Search

We developed Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) for measuring teaching practice, and compared them to the well-established Framework for Teaching (FfT; Danielson, 2013). BARS provide behavioral anchors delineating levels of performance via a set of behaviors. Our BARS focused on two dimensions of teaching, leading a classroom discussion and making content and practices explicit. We examined how a) rater agreement for BARS compares to rater agreement using the FfT, and b) how BARS and the FfT compare regarding perceived ease of use, perceived accuracy, and perceived advantages and disadvantages. Nineteen raters, who are users of the FfT and were trained to use BARS, independently evaluated video-taped teacher lessons using both methods. Rater agreement was higher for the FfT, which may, in part, be a factor of the raters' greater experience with that rating system. Nonetheless, raters reported that there are many aspects of BARS that are desirable.

The present investigation compared two statistics attitude scales, the Statistics Attitude Survey (SAS) by Roberts and Bilderback (1980) and the Attitudes Toward Statistics (ATS) by Wise (1985). Wise had claimed that the SAS was partially invalid because many of the items appeared to be achievement oriented rather than attitudinal in nature. The SAS and ATS were combined in one scale and administered to 280 introductory statistics students at the beginning of the course. Course grades were obtained at the end of the course. Analyses showed high reliabilities for both SAS and ATS but a correlation of nearly .9 between the two scales. In addition, none of the correlations between the two scales with several criteria, including course grades, were significantly different. It was concluded that the ATS was essentially an alternate form of the previously developed SAS.