I received this via email too-
"I am a secondary education teacher (U.S. & World History) within my district, and within most of my state we use Robert J Marzano's system both for student lesson evaluation, and for teacher evaluations. I could definitely see a modified version of Marzano's method used to evaluate instructors. For example: When a teacher is being evaluated, they are evaluated on a very specific item for example "Engages students in learning tasks that develop understandings and or skills relevant to the learning objective" This skill is then rated on a 1-5 scale with one being "not using" to five being "innovating". There is a VERY specific rubric that details what each level should look like when observed (I am attaching an example image of a rubric for the above component).
I feel that the use of a similar system would address or eliminate many concerns, for example:
Bias can to a larger degree be removed from the equation. If level 3 performance ("developing") in time management were to be described in the rubric as: "Instructor does not take excessive breaks, spends time using both direct instruction, and engaging students in active participatory learning" if the instructor is doing all of those things, then he or she at least rates a 3, and so on. Having very specific descriptions of what each level looks like makes sure everyone observing and rating instructors is on the same page, despite personal preferences.
The system is also highly flexible in the Marzano teacher evaluation model teacher and administrator come to an agreement on which elements will be evaluated. In the use of a similar system, the individual taking the class could select the given elements they will evaluate before they take the class, and those elements could be reasonably similar across instructors teaching similar classes, while allowing for irrelevant categories to not affect the apparent score of an otherwise high quality instructor. Bobby Instructor may be a great teacher and have all his ducks in a row but has no Mil/LEO background, so why should he be evaluated on that? ( I think a Mil/LEO acknowledgement would make a good addition to an overall rating outside of the score, for example a single sentence stating whether or not the individual has such experience and if it was relevant to the material being taught). It also allows the items being evaluated to be differentiated based on the type of class, pistol class? precision marksmanship? medical? All have different areas that would be important to evaluate with little crossover. A more flexible system allows for a more accurate and relevant score."