Conducting Classroom Observations

Abstract

The ‘Stallings classroom snapshot’ instrument, technically called the ‘Stanford Research Institute classroom observation system’ was developed by Professor Jane Stallings for research on the efficiency and quality of basic education teachers in the United States in the 1970s. The Stallings instrument generates robust quantitative data on the interaction of teachers and students in the classroom, with a high degree of inter-rater reliability (0.8 or higher) among observers with relatively limited training, which makes it suitable for large scale samples in developing country settings. Key features of the Stallings instrument make it well-suited to large scale use in developing country contexts. However, several factors need to borne in mind when interpreting its results. First, there is clear potential for Hawthorne effects, as teachers are aware of the observer (and sometimes pair of observers) physically present in the classroom, unlike the latest observation methods being used in the United States, which place a video camera in the classroom for extended periods so as to minimize these effects. One operating assumption, therefore, is that Stallings observations capture teachers’ performing at their very best, or production possibility frontier, which is in fact useful to measure. A second issue is the potential noisiness of the variables being measured; if the same teacher were observed on different days or with different student sections on the same day or with a different cohort of students the following year, how consistent would the measured performance be? Initial studies in the US called for visits to each classroom on two different days. Third issue is the non-random assignment of teachers to classes in most of the school systems observed. Even when students are not explicitly ability-tracked, classroom assignment rules may de facto result in some teachers facing much more gifted or docile students than others. Finally, what makes the Stallings instrument versatile and robust across different grades, subjects, languages and countries is that it does not try to measure the content of what is being taught, either the depth or sophistication of the curriculum content itself or the teacher’s mastery of that content.