center for teacher quality. Learnig Point Associates. Washington, USA.
Mapa, S. (2020). Total Number of OFWs Estimated at 2.2 Million. Philippine Statistics Authority. National Statistician and Civil Registrar General. Retrieved from: https://psa.gov.ph/content/total-number-ofws-estimated-22-million
Neumann, K., Kind, V., & Harms, U. (2019). Probing the amalgam: the relationship between science teachers’ content, pedagogical and pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 41(7), 847-861. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1497217
OECD. (2018). Effective Teacher Policies: Insights from PISA, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301603-en
Ogbaji, D. I. (2017). Teachers’ perception of the utilization of instructional materials in teaching social studies in junior secondary schools in Calabar municipality, Cross river state, Nigeria. Global Journal of Educational Research, 16(2), 95-100. https://doi.org/10.4314/gjedr.v16i2.3
Roberto, J., & Madrigal, D. (2019). Teacher Quality in the Light of the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers. Philippine Social Science Journal, 67-80. Retreived from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332103677_Teacher_Quality_in_the_Light_of_the_Philippine_Professional_Standards_for_Teachers
Sapungan, R. (2013). An assessment of the performance of philippine international schools in jeddah, kingdom of saudi arabia: A basis for od interventions for sustainabl quality education. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(1): 273-289. Retreived from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1047.3064&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Sawchuk, S. (2015, September 3). Teacher Evaluation: An Issue Overview. Educaton Week. Retrieved December 10, 2021, from: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/teacher-evaluation-an-issue-overview/2015/09
Sharpe, D. (2015). Chi-square test is statistically significant: Now what? Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 20(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.7275/tbfa-x148
Stewart, V. (2012). A World-Class Education: Learning from International Models of Excellence and Innovation. Virginia, USA: ASCD Publication.
TIMSS. (2019). International Comparative Assessments of Student Achievement in Mathematics And Science (TIMSS). International Results in Mathematics and Science. TIMSS & PILRS International Study Center. Boston College. Retreived from: https://timss2019.org/reports/
University of Minnesota. (2009). University of Minnesota: Faculty & Academic Affairs. Peer Review of Teaching. Retrieved from: https://faculty.umn.edu/support-resources/peer-review-teaching
Van Driel, J. H., & Berry, A. (2010). Pedagogical content knowledge. In International Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 656-661). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00642-4
Waldman, C. (2016). Four elements for creating a positive learning environment. Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from: https://all4ed.org/blog/four-elements-for-creating-a-positive-learning-environment/

Corresponding Author:

Arturo C. Basbas, University of Bohol, Graduate School & Professional Studies, Bohol, Philippines, e-mail: arturo.basbas2019@gmail.com

CC_BY

© 2022 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).