<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.3/JATS-journalpublishing1-3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xml:lang="en">
<front>
<journal-meta>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">53</journal-id>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="short-title">glr</journal-id>
  <journal-id journal-id-type="doi">10.31703/glr</journal-id>
  <journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Global Language Review</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">glr</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group>
  <issn publication-format="print">2663-3299</issn>
  <issn publication-format="electronic">2663-3841</issn>
  <self-uri xlink:href="https://glrjournal.com"/>
  <publisher>
    <publisher-name>Humanity Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Pakistan</publisher-loc>
  </publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
  <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">391822</article-id>
  <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.31703/glr.2017(II-I).04</article-id>
  <article-id pub-id-type="other" specific-use="submission-id">2291</article-id>
  <article-version article-version-type="publisher">1.0</article-version>
  <article-categories>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
      <subject>article</subject>
    </subj-group>
  </article-categories>
  <title-group>
    <article-title xml:lang="en">Scale Development for Teaching Appraisal</article-title>
  </title-group>
<contrib-group>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="1" corresp="yes">
    <name>
      <surname>Naz</surname>
      <given-names>Shahida</given-names>
    </name>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Conceptualization" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/conceptualization/">Conceptualization</role>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – original draft" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-original-draft/">Writing – original draft</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/>
    <xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"/>
  </contrib>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="2">
    <name>
      <surname>Rasheed</surname>
      <given-names>Memona</given-names>
    </name>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – review &amp; editing" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Writing – review &amp; editing</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"/>
  </contrib>
  <contrib contrib-type="author" seq="3">
    <name>
      <surname>Rasheed</surname>
      <given-names>Tahir</given-names>
    </name>
    <role vocab="credit" vocab-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/" vocab-term="Writing – review &amp; editing" vocab-term-identifier="https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles/writing-review-editing/">Writing – review &amp; editing</role>
    <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"/>
  </contrib>
  <aff id="aff1">
    <label>1</label>
    <institution-wrap>
      <institution>Department of English, Government College University Faisalabad</institution>
    </institution-wrap>
    <named-content content-type="author-role">Lecturer</named-content>
    <addr-line>Punjab</addr-line>
    <country>Pakistan</country>
  </aff>
  <aff id="aff2">
    <label>2</label>
    <institution-wrap>
      <institution>Department of Economics, Bhauddin Zakariya University, Multan</institution>
    </institution-wrap>
    <addr-line>Punjab</addr-line>
    <country>Pakistan</country>
  </aff>
  <aff id="aff3">
    <label>3</label>
    <institution-wrap>
      <institution>BS (Student), Department of English, National University of Modern Languages (NUML), Islamabad</institution>
    </institution-wrap>
    <addr-line>Paksitan</addr-line>
  </aff>
</contrib-group>
<author-notes>
  <corresp id="cor1">Corresponding Author: Shahida Naz, Lecturer, Department of English, Government College University Faisalabad, Punjab, Pakistan. Contact: 1</corresp>
<fn fn-type="COI-statement" id="fn-coi">
  <p>The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="ethics-statement" id="fn-ethics">
  <p>This study did not require formal ethics approval.</p>
</fn>
<fn fn-type="data-availability-statement" id="fn-data">
  <p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article.</p>
</fn>
</author-notes>
<pub-date pub-type="epub" date-type="pub" publication-format="electronic">
  <day>30</day>
  <month>06</month>
  <year>2017</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="collection">
  <month>06</month>
  <year>2017</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date date-type="pub" publication-format="print">
  <day>26</day>
  <month>05</month>
  <year>2022</year>
</pub-date>
  <volume>2</volume>
  <issue>1</issue>
  <season>Spring</season>
  <fpage>55</fpage>
  <lpage>66</lpage>
  <history>
    <date date-type="received">
      <day>28</day>
      <month>12</month>
      <year>2017</year>
    </date>
    <date date-type="accepted">
      <day>26</day>
      <month>05</month>
      <year>2022</year>
    </date>
  </history>
<funding-group>
  <funding-statement>
<p>The authors received no specific funding for this work.</p>
  </funding-statement>
</funding-group>
<permissions>
  <copyright-year>2017</copyright-year>
  <copyright-holder>Humanity Publications</copyright-holder>
  <license license-type="open-access" xml:lang="en" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
    <license-p>This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.</license-p>
  </license>
</permissions>
<self-uri content-type="text/html" xlink:href="https://glrjournal.com/article/Scale-Development-for-Teaching-Appraisal"/>
<self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://glrjournal.com/pdf/glr/bzBmiH84Fb.pdf"/>
<supplementary-material id="suppl-1" content-type="local-data">
  <label>Supplementary Material 1</label>
  <caption>
    <title>Uppsala Universitet (2012) Assessing Teaching Skills in Higher Education, Office for Development of Teaching and Interactive Learning, (UPI). Uppsala University Appendix</title>
    <p>Factor
 
 
 Item ID
 
 
 Statements of items
 
 
 
 
 By the end of their teacher preparation course
 the Prospective Teachers are Committed 
 
 
 
 
 Teaching
 and learning
 
 
 A1
 
 
 To seek enabling their students in attainment of the curriculum
 objectives
 
 
 
 
 A2
 
 
 To the development of student critical thinking skills
 
 
 
 
 A3
 
 
 In developing problem solving capabilities with learners
 
 
 
 
 A4
 
 
 To the high standards of student performance
 
 
 
 
 A5
 
 
 To the use of group work in learning
 
 
 
 
 A6
 
 
 To show their interest in wider student welfare
 
 
 
 
 A7
 
 
 To seek the development of maximum student interest in learning
 
 
 
 
 A8
 
 
 To develop and enrich their own teaching skills  further
 
 
 
 
 A9
 
 
 To develop and enrich the earning skills
 of all their students
 
 
 
 
 Classroom
 management
 
 
 B1
 
 
 To appreciate the key role of the students in the learning process
 
 
 
 
 B2
 
 
 To recognize the importance of peer relationships in learning
 
 
 
 
 B3
 
 
 To take responsibility for establishing a constructive climate in
 the classroom
 
 
 
 
 B4
 
 
 To respect democratic values in the classroom
 
 
 
 
 B5
 
 
 To have a positive attitude towards classroom participation of the
 students
 
 
 
 
 B6
 
 
 To provide a conducive climate of the classroom for learning
 
 
 
 
 B7
 
 
 To establish good classroom social behavior
 
 
 
 
 B8
 
 
 To generate and employ the best resources possible
 
 
 
 
 B9
 
 
 To develop group work classroom activities
 
 
 
 
 Assessment
 
 
 C1
 
 
 Committed to the encouragement of high attainment standards
 
 
 
 
 C2
 
 
 Willing to use a wide variety of assessment techniques
 
 
 
 
 C3
 
 
 Committed to objectivity and integrity in all assessment
 
 
 
 
 C4
 
 
 Willing to evaluate student learning against agreed objectives
 
 
 
 
 C5
 
 
 Committed to assess skills beyond recall of memorized materials
 
 
 
 
 C6
 
 
 Willing to spend
 time and energy in o?ering constructive assessment feedback
 
 
 
 
 C7
 
 
 Aware that assessment data is only an approximate estimate of
 performance
 
 
 
 
 C8
 
 
 Committed to employing assessment to enhance learning
 
 
 
 
 C9
 
 
 To develop the skills in using a wide variety of assessment
 techniques</p>
  </caption>
</supplementary-material>
<supplementary-material id="suppl-pdf" content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://glrjournal.com/pdf/glr/bzBmiH84Fb.pdf">
  <label>PDF</label>
  <caption>
    <title>Full Text PDF</title>
  </caption>
</supplementary-material>
  <abstract>
    <p>The study finds if teachers&apos; success in classroom is determined by the efficacy of teaching skills. Successful and effective teaching depend on several factors including level of knowledge, classroom management skills and students assessment. Evaluating the effectiveness of teachers is a challenging task due to the absence of standardized scale for assessing teachers’ classroom disposition. The present study develops and validate a scale for the evaluation of teachers’ teaching skills. Keeping in consideration the previous scales, literature and teaching skills, a scale comprising of 27 items is developed. It is then validated in pilot testing. The developed scale is used for the appraisal of 60 teachers for their teaching skills. The coefficient of reliability for the scale was 0.822 which is acceptable for the scales to be used in social sciences.</p>
  </abstract>
<kwd-group kwd-group-type="author-keywords">
  <kwd>Teaching Skills</kwd>
  <kwd>Evaluation</kwd>
  <kwd>Classroom</kwd>
  <kwd>Management</kwd>
  <kwd>Reliability</kwd>
</kwd-group>
  <custom-meta-group>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>views</meta-name><meta-value>3858</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>downloads</meta-name><meta-value>14</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>html-views</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>google-scholar-citations</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
    <custom-meta><meta-name>crossref-citations</meta-name><meta-value>0</meta-value></custom-meta>
  </custom-meta-group>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec id="sec-1">
  <title>Introduction</title>
<p>Teachers promote the standard of education. Improving the efficacy and quality of education depends on well-resourced and motivated teachers. Similarly to ensure that their performance is up to the specified standard and they are fulfilling the requirements of the students and intuition, there is need for the assessment of their teaching skills (OECD, 2005).</p><p>Effective teacher assessment needs correct appraisal of their teaching skills indicating their weak or strong points, improvement margin in teaching skills, effective feedback, continuous training of teachers, their positive attitude and professional development. Teachers must be given constructive feedback to appreciate their hard work. Results of different studies show that constructive feedback is helpful in developing their teaching skills (OECD, 2009b).</p><p>Evaluation is an essential part of teacher training programs. It plays a vital role in improving the teachers’ capabilities including classroom skills. NEA (2011) stated that the purpose of teacher evaluation is to test and strengthen teachers’ knowledge, teaching skills and pedagogies. It will enable them to work with more responsibility and care. If a teacher is a well aware of the evaluation of his performance in the classroom, he/she will certainly try to meet the minimum requirements. It will not only improve the performance of the teachers but also the repute of the profession and consequently the students will be well taught and properly handled.</p><p>The disposition of teachers teaching skills depends upon their knowledge and professional experience so teachers’ disposition for providing quality education should be evaluated well for successfully achieving their educational goals. Rike (2008) has pointed out the purpose for teaching skills assessment. He stated that assessment is essential to communicate stakeholders’ requirements to teachers as well as to pinpoint teachers’ classroom dispositions in a pre-service program teacher training program like B.Ed. It is also important as it provides pre-service teachers awareness about their responsibilities as a teacher.</p><p>Usually the teachers are evaluated on the basis of</p><p>1.	Subject knowledge</p><p>2.	Professional commitment</p><p>3.	Teaching attitude</p><p>4.	Teaching skills and evaluation skills</p><p>5.	Management and administration skills</p><p>6.	Awareness of student support services</p><p>7.	Professional development activities, and</p><p>8.	Contribution for the society</p><p>The study at hand only targets the skills needed for smooth teaching and learning process including;</p><p>a.	Teachers’ disposition of knowledge</p><p>b.	Classroom management skills</p><p>c.	Skills required for the students’ assessment</p><p>Need for the Scale</p><p><break/></p><p>It is assumed that effective teachers keep learning and continuously keep updating their knowledge, by taking part in professional up gradation activities and by listening to their students as well as by sharing their ideas with other teachers (Uppsala Universitet, 2012). Therefore, the teachers need feedback regarding the accuracy of their learning skills. They should be informed about their deficiencies, inabilities and weaknesses. For the provision of all this information there is need of a measuring scale which can be used to assess the teachers’ classroom disposition.</p><p>In general the scale is a device to measure certain variables. Commonly it consists of various aspects to measure teachers’ teaching skills. Different scales for the assessment of teachers’ teaching skills is developed to measure teachers’ effective teaching in the classroom. But none of these scales suits the multilingual and multicultural Pakistani situation. Therefore, there is a need for the development of scale which can suit well the teaching situations in Pakistan. Hence the researchers took an initiative to develop the scale for assessing teachers’ teaching dispositions.</p><p><break/></p><p>Significance of the Study</p><p><break/></p><p>The success of teachers in the classroom is determined by the effective use of teaching skills. A successful exhibiter of the teaching skills in the class will be regarded as an effective teacher. It further depends upon several factors including their level of knowledge, classroom management skills and students’ assessment. The evaluation of teaching skills has always been a problem for the administrators and the policy makers. The main hurdle in such evaluations has always been the absence of a standardized scale for assessing teachers’ classroom disposition.</p><p><break/></p><p>The Government of Pakistan (2009) has proposed standards for teacher education in the country. These standards paved the way for the development of scale for assessing the requisite skills for teachers. Typical standards of teachers for the their education include instructional planning, teaching strategies, students’ assessment and evaluation, class environment and communication as well as skilled use of technology, teamwork, and constant professional improvement for teaching English as a second language (Govt. of Pakistan, 2009).</p><p>For the present study it was difficult to include all the said standards in the proposed scale. Therefore, the following three standards can be assessed through the developed scale. These standards are;</p><p>1.	Instructional planning and strategies</p><p>2.	Learning environment</p><p>3.	Assessment</p><p>Hence, through this study the researchers intended to develop and validate a scale for the evaluation of teachers’ teaching skills including;</p><p>d.	Teachers’ disposition of knowledge</p><p>e.	Classroom management skills</p><p>f.	Skills required for the students’ assessment</p><p>The detailed description of the scale development procedure is given below.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-2">
  <title>Methodology</title>
<p>The study at hand is of quantitative research in which data was
collected through the scale. The population of this study consisted of all pre-service
teachers enrolled in  Bachelor of
Education (B.Ed.) program at different public sector universities and
Government Colleges for Elementary Teachers (GCETs). Bachelor of Education
(B.Ed.) is a one year duration pre-service teacher training program being
offered in Pakistan.</p><p>The development of scale comprised of four stages. Firstly, the
selected three aspects of the teachers’ dispositions viz. teaching and learning
skills, classroom management skills and assessment skills, were reviewed
extensively from the previous studies. For 
each factor 12 items were developed. Secondly, the initial developed
scale was validated by foreign as well as local experts from the field of
teacher education.  As a result of the experts’
opinion, the number of items in the questionnaires was reduced to 27 from the
initial numbers of 36, i.e. 9 items each for the three aspects of teachers’
teaching skills were taken out.</p><p>The third phase of the scale development was to try out the scale
at a limited sample size. Therefore, the scale was tried out at two GCTs and a
public sector university. For this purpose 33 prospective teachers and 3
cooperative teachers (observers) were selected. The cooperative teachers were
engaged in the study to assist the researchers during data collection. The
results of the trial are as below.</p><table-wrap id="table1"><label>Table 1</label><caption><title>Try out Scale Statistics</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td> <p><bold>Mean</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Variance</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Std.  Deviation</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>No. of
  Items</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>83.41</p> </td><td> <p>65.653</p> </td><td> <p>7.897</p> </td><td> <p>27</p> </td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"> <p><bold>Reliability Analysis</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> <p><bold>Cronbach&apos;s
  Alpha</bold></p> </td><td colspan="2" valign="top"> <p><bold>Cronbach&apos;s
  Alpha Based on Standardized Items</bold></p> </td><td valign="top"> <p><bold>      Total Items</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>.790</p> </td><td colspan="2"> <p>.799</p> </td><td> <p>27</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>N= 33</italic></p><p>The coefficient of reliability i.e.
Cronbach&apos;s Alphafor scale was ?= .790 and the mean score of the responses was
x?= 83.34. The reliability coefficient of the scale was acceptable as it was
more than .60 the level prescribed in different research studies (Creswell, 2012;
Fraenkel, &amp;Wallen, 2009))</p><p>As a result of the trial, 3 items were slightly rephrased. The
final number of items for the three factors of scale viz.  Teaching and learning, Classroom management
and Assessment are given in the following table.</p><p><bold>Table 2. Detail
of Factors and Items of the scale</bold></p> <table-wrap id="table2"><label>Table 2</label><caption><title>Table 2</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td> <p><bold>Selected National Professional
  Standards</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Aspects of Professional Standards</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>No. of Items</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Item Labels</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Instructional planning and strategies</p> </td><td> <p>Teaching and learning</p> </td><td> <p>9</p> </td><td> <p>A1,</p> <p>a2, a3,………..a9</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Learning environment</p> </td><td> <p>Classroom management</p> </td><td> <p>9</p> </td><td> <p>B1,</p> <p>b2, b3,..……...b9</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Assessment</p> </td><td> <p>Assessment</p> </td><td> <p>9</p> </td><td> <p>C1,</p> <p>c2, c3………...c9</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p>For the fourth and final phase of
the scale development a randomly drawn sample comprising of 236 prospective teachers
and 54 cooperative teachers from a public sector university and 6 randomly
selected GCETs was used.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-3">
  <title>Findings and Results</title>
<p>For determining the reliability of the questionnaire factor
analysis, inter-item correlation and Cronbach Alpha for each factors of the
scale as well as for the whole scale were calculated.</p><p>For each sub scale (Factor) the inter-item correlation was
calculated to analyze the strength of each sub scale.  The detail of the inter item correlation for
three factor of the scale is given below</p><table-wrap id="table3"><label>Table 3</label><caption><title>Inter-item Correlation for the Sub-scale: Teaching and Learning</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td>  </td><td> <p><bold>A1</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>A2</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>A3</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>A4</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>A5</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>A6</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>A7</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>A8</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>A9</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>A1</bold></p> </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.717<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.721<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.489<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.023</p> </td><td> <p>.123</p> </td><td> <p>-.019</p> </td><td> <p>.194</p> </td><td> <p>.192</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>A2</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.738<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.681<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.381<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.467<sup>*</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.113</p> </td><td> <p>.247<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.899<sup>**</sup></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>A3</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.421<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.129</p> </td><td> <p>.321<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>-.011</p> </td><td> <p>.129</p> </td><td> <p>.265</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>A4</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.601<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.335<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.022</p> </td><td> <p>.208<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.217</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>A5</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.514<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.021</p> </td><td> <p>.156</p> </td><td> <p>.224<sup>**</sup></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>A6</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.531<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.416<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.787</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>A7</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.710<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.270<sup>*</sup></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>A8</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.419<sup>**</sup></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>A9</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>**.  Correlation is significant at 0.01 level
(2-tailed).</italic></p><p><italic>*.  Correlation is significant at 0.05 level
(2-tailed).   </italic></p><p>Inter-item correlation analysis shows relatively stronger
inter-item correlation ranging from r = .899 to r = .270.  Moreover, all the items have significant and
positive relationship with majority of the other items in the factor which
reveals that these items can contribute to the factor formulation. The
inter-item for correlation for certain items is insignificant but there
relationship with the majority of the items is significant. Therefore, the
items can be retained for the final scale.</p><p><bold>Table 4: Inter-item
Correlation for the Sub-scale: Classroom Management </bold></p> <table-wrap id="table4"><label>Table 4</label><caption><title>Table 4</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td>  </td><td> <p><bold>B1</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>B2</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>B3</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>B4</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>B5</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>B6</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>B7</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>B8</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>B9</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>B1</bold></p> </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.716<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.545<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.122</p> </td><td> <p>-.178</p> </td><td> <p>.267<sup>*</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.265<sup>*</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.078</p> </td><td> <p>-.237</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>B2</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.715<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.240<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>-.148</p> </td><td> <p>-.210</p> </td><td> <p>-.189</p> </td><td> <p>-.165</p> </td><td> <p>.057</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>B3</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.435<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.349</p> </td><td> <p>.199<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.179<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>-.232</p> </td><td> <p>-.084</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>B4</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.379<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.214<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.167</p> </td><td> <p>.164</p> </td><td> <p>.245<sup>**</sup></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>B5</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.418<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.399<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.190</p> </td><td> <p>.078</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>B6</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.506<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.378<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.156<sup>**</sup></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>B7</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.698<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.145</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>B8</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.150</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>B9</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>**.  Correlation is significant at 0.01 level
(2-tailed).</italic></p><p><italic>*.  Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed).   </italic></p><p>Analysis of inter-item correlation
reflects that inter-item correlation ranges from r = .156 to r = .716.  The analysis shows that there exists
relatively moderate correlation between different items of the sub Scales.  Moreover, all the items have a significant
and positive relationship with a majority of the other items in the factor
which reveals that these items can contribute to the factor formulation. The
inter-item for correlation for certain items is insignificant but their
relationship with the majority of the items is significant. Therefore, the
items can be retained for the final scale.</p><p><bold>Table 5. Inter-item Correlation for the
Sub-scale: Assessment </bold></p> <table-wrap id="table5"><label>Table 5</label><caption><title>Table 5</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td>  </td><td> <p><bold>C1</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>C2</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>C3</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>C4</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>C4</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>C6</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>C7</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>C8</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>C9</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>C1</bold></p> </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.793<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.785<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.689<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.354<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.134</p> </td><td> <p>.024</p> </td><td> <p>.042</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>.037</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>C2</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.787<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.738<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.439<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.313<sup>*</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.109</p> </td><td> <p>.152</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>.032</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>C3</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.688<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.535<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.353<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.173<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.249<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>.222<sup>**</sup></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>C4</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.625<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.395<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.176</p> </td><td> <p>.044</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>.083</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>C5</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.545<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.136</p> </td><td> <p>.542<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>.034</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>C6</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.687<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.635<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>.345<sup>**</sup></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>C7</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.654<sup>**</sup></p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>.365<sup>**</sup></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>C8</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td valign="top"> <p>.565<sup>**</sup></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>C9</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td valign="top"> <p>1</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>**.  Correlation is significant at 0.01 level
(2-tailed).</italic></p><p><italic>*. 
Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed).</italic></p><p>Analysis of inter-item correlation reflects that inter-item
correlation ranges from r = .122 to r = .793. 
The analysis shows that there exists a relatively stronger correlation
between most of the items.  Moreover, all
the items have a significant and positive relationship with the majority of the
other items in the factor which reveals that these items can contribute to the
factor formulation. The inter-item for correlation for certain items is
insignificant but their relationship with the majority of the items is
significant. Therefore, all the items were retained for the final scale.</p><p><bold>Table 6. Inter-Factor
Correlations</bold></p> <table-wrap id="table6"><label>Table 6</label><caption><title>Table 6</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td>  </td><td> <p><bold>Teaching and Learning</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Classroom Management</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Assessment</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Teaching and learning</p> </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.649<sup>*</sup></p> </td><td> <p>.601<sup>**</sup></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Classroom management</p> </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td><td> <p>.574<sup>**</sup></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Assessment</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>1</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p>The inter-factor correlation for the sub scales reflects a strong
relationship between teaching and learning and classroom management (r=.649).
Similarly, Teaching and learning and Assessment (r = .601) are also strongly
correlated.  Moreover, a strong
relationship was again observed between classroom management and assessment (r
= .574).</p><p>To determine the strength of each factor with its different items
Confirmatory Factor Analysis was also calculated. The results of the
Confirmatory Factor Analysis are shown in the table below</p><p><bold>Table 7. Factor
Analysis </bold></p> <table-wrap id="table7"><label>Table 7</label><caption><title>Table 7</title></caption><table><thead><tr><th> <p><bold>Item ID</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Teaching
   and  Learning</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Classroom
   Management</bold></p> </th><th> <p><bold>Assessment</bold></p> </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> <p><bold>A1</bold></p> </td><td> <p>.769</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>A2</bold></p> </td><td> <p>.879</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>A3</bold></p> </td><td> <p>.787</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>A4</bold></p> </td><td> <p>.769</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>A5</bold></p> </td><td> <p>.495</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>A6</bold></p> </td><td> <p>.596</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>A7</bold></p> </td><td> <p>.407</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>A8</bold></p> </td><td> <p>.386</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>A9</bold></p> </td><td> <p>.380</p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>B1</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.771</p> </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>B2</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.726</p> </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>B3</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.688</p> </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>B4</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.325</p> </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>B5</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.336</p> </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>B6</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.591</p> </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>B7</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.681</p> </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>B8</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.563</p> </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>B9</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.318</p> </td><td>  </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>C1</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.763</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>C2</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.809</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>C3</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.852</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>C4</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.843</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>C5</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.723</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>C6</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.667</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>C7</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.434</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>C8</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.390</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>C9</bold></p> </td><td>  </td><td>  </td><td> <p>.330</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>Eigen value</bold></p> </td><td> <p>3.290</p> </td><td> <p>2.901</p> </td><td> <p>3.941</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>%age of Variance</bold></p> </td><td> <p>37.012</p> </td><td> <p>3.910</p> </td><td> <p>43.769</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p>The above table describes factor loadings obtained through factor
analysis.  Nelson (2005) stated that
those items are included in an instrument which has at least 0.30 factor
loading on its scale and is less than 0.30 on other scales.  Hence all the items of the scale administered
are retainable.</p><p>Moreover, the above table indicates percentages of the variance
for teaching and learning (36.522) classroom management (31.547) and assessment
(43.772).  Eigen values for the
sub-scales are 3.287, 2.889 and 3.939 respectively. The percentages of variance
and Eigen values also indicate a strong structure of 27 items with their
respective sub-scales.</p><table-wrap id="table8"><label>Table 8</label><caption><title>Final Scale Statistics</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td> <p><bold>Mean</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Variance</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Std.  Deviation</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>N of
  Items</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>95.29</p> </td><td> <p>43.243</p> </td><td> <p>5.979</p> </td><td> <p>27</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>N= 236</italic></p> <table-wrap id="table9"><label>Table 9</label><caption><title>Table 9</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"> <p><bold>Reliability Calculations</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p><bold>Cronbach&apos;s Alpha</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Cronbach&apos;s Alpha Based on
  Standardized Items</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>     Total Items</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>.821</p> </td><td> <p>.831</p> </td><td> <p>27</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p><italic>N= 236</italic></p><p>The reliability coefficient for the final scale was calculated as
.822 which is quite acceptable for the social sciences <bold>(</bold>Creswell<bold>, </bold>2012)<bold>.  </bold>The final questionnaire
thus developed is given as an appendix.</p><table-wrap id="table10"><label>Table 9</label><caption><title>Reliability of Sub-scales</title></caption><table><tbody><tr><td> <p><bold>Name of
  Sub-Scale</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Total
  items</bold></p> </td><td> <p><bold>Reliability
  Coefficient</bold></p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Teaching and learning</p> </td><td> <p>9</p> </td><td> <p>.789</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Classroom management</p> </td><td> <p>9</p> </td><td> <p>.585</p> </td></tr><tr><td> <p>Assessment</p> </td><td> <p>8</p> </td><td> <p>.877</p> </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <p>Reliability coefficients for the sub scales of the questionnaires
revealed that all the sub scales had significant reliability (? = .789, .585 &amp; .877). Therefore, the
scale is worth using for assessing the teachers’ teaching skills employed by
them during classroom instruction. It possesses strong inter-item as well as
inter-factor correlation and has an acceptable level of reliability
coefficient. The final scale thus developed is given as Appendix.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="sec-4">
  <title>Conclusion, Implications and Limitations</title>
<p>The present study focused upon the development of a scale for the assessment of teachers’ teaching skills. The scale comprises of three sub-scales viz. teaching and learning, classroom management and assessment of students, having 9 items each. The scale is highly reliable having coefficient of reliability = .821. The coefficients of reliability for the sub-scales are also high reflecting their reliability.</p><p>Although the scale is developed for teachers, it can also be used to assess the teaching skills of the regular teachers working in different schools. A limitation of the study is that the focus of the study was on the teachers trained in the one year degree program of teacher education. The study may be replicated selecting other degree programs and also for re-establishing its reliability and validity.</p>
</sec>
</body>
<back>
<fn-group content-type="conflict-of-interest">
  <title>Conflict of Interest</title>
  <fn fn-type="conflict">
<p>The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<fn-group content-type="ethics-statement">
  <title>Ethics Statement</title>
  <fn fn-type="ethics">
<p>This study did not require formal ethics approval.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<fn-group content-type="data-availability">
  <title>Data Availability</title>
  <fn fn-type="data-availability-statement">
<p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article.</p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
<app-group>
  <app id="app-suppl">
    <title>Supplementary Materials</title>
<supplementary-material id="suppl-1" content-type="local-data">
  <label>Supplementary Material 1</label>
  <caption>
    <title>Uppsala Universitet (2012) Assessing Teaching Skills in Higher Education, Office for Development of Teaching and Interactive Learning, (UPI). Uppsala University Appendix</title>
    <p>Factor
 
 
 Item ID
 
 
 Statements of items
 
 
 
 
 By the end of their teacher preparation course
 the Prospective Teachers are Committed 
 
 
 
 
 Teaching
 and learning
 
 
 A1
 
 
 To seek enabling their students in attainment of the curriculum
 objectives
 
 
 
 
 A2
 
 
 To the development of student critical thinking skills
 
 
 
 
 A3
 
 
 In developing problem solving capabilities with learners
 
 
 
 
 A4
 
 
 To the high standards of student performance
 
 
 
 
 A5
 
 
 To the use of group work in learning
 
 
 
 
 A6
 
 
 To show their interest in wider student welfare
 
 
 
 
 A7
 
 
 To seek the development of maximum student interest in learning
 
 
 
 
 A8
 
 
 To develop and enrich their own teaching skills  further
 
 
 
 
 A9
 
 
 To develop and enrich the earning skills
 of all their students
 
 
 
 
 Classroom
 management
 
 
 B1
 
 
 To appreciate the key role of the students in the learning process
 
 
 
 
 B2
 
 
 To recognize the importance of peer relationships in learning
 
 
 
 
 B3
 
 
 To take responsibility for establishing a constructive climate in
 the classroom
 
 
 
 
 B4
 
 
 To respect democratic values in the classroom
 
 
 
 
 B5
 
 
 To have a positive attitude towards classroom participation of the
 students
 
 
 
 
 B6
 
 
 To provide a conducive climate of the classroom for learning
 
 
 
 
 B7
 
 
 To establish good classroom social behavior
 
 
 
 
 B8
 
 
 To generate and employ the best resources possible
 
 
 
 
 B9
 
 
 To develop group work classroom activities
 
 
 
 
 Assessment
 
 
 C1
 
 
 Committed to the encouragement of high attainment standards
 
 
 
 
 C2
 
 
 Willing to use a wide variety of assessment techniques
 
 
 
 
 C3
 
 
 Committed to objectivity and integrity in all assessment
 
 
 
 
 C4
 
 
 Willing to evaluate student learning against agreed objectives
 
 
 
 
 C5
 
 
 Committed to assess skills beyond recall of memorized materials
 
 
 
 
 C6
 
 
 Willing to spend
 time and energy in o?ering constructive assessment feedback
 
 
 
 
 C7
 
 
 Aware that assessment data is only an approximate estimate of
 performance
 
 
 
 
 C8
 
 
 Committed to employing assessment to enhance learning
 
 
 
 
 C9
 
 
 To develop the skills in using a wide variety of assessment
 techniques</p>
  </caption>
</supplementary-material>
<supplementary-material id="suppl-pdf" content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://glrjournal.com/pdf/glr/bzBmiH84Fb.pdf">
  <label>PDF</label>
  <caption>
    <title>Full Text PDF</title>
  </caption>
</supplementary-material>
  </app>
</app-group>
<ref-list>
  <title>References</title>
<ref id="Creswell">
  <label>1</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Creswell, J. W</person-group>
    <year>2012</year>
    <article-title>. Educational research : planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research</article-title>
    <source>Boston: Pearson</source>
    <page-range>lanning</page-range>
    Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research : planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Fraenkel">
  <label>2</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Fraenkel, J. R., &amp; Wallen, N. E</person-group>
    <year>2009</year>
    <article-title>. How to design and evaluate research in education</article-title>
    <source>New York: McGraw-Hill</source>
    Fraenkel, J. R., &amp; Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Govt">
  <label>3</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Govt. of Pakistan</person-group>
    <year>2009</year>
    <article-title>. National professional standards for teachers in Pakistan</article-title>
    <source>Policy and Planning Wing, Islamabad: Ministry of Education</source>
    <page-range>akistan</page-range>
    Govt. of Pakistan (2009). National professional standards for teachers in Pakistan. Policy and Planning Wing, Islamabad: Ministry of Education.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Hammond">
  <label>4</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Hammond, L. D</person-group>
    <year>2010</year>
    <article-title>. Evaluating teacher effectiveness: how teacher performance assessments can measure and improve teaching</article-title>
    <source>New York: The Center for American Progress</source>
    <page-range>erformance</page-range>
    Hammond, L. D. (2010). Evaluating teacher effectiveness: how teacher performance assessments can measure and improve teaching. New York: The Center for American Progress.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="NEA">
  <label>5</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">NEA</person-group>
    <year>2011</year>
    <source>Teacher assessment and evaluation, Washington: National Education Association</source>
    NEA (2011).Teacher assessment and evaluation, Washington: National Education Association.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Nelson">
  <label>6</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Nelson, L. R</person-group>
    <year>2005</year>
    <article-title>. Some observations on the Screen test, and on coefficient alpha</article-title>
    <source>Thai Journal of Educational Research and Measurement:</source>
    <volume>3</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <fpage>1</fpage>
    Nelson, L. R. (2005). Some observations on the Screen test, and on coefficient alpha. Thai Journal of Educational Research and Measurement: 3 (1), 1- 17.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="OECD">
  <label>7</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">OECD</person-group>
    <year>2005</year>
    <source>Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers, OECD, Paris</source>
    <page-range>aris</page-range>
    OECD (2005).Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers, OECD, Paris.
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="Rike">
  <label>10</label>
  <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">
    <person-group person-group-type="author">Rike, C.J. &amp; Sharp, L.K</person-group>
    <year>2008</year>
    <article-title>. Assessing preservice teachers&apos; dispositions: A critical dimension of professional preparation</article-title>
    <source>Childhood Education</source>
    <volume>84</volume>
    <fpage>150</fpage>
    <lpage>155</lpage>
    Rike, C.J. &amp; Sharp, L.K. (2008). Assessing preservice teachers&apos; dispositions: A critical dimension of professional preparation. Childhood Education, 84, 150-155. Schulte Uppsala Universitet (2012) Assessing Teaching Skills in Higher Education, Office for Development of Teaching and Interactive Learning, (UPI). Uppsala University
  </mixed-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>