O papel da supervisão na avaliação de desempenho docente

Com as várias reformulações do processo de avaliação de desempenho docente (ADD), passou-se de um processo de avaliação dos professores assente na autoavaliação do docente, para um sistema de heteroavaliação que visa a prestação de contas e a seleção, mas também a melhoria de práticas e o desenvolvimento profissional, através do acompanhamento supervisivo. No entanto, a conciliação entre estas duas perspetivas não é fácil e tem gerado perplexidades e inquietações entre os avaliadores e entre os avaliados. Com este estudo, pretendemos conhecer a perspetiva de avaliadores e avaliados sobre o papel que a Supervisão detém no processo de avaliação de desempenho do professor e o seu contributo para o desenvolvimento profissional do professor e melhoria das práticas. Assim desenhou-se um plano de estudo qualitativo, exploratório e descritivo procurando captar o ponto de vista dos principais intervenientes no processo. O principal meio de recolha de dados foi a entrevista semiestruturada a 4 professores avaliadores e 4 professores avaliados do Departamento de Matemática e Ciências Experimentais de um Agrupamento de Escolas. Os resultados mostram que os docentes discordam do modelo de ADD, mas que o processo vivenciado teve caraterísticas positivas, dando os avaliadores especial relevância à oportunidade de conhecer outros processos de trabalho, a partir da observação de aulas. Avaliadores e avaliados referem ainda o bom relacionamento estabelecido entre ambos, contradizendo as preocupações expressas quando se pronunciaram sobre os problemas do modelo de avaliação. No entanto, ambos os subgrupos focam a falta de formação e qualificação profissional dos avaliadores. Em termos gerais, é possível concluir que a maior parte das dificuldades atribuídas pelos docentes ao modelo de ADD não foi depois sentida na implementação prática. Por outro lado, na opinião dos docentes, o processo experienciado não teve verdadeiro impacto na melhoria das práticas ou no desenvolvimento profissional dos docentes envolvidos. - Abstract The several reformulations of the process of the teacher performance evaluation made the process of evaluating teachers, which was first based on a self-evaluation change into a straight assessment system, which aims not only accountability and selection, but also the improvement of the practice and professional development through the supervision of the teaching practice. However, the conciliation between these perspectives has not been easy and has generated anxieties and perplexities among evaluators and evaluated. With this study we intend to know the perspective of the evaluators and of the evaluated concerning the role supervision has hold in the process of evaluating a teacher’s performance and its contribution to the professional development of the teacher and to the improvement of his practices. Thus, a qualitative, exploratory and descriptive study plan was drawn to get to know the viewpoint of the intervening ones in the process. The main means for data collection was based on a semi structured interview, targeting 4 teacher evaluators and 4 evaluated teachers of the Experimental Sciences and Mathematics Department of a group of Schools. The results show that teachers disagree with the teacher’s evaluation model, but the experienced process had positive characteristics. Besides, evaluators have given special relevance to the opportunity of getting to know other working methods thanks to the lessons’ observations. Evaluators and evaluated also refer the good relationship between both parts contradicting the fears they had when they first pronounced themselves about this evaluation model. However, both subgroups focus the lack of training and professional qualifications of the evaluators. So it’s possible to conclude that most worries mentioned by the teachers when referring to this model of teacher performance evaluation were not verified during its practical implementation. On the other hand, in the opinion of the involved teachers, the experienced process had no real impact on their practice improvement or on their professional development.

As competências dos técnicos de radiologia: um contributo para a sua identificação e definição

Mestrado em Intervenção Sócio-Organizacional em Saúde - Ramo de especialização: Políticas de Administração e Gestão de Serviços de Saúde

Tris(2-Ethylhexyl) trimellitate (TOTM) a potential reference fluid for high viscosity. Part II: density measurements at temperatures from (293 to 373)K and pressures up to 85MPa

In Part I of the present work we describe the viscosity measurements performed on tris(2-ethylhexyl) trimellitate or 1,2,4-benzenetricarboxylic acid, tris(2-ethylhexyl) ester (TOTM) up to 65 MPa and at six temperatures from (303 to 373)K, using a new vibrating-wire instrument. The main aim is to contribute to the proposal of that liquid as a potential reference fluid for high viscosity, high pressure and high temperature. The present Part II is dedicated to report the density measurements of TOTM necessary, not only to compute the viscosity data presented in Part I, but also as complementary data for the mentioned proposal. The present density measurements were obtained using a vibrating U-tube densimeter, model DMA HP, using model DMA5000 as a reading unit, both instruments from Anton Paar GmbH. The measurements were performed along five isotherms from (293 to 373)K and at eleven different pressures up to 68 MPa. As far as the authors are aware, the viscosity and density results are the first, above atmospheric pressure, to be published for TOTM. Due to TOTM's high viscosity, its density data were corrected for the viscosity effect on the U-tube density measurements. This effect was estimated using two Newtonian viscosity standard liquids, 20 AW and 200 GW. The density data were correlated with temperature and pressure using a modified Tait equation. The expanded uncertainty of the present density results is estimated as +/- 0.2% at a 95% confidence level. Those results were correlated with temperature and pressure by a modified Tait equation, with deviations within +/- 0.25%. Furthermore, the isothermal compressibility, K-T, and the isobaric thermal expansivity, alpha(p), were obtained by derivation of the modified Tait equation used for correlating the density data. The corresponding uncertainties, at a 95% confidence level, are estimated to be less than +/- 1.5% and +/- 1.2%, respectively. No isobaric thermal expansivity and isothermal compressibility for TOTM were found in the literature. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

An experimental study to compare the interface pressure and experience of healthy participants when lying still for 20 minutes in a supine position on two different imaging surfaces

Introduction: Pressure ulcers are a high cost, high volume issue for health and medical care providers, affecting patients’ recovery and psychological wellbeing. The current research of support surfaces on pressure as a risk factor in the development of pressure ulcers is not relevant to the specialised, controlled environment of the radiological setting. Method: 38 healthy participants aged 19-51 were placed supine on two different imaging surfaces. The XSENSOR pressure mapping system was used to measure the interface pressure. Data was acquired over a time of 20 minutes preceded by 6 minutes settling time to reduce measurement error. Qualitative information regarding participants’ opinion on pain and comfort was recorded using a questionnaire. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 22. Results: Data was collected from 30 participants aged 19 to 51 (mean 25.77, SD 7.72), BMI from 18.7 to 33.6 (mean 24.12, SD 3.29), for two surfaces, following eight participant exclusions due to technical faults. Total average pressure, average pressure for jeopardy areas (head, sacrum & heels) and peak pressure for jeopardy areas were calculated as interface pressure in mmHg. Qualitative data showed that a significant difference in experiences of comfort and pain was found in the jeopardy areas (P<0.05) between the two surfaces. Conclusion: A significant difference is seen in average pressure between the two surfaces. Pain and comfort data also show a significant difference between the surfaces, both findings support the proposal for further investigation into the effects of radiological surfaces as a risk factor for the formation of pressure ulcers.