A Study of Multiple Teacher Evaluation in the United States Based

on Artificial Intelligence: Comparison of Danielson and Marzano

Evaluation Models

Di Yuan

Educational Studies, Fujian Normal University Fuzhou, China

Keywords: The United States, AI, Modern Information Technology, Teacher Evaluation, Danielson, Marzano, Teachi-

ing and Learning.

Abstract: Since the 1980s, the research on educational evaluation in the United States ushered in a “multi-model peri-

od”, and corresponding teacher evaluation models have emerged to seek a symbiosis between the develop-

ment of teachers’ professionalism and the enhancement of students’ academic achievement. This paper

takes the Danielson Framework for Teaching and the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model by modern in-

formation technology as examples, analyzing their backgrounds, model content, similarities, and differ-

ences. It aims to provide references for reflecting on and promoting current teacher evaluation practices in

China.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5399-6310

1 INTRODUCTION

The 1980s was the fourth phase in American educa-

tional evaluation history, following the “pre-

educational measurement period”, “educational

measurement period” and “goal analysis period”,

namely, the “multi-model period”’ (Wang 2018).

Influenced by this climate, Danielson, and Marzano,

the two most widely used teacher evaluation models

were later proposed in the United States. Since its

inception, the Danielson Framework has been adopt-

ed by many educators in the United States and

worldwide. It is widely recognized both in the field

of teacher evaluation theory and in classroom prac-

tice (Wu et al., 2019). In 2009, the Measures of Ef-

fective Teaching (MET) project, funded by the Bill

& Melinda Gates Foundation, used the Danielson

Framework to analyze over 23,000 course videos

(Wu, Wu, and Zhang, 2020). It has also been used to

observe classroom teaching in the UK, Germany,

South Korea, and South Africa. The Marzano

Teacher Evaluation Model, which is used by school

districts in over 50 states in the United States, is one

of four evaluation models developed by Marzano in

collaboration with the Learning Sciences Interna-

tional platform. This study will discuss these two

models in detail, with their backgrounds, model

contents, similarities, and differences.

2 THE BACKGROUND OF

DANIELSON AND MARZANO

TEACHER EVALUATION

MODEL BASED ON

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

2.1 Background of the Danielson

Framework for Teaching

The Danielson Framework for Teaching (DFT) is an

assessment tool developed by Professor Charlotte

Danielson’s team in the United States. It is a com-

prehensive analysis of teachers’ professional devel-

opment before, during and after the class, which has

been published as Enhancing Professional Practice:

A Framework for Teaching.

For states and local agencies to have a common

teacher certification system, the centre of Education-

al Testing Service (ETS) undertook a large-scale

Yuan, D.

A Study of Multiple Teacher Evaluation in the United States Based on Artiﬁcial Intelligence: Comparison of Danielson and Marzano Evaluation Models.

DOI: 10.5220/0011909400003613

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on New Media Development and Modernized Education (NMDME 2022), pages 221-228

ISBN: 978-989-758-630-9

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

221

research project -- the Praxis Series: Praxis I. As-

sessment of Students Skills; Praxis II. Assessment of

Subject Matter Literacy; and Praxis III. Assessment

of Classroom Performance. The significance of the

first two is to award primary teaching qualifications

to those who pass them, while the latter revolves

around the assessment of teachers’ actual teaching

skills and classroom performance (Zhou 2017). Pro-

fessor Danielson and her team were responsible for

the development of Praxis III. However, during the

study, Danielson was adamant that Praxis III was not

only a tool to assess classroom competence, but also

to improve teachers’ professional development.

Subsequently, based on Praxis III, Danielson and her

team completed Danielson Framework for Teaching

after continuous refinement and extended it to sup-

port teachers’ professional development in teaching

practices in states across the United States (Char-

lotte, Danielson 2013).

2.2 Background of the Marzano

Teacher Evaluation Model Based

on Artificial Intelligence

The Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model (MTEM)

was developed for three general reasons. First, since

the 1980s, neoliberalism has prevailed, and the edu-

cational process has become more concerned with

cost-cutting, standard-setting, and educational output

(Lu 2006). Educational outputs are reflected in the

increased focus on students’ test scores and have

eventually been applied to teacher evaluation (Hursh

2005). Secondly, the Council for the Accreditation

of Educator Preparation (CAEP) proposed in late

2012 that standards for educational evaluation sys-

tems should provide multiple assessment indicators.

In response to the need for diversified teacher evalu-

ation, Marzano and his team created a new teacher

evaluation model by distilling and summarizing the

core competencies of teachers through scientific

evidence, which provided multiple options for the

development of teacher professionalization.

Thirdly, Marzano has always been passionate

about research on classroom practice, teacher evalu-

ation, and school leader assessment, and has been

committed to effectively applying the latest theories

to classroom practice (Larsen 2015). The Marzano

Teacher Evaluation Model was developed by Mar-

zano and his team based on years of research, with

key findings such as, What Works in Schools, Class-

room Instruction that Works, Classroom Manage-

ment that Works, Classroom Assessment and Grad-

ing the Work, The Art and Science of Teaching,

Effective Supervision: Supporting the Art and Sci-

ence of Teaching (Marzano Center, 2015).

In short, the emergence of the Marzano Model is

closely linked to the deepening of neoliberalism and

accountability in public education in the United

States, the aspirations of the American Council for

the Accreditation of Teacher Education for plural-

istic teacher evaluation, and Marzano’s tireless ef-

forts.

2.3 Artificial Intelligence Application

Areas

2.3.1 Natural Language Processing

Natural language processing consists of two parts:

natural language understanding and natural language

generation. The function of natural language under-

standing technology is to enable computers to under-

stand the meaning of natural language text, and natu-

ral language generation technology is to enable

computers to express given ideas and intentions in

natural language text. The purpose of developing

natural language processing technology is to prevent

people from spending a lot of time and effort to

learn various obscure computer languages, and to

allow people to use the natural language they are

most familiar with and accustomed to in order to

achieve natural language communication between

humans and computers.

2.3.2 Big Data Analytics

Big data analytics is the ability to process data of all

types and shapes and to capture the information

value of massive and high-growth data in a new

processing model. By collecting, storing and mining

data, big data analytics can help human beings find

the correlation between known variables and make

scientific and intelligent decisions accordingly.

There is a large amount of data in the process of

education and teaching, and the targeted construc-

tion of AI analysis models can help teachers identify

the shortcomings in teaching and provide improve-

ment solutions by analyzing these data with the help

of big data analysis technology. The level of applica-

tion of artificial intelligence in education and teach-

ing depends on the upgrading and improvement of

big data analysis technology.

NMDME 2022 - The International Conference on New Media Development and Modernized Education

222

3 THE FRAMEWORK OF THE

DANIELSON AND MARZANO

TEACHER EVALUATION

MODEL

3.1 A Framework of Danielson Model

of Teacher Evaluation

Danielson and her team have altered the framework

four times in the last 20 years. The original version,

published in 1996, included 22 dimensions with

detailed descriptions. The 22 elements were then

separated into four domains in the second edition in

2007 and the third edition in 2011: 'planning and

preparation,' 'classroom environment,' 'classroom

teaching,' and 'professional duties.' The 2013 edition

of the framework has undergone significant revi-

sions, drawing on several teaching concepts from the

2010 Common Core State Standards (CCS), with a

focus on student initiative, coherent instructional

design, and the use of formative assessment (Robert

J., 2013).

Table 1. The Danielson Teacher Evaluation Model

Dimensions Contents

Board 1: Planning and

preparation

1a: Mastery of subject content and teaching methods

1b: Getting to know students

1c: Establishing teaching objectives

1d: Understanding teaching resources

1e: Designing coherent teaching

1f: Designing a student assessment syste

Board 2: Classroom

environment

2a: Creating a classroom environment of mutual respect and harmony

2b: Building a learning culture

2c: Managing the teaching process of the course

2d: Managing student behaviour

2e: Or

anizin

sical s

ace

Board 3: Classroom

teaching

3a: Communicating with students

3b: Use questioning and discussion techniques

3c: Engaging students in learning

3d: Using evaluation in teaching

3e: Flexible and res

onsive

Board 4: Professional

duties

4a: Reflective Teaching

4b: Keeping accurate records

4c: Communicating with students

4d: Participation in professional groups' families

4e: Professional growth and development

4f: Reflects

rofessional

ualities

Taking the fourth edition as an example (see Ta-

ble 1), four domains, each containing 5-6 dimen-

sions, for a total of 22 dimensions and 76 sub-

elements (Hunzicker, 2017). To help users better

understand and use the model, each of these 22 di-

mensions is divided into four levels: excellent, pro-

ficient, basic, and unqualified.

The Planning and Preparation part's components

outline how teachers plan pupils' learning, or how

they create instruction. As shown in Table 1, this

block covers six dimensions: strong subject

knowledge and pedagogy, understanding of students'

learning, setting scientific teaching objectives, ex-

ploitation of teaching resources, implementation of

intrinsically orderly classroom activities, and use of

students' formative assessment.

The classroom is the most central part of the

Danielson’s framework, where the planned and pre-

pared instructional design is put into practice and the

direct activities of teaching and learning take place

in a meaningful way. Teachers who excel in this

area are skilled at teaching, ask thought-provoking

questions, respond to students in a timely manner

and shine with teaching wisdom, on the other hand,

students are free to express their personal views and

immerse themselves in classroom learning.

The classroom environment section describes all

aspects of the classroom environment that are con-

ducive to student learning. A good classroom envi-

ronment is one in which teachers and students work

together to create a relaxed and respectful classroom

environment; in which with good and safe classroom

furniture; in which students are actively engaged in

learning; in which teaching and learning flows effi-

ciently; in which the rules for student behaviour are

A Study of Multiple Teacher Evaluation in the United States Based on Artiﬁcial Intelligence: Comparison of Danielson and Marzano

Evaluation Models

223

clear; and in which the classroom is set up in a way

that helps students to develop logical thinking.

Professional responsibility is a crucial step for

teachers from novices to experts, a core attribute of

teachers’ professional development. New teachers

are expected to begin their careers by keeping rec-

ords of student performance, reflecting on their

teaching, and balancing between work and home.

Once they have gained experience in teaching, they

can then shift their focus to peer collaboration, work

on building professional communities, focus on their

own professional development, and pave the way for

growth into expert teachers.

It is important to note that although each section

operates independently of the others, but they’re also

interactive. In other words, Board 1 (Planning and

preparation) prepares Board 3 (Classroom teaching)

for successful implementation; Board 2 (Classroom

environment) creates a harmonious external envi-

ronment for Board 3 (Classroom teaching); and

Board 4 (Professional responsibilities) is the value of

the first three Boards and the final destination for

teacher professional development.

3.2 Framework of the Marzano

Teacher Evaluation Model Based

on AI

The Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model has under-

gone two stages: the first stage was the Marzano

Causal Teacher Evaluation Model (CTEM) in 2014,

the second stage was the Marzano Focused Teacher

Evaluation Model (FTEM) in 2017. The core feature

of the Causal Model is to explore the correlation

between teachers’ teaching strategies and students’

academic achievement. It divides teachers’ work

into four domains and 60 elements, each of which

has some strong or weak correlation with student

achievement. However, it lacks of clear and stream-

lined standards for teacher evaluation in real life.

Later, the Focused Model simplified the previous

Causal Model by focusing on the 23 essential com-

petencies of teachers, providing a clearer and more

efficient vehicle for evaluating the co-development

of student achievement and teacher professionaliza-

tion. Nevertheless, the Causal Model and the Fo-

cused Model have their own strengths and comple-

ment each other in the practice of teacher assess-

ment.

3.3 CTEM Model: The Causal Model

of Marzano's Teacher Evaluation

. There are four domains in CTEM Model, namely,

‘Classroom Strategies and Behaviors’, ‘Planning and

Preparation’, ‘Reflecting on Teaching’, and ‘Colle-

giality and Professionalism’, each domain contains

2-3 dimensions, for a total of 11 dimensions cover-

ing 60 elements (as shown in Figure 1) (Charlotte

Danielson 2013).

Classroom strategies and behaviours feature are

prominent in CTEM, a section where students are

truly engaged in content learning. It assesses three

main components of classroom teaching: proce-

dures, content and practice, and contains 41 ele-

ments that focus on teaching strategies directly relat-

ed to student achievement. The Planning and Prepa-

ration section demonstrates the rationality of course

planning and teaching design, and is divided into

eight elements along the three dimensions. The re-

flective teaching section illustrates teachers’ reflec-

tions on their teaching practice and pursuit of per-

sonal professional development. Reflective teachers

are skilled at gathering professional and informative

feedback on their teaching and sharpening their pro-

fessional skills in order to address the challenges of

improving student achievement. The area of collegi-

ality and professionalism is not directly linked to

teaching and learning activities, but provides a good

environment for effective implementation of each

area. Specialist teachers make full use of every plat-

form to improve their professional skills. Therefore,

educational authorities, school administrators and

relevant staff should be actively involved in the

creation of collaborative communities.

Table 2. Marzano Teacher Evaluation Causal Model Evaluation Criteria

Classification The usefulness of 60 elements

Non-effective Strategies are proposed but not applied.

Beginning

Not fully applying the strategy correctly or somehow lacking strategies are

roposed but not applied.

Developmental Have clear learning objectives that describe the student's performance.

Applied

Have clear learning objectives that describe the student's level of perfor-

mance and monitor their

erformance.

Innovative Develop new strategies that are relevant and meet the needs of students

NMDME 2022 - The International Conference on New Media Development and Modernized Education

224

Similar to the Danielson Framework for Teach-

ing and Learning, the Marzano Teacher Evaluation

Model has its own evaluation criteria, which is di-

vided into five levels: non-effective, beginning,

developmental, applied and innovative (as shown in

Table 2).

Figure 1. Marzano Causal Teacher Evaluation Model

3.4 FTEM Model: The Focused Model

of Marzano's Teacher Evaluation

The Marzano Focused Teacher Evaluation Model

differs from the original model in that it reduces the

number of teacher skills that affect student achieve-

ment from 60 to 23, emphasizing the assessment's

efficiency. For any of the 23 basic teacher compe-

tencies, FTEM Model carefully designs them in

indicator descriptions and desired outcomes. As

shown in Figure 2 , the 23 core teacher competen-

cies are concentrated in four areas: ‘Standards-

based planning’, ‘Standards-based instruction’,

‘Conditions for learning’ and ‘Professional respon-

sibilities’ (Lv, 2015). Domain 1 (Standards-based

planning) is a consolidation of the eight elements of

‘Planning and preparation’ in Casual Model. Do-

main 2 (Standards-Based Instruction) is the core

observation of the model, encompassing 10 areas of

student learning from basic to cognitive improve-

ment, and significantly reducing the 41 elements of

the Causal Model of ‘classroom strategies and be-

haviors’. Domain 3 (Conditions for learning) is a

complementary condition to Domain 2 (Standards-

based instruction) and provides support for effective

teaching and learning. Domain 4 (Professional re-

sponsibility) is largely aligned with the Causal Mod-

el’s ‘collegiality and professionalism’. To some

extent, the Focus Model is an inheritance and devel-

opment of the Causal Model.

The Focused Model differs from the Causal

Model in seven ways: it is standards-based, empha-

sizing that the development of standards should

follow the dynamics of teaching and learning; it is

centralized and simplified, focusing on the assess-

ment of 23 core teacher competencies; it is transpar-

ent, providing objective feedback on evaluation

results; it is authentic, with tests conducted with

A Study of Multiple Teacher Evaluation in the United States Based on Artiﬁcial Intelligence: Comparison of Danielson and Marzano

Evaluation Models

225

teachers from hundreds of schools and districts to

collect data; it is transparent, providing objective

feedback on evaluation results; and it is authentic,

with tests conducted with teachers from hundreds of

schools.

Figure 2. Marzano Focused Teacher Evaluation Model

4 COMPARISON OF THE

SIMILARITIES AND

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

TWO MULTIPLE TEACHER

EVALUATION MODELS

4.1 Similarities Between the Two

Teacher Evaluation Models

4.1.1 Evaluation Based on Multiple

Evidence

In the process of evaluating teachers’ teaching activ-

ities, teachers should not only have ‘process texts’

that demonstrate the unit or lesson plans they have

designed, assess students’ basic classroom perfor-

mance, but also have ‘explanatory texts’ to examine

and reflect on their teaching activities, engage in

teacher-student interaction and peer communication.

The former shows the evidence of teacher’s teaching

activities and the latter presents the evidence of

teacher's professional development. In terms of these

two models, the Danielson Teacher Evaluation

Model is all about collecting multiple sources of

evidence, which come from the school, the teacher,

and students. These evidence are then mapped to the

elemental descriptions and specific examples of each

dimension in the model. The Marzano Focused

Model is also evidence-oriented, which collects

hundreds of feedback from various schools to form

the model. The above shows that the US multiple

teacher evaluation is not a generalized description of

evaluation, but is based on multiple evidence of the

evaluation process.

4.1.2 Focus on Knowledge, Skills and

Professional Quality Aspects

. From the evaluation indicators in the two main

models, it is clear that the content can be divided

into three points: professional knowledge (should

know), professional skills or practices (can do) and

professional qualities (willing to hold). Practical

knowledge is the basis for teachers to become teach-

ers. Practical skills are the ability of teachers to ap-

ply their prior practical knowledge in the classroom,

with students of different personalities, potentials

NMDME 2022 - The International Conference on New Media Development and Modernized Education

226

and home backgrounds. Professional qualities are

concerned with teachers’ reflective self-awareness,

professional judgement and educational wisdom. In

short, these two US multiple teacher evaluation

models can generally be considered internally con-

sistent in content.

4.1.3 Development-Oriented Values

In terms of the values advocated by the Danielson

Model and the Marzano Model, it is clear that the

US multiple teacher evaluation model is no longer

seen as a tool for judging teachers, but in a large

sense, is focused on the ‘development’ of the ‘per-

son’, i.e. the ‘professional development’ of the

teacher, the personal development of students.The

Danielson Framework for Teaching has been dedi-

cated to teacher professional development since its

establishment by establishing criteria for evaluating

instructors' classroom teaching. Meanwhile, the

Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model employs inno-

vative educational assessment to investigate the link

between teacher effectiveness and student accom-

plishment, focusing not only on teacher evaluation

but also on student academic advancement. Admit-

tedly, two evaluation models both use their own

scientific and feasible systems to propose practical

paths for teachers’ professional growth.

4.2 Differences Between the Two

Models of Teacher Evaluation

4.2.1 Opportunity: Contingency and

Permanence

The Danielson Framework for Teaching is based on

the teacher accreditation system in the United States.

Danielson worked on the Praxis III in order to com-

pensate for the deficiencies of the Praxis I and Praxis

II assessments. He believed that the Praxis III would

be useful not just for diagnosing teachers' classroom

teaching standards, but also for encouraging teach-

ers' professional development by assessing their

teaching practice. As a result, the Danielson Frame-

work for Teaching's birth was fortunate. On the oth-

er hand, the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model was

the outcome of a confluence of three variables. Spe-

cifically, it was a combination of the environment of

teacher evaluation reform in the United States, the

emphasis of authorities on educational accountabil-

ity and the rise of multiple evaluation systems, and

the accumulation of Marzano's years of research. It

is clear that the Danielson Framework and the Mar-

zano Model are significantly different.

4.2.2 The Model’s Philosophy: Teacher

Subject and Teacher-Student Growth

.Although the Danielson Framework and the Marza-

no Model both emphasize teachers’ professional

development, however, their philosophy are slightly

different. The former focuses more on teacher sub-

ject, especially how teachers transfer from novices

to experts. While the latter seeks the joint growth of

teachers’ professional development and students’

academic achievement. Specifically, the first three

domains of the Marzano Focused Model stress on

grading student evidence of learning to reduce pres-

sure on teachers to “perform” , and shift the key

point to student attainment of standards; the last

domain is about teacher development.

4.2.3 Model Framework: Traditional Crite-

ria and Factor Focus

.Through the comparison of the two models, it is

obvious that there are also differences between them

in operation. The Danielson Framework provides

teacher users with a practical reference--a frame-

work containing board-dimension-point index, giv-

ing detailed descriptions on the points corresponding

to 22 dimensions of the four boards. The core of the

Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model, however, is to

explore scientifically the correlation between teacher

effectiveness and students achievement, and to distil

the key areas and elements that influence them. As

the initial Causal Model covered four domains and

60 elements, the subsequent Focused Model correct-

ed the ambiguity and redundancy of the model in

practice, simplified the previous elements into 23

essential teacher competencies in an effort to make

the assessment process efficient and clear. Thus, it

can be concluded that for teacher users, Danielson

Framework is fixed and rigorous, while Marzano

Model is multi-angle and flexible.

5 CONCLUSIONS

At present, the overall research on teacher evalua-

tion in China is still in its early stages, especially the

research on teacher evaluation practice is radically

weak. Through a comparative analysis of the back-

ground and evaluation framework of two teacher

evaluation models, the following insights are pro-

A Study of Multiple Teacher Evaluation in the United States Based on Artiﬁcial Intelligence: Comparison of Danielson and Marzano

Evaluation Models

227

vided for the current teacher evaluation practice

process in China.

To begin, teacher evaluation should focus on the

evaluation of classroom teaching practice, with the

ultimate goal of improving “teaching” and “learn-

ing”. Since the 21st century, the value orientation of

teacher evaluation practice models has been tightly

focused on two real needs: the need for teachers to

improve their professional development, and the

need for teachers' public accountability. As a result,

the field of teacher evaluation has made it a top fo-

cus. China's Outline of Basic Education Curriculum

Reform also specifies that teacher evaluation in the

new curriculum reform should focus on teachers'

classroom teaching process and continuously en-

hance teachers' teaching standards.

Second, selecting and integrating teacher evalua-

tion models is critical, model suitability may be a

high concern. Whether it's a Chinese-developed

teacher evaluation model or a classical model im-

ported from outside, the applicability of the model

must be examined. Three main components are con-

sidered when selecting and integrating models. The

first section consists of a summary and refinement of

the common traits. The second component is to look

at the educational policy environment from the per-

spective of teacher modes that are built using the

country's present evaluation standards, as well as the

ability to monitor the educational policy environ-

ment for mutual reinforcement. The next step is to

take a micro viewpoint, in which the model is cho-

sen and developed depending on the specific reali-

ties of a certain school district or school.

Finally, the framework of teacher evaluation in-

dicators should be based on teacher professional

standards, which include knowledge, abilities, and

attributes. Because the Danielson Framework and

the Marzano Model are constructed around these

three qualities, we should make sure that our teacher

evaluation indicators do as well. Furthermore, the

teacher evaluation model can highlight the signifi-

cance of indicator precision in enhancing evaluation

efficacy. As a result, teacher evaluation indicators in

China should be based on the idea that the three

dimensions of teacher professional standards should

be continuously enhanced, and that redundancy

should be avoided in the pursuit of precision.

REFERENCES

Charlotte, Danielson. Enhance professional practice: A

Framework for Teaching [M]. Virginia: Association

for Supervision and Curriculum Development Alexan-

dria, 2013.

Charlotte Danielson. The Framework for Teaching Evalu-

ation Instrument (2013 Edition) [EB/OL].

http://www.teachscape.com/products/focus,2013,pp12

-113.

Hursh, David. Neo-Liberalism, Markets and Accountabil-

ity: Transforming Education and Undermining De-

mocracy in the United States and England. Policy Fu-

tures in Education, 2005, pp.3-15.

Hunzicker, Jana. Using Danielson's Framework to Devel-

op Teacher Leaders. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 2017,

pp.12-17.

Larsen, Marianne A. A Critical Analysis of Teacher Eval-

uation Policy Trends. Australian Journal of Education,

2005, pp.292-305.

Lu Ruping. Research on the Construction and Application

of Danielson Teacher Evaluation System. Shanghai

Normal University, 2006.

Lv, Minxia. A Practical Exploration of Improving the

Professional Evaluative Power of Instructional Evalua-

tors in the United States. Comparative Education Re-

search, 2015, pp.72-78.

Marzano Center. 2017 Update: The Marzano Focused

Teacher Evaluation Model, [EB/OL].

https://www.learningsciences.com/

Marzano Center. Robert J. Marzano Archives, [EB/OL]

https://www.learningsciences.com/authors/robert-j-

marzano.

Robert J., Marzano. The Marzano Teacher Evaluation

Model [M]. Marzaon Research Library, 2013.

Study, [EB/OL].

http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Ensuring

_Fair_and_Reliable_Measures_Practioner _Brief.pdf

Wang Jian. A philosophical examination of the history of

the development of educational evaluation. Research

in Teacher Education, June, 2008, pp.1-6.

Wu Xiaopeng, Wu Xiaoxia, and Zhang Yi. Constructs and

mechanisms of teacher teaching assessment systems.

Comparative Education Research, September, 2019.

Zhou Jiushi. Introduction and Discussion on A Frame-

work for Teaching. Basic Education, 2017, pp.88-94.

NMDME 2022 - The International Conference on New Media Development and Modernized Education

228