The document discusses using smart glasses like Google Glass for teacher evaluations. An online survey of 26 school administrators found that while they see potential benefits for self-reflection, there are also concerns. Respondents noted that the technology would need to be streamlined with the evaluation process and address issues like video quality, cost, and privacy before being practically implemented. Most respondents were open to a pilot program to test the technology in evaluations.

1. The Case for Smart Glass for
Teacher Evaluations
Professor Matt Marino
Monmouth University

2. Agenda
• Background of the Study
• Methods/Participation
• Results
• Discussion
• Limitations
• Identified Needs
• Alternatives
• References
• Questions to Ponder

3. Background
• Teacher evaluation/observation
have important outcomes.
“Success or failure of schools is
largely determined by what
teachers do with children in
classrooms” (Thomas, 1974, p. 7).

4. Videotaping Evaluations
• Darling-Hammond, et al. (2012)
suggested videotaping as
“evidence of teacher practices”
(p. 14).
• Videotaping also allows for
self-reflection.

5. Goal of Evaluations
• Mayo (1997) noted observations
form a representative sample of
teacher performance.
• Hill and Grossman (2013) noted
the importance of accurate
feedback.
• Videotaping/recording meets
both of these criteria.

6. Admin Involvement
• Hill and Grossman (2013),
Mayo (1997), McNally (1977),
and Wilson and Wood (1996)
all noted the role evaluation
data plays in administrative
decisions.

7. Methods/Participants
• Online survey with 6 Yes or No
questions, 2 Likert scale
questions, and 2 Open-ended
questions
• Only 26 participants; all school
administrators

8. Results: Yes or No; Two
Absolutes
• All 26 participants answered all 6
Yes/No questions
• All noted their current district
does not videotape observations
• All were trained in the
observation tool their district uses

9. Results: Considering
Videotaping

10. Results: Encourage Self-
Evaluation

11. Results: Time on Evaluations

12. Results: Will Google Glass Be
Effective

13. Results: Familiarity

14. Results: Practicality of Price

15. Results: View of Feasibility
• 18 of 26 participants adequately
responded
• 4 participants noted ineffective, a
distraction, or make staff & students
uncomfortable as reason not to use
• 6 participants expressed concern of
union approval to use or added work
for administrators as reason not to
use
• 3 participants expressed potential to
use for self-reflection as reason to

16. Results: View of Feasibility
Cont.
• 1 participant expressed lack of
tech savvy, but sees benefits
related to student achievement
• 1 participant expressed concern
over teachers approving
recordings
• 1 participant expressed concern
over student confidentiality
• 1 participant expressed cost
concerns
• 1 participant suggested a pilot

17. Results: Feasibility of Use
• 11 of 26 participants adequately
responded
• 3 participants stated there is more
to an evaluation than just the
observation
• 2 participants noted need for
Google Glass to be streamlined
with evaluations, such as a Google
form for evaluation data

18. Results: Feasibility of Use
Cont.
• 3 participants expressed the
tool would be better for self-
evaluation or expressed lack of
knowledge
• 2 participants expressed a need
to build trust between admin &
teachers after union approval
of use
• 1 participant expressed concern

19. Discussion
• Two primary issues – video quality &
cost
• Open to tool, but more so for self-
reflection
• Despite lack of familiarity; concerns
noted
– Needs to match evaluation
process

20. Limitations of Study
• Only 26 participants
• All 26 participants were
administrators; no union
members considered
• Google Glass’ cost/construction

21. Identified Needs
• Pilot program – to test product
• Streamlined with observation
process

22. Alternatives

23. References
• Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein,
J. (2012). Evaluating Teacher Evaluation: Popular Modes of Evaluating
Teachers Are Fraught with Inaccuracies and Inconsistencies, but the
Field Has Identified Better Approaches. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 8-
15.
• Hill, H., & Grossman, P. (2013). Learning from Teacher Observations:
Challenges and Opportunities Posed by New Teacher Evaluation
Systems. Harvard Educational Review, 83(2), 371-384.
• Mayo, R. (1997). Trends in Teacher Evaluation. Clearing House, 70(5),
269-270.
• Mcnally, H. (1977). Performance-Based Teacher Evaluation. NASSP
Bulletin, 61(411), 104-105.
• Thomas, D. (1974). The Principal and Teacher Evaluation. NASSP
Bulletin, 58(386), 1-7.
• Wilson, B., & Wood, J. (1996). Teacher evaluation: A national
dilemma. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10(1), 75-82.

24. Questions to Ponder