Bir Öğretmen Değerlendirme Modeli Önerisi

Year 2020, Volume: 35 Issue: 3, 575 - 593, 31.07.2020

İlkay Doğan Taş Fatma Bıkmaz

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, alanyazına, farklı ülkelerde uygulanan öğretmen değerlendirme modellerine ve öğretmenlerin, yöneticilerin, öğretim üyelerinin ve denetçilerin görüşlerine dayanarak öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişimini desteklemeye yönelik bir değerlendirme modelinin nasıl yapılandırılması gerektiğinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada, karma araştırma modeli kullanılmış, verilerin toplanmasında nicel ve nitel yöntemlerden yararlanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda, öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişimini destekleyecek bir değerlendirme modelinde değerlendirme sürecinin okullar ve MEB’in işbirliği ile yürütülmesi ve her yıl tekrarlanması gerektiği belirlenmiştir. Değerlendirme modelinde MEB tarafından hazırlanmış olan “Öğretmenlik Mesleği Genel Yeterlik Alanları”nın temel alınması ve tüm öğretmenler için ortak olması gerektiği belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca süreçte başarılı olan öğretmenlerin çeşitli şekillerde ödüllendirilmesi, başarısız olan öğretmenlerin ise mesleki gelişime yönlendirilmesi gerektiği ortaya çıkmıştır. Değerlendirme sürecinde çoklu değerlendirmenin temel alınması, başka bir deyişle birden fazla değerlendirici ve veri kaynağından yararlanılması gerektiği belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

Öğretmen değerlendirme modeli, mesleki gelişim, öğretmen yeterlikleri

A Proposal of Teacher Evaluation Model

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop an evaluation model – which aims at supporting teachers’ professional development – on the basis of the literature, teacher evaluation models which are used in different countries and the views of teachers, administrators, academicians and supervisors. Mixed method research design was used. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used in the collection of the data. As a result of the research, it was determined that it is needed to conduct the process of evaluation in collaboration with the schools and Ministry of National Education in an evaluation model which is to support teachers’ professional development, and to repeat every year. It was determined that it is necessary for the evaluation model to include “General Proficiency Fields of Teaching Profession” prepared by MONE and to be common for all teachers. It has been revealed that it is necessary to award the teachers in various ways who succeed in the process and to direct the teachers who fail into professional development. It was determined that it is also necessary to use multiple evaluation in the process of evaluation. In other words, more than one evaluator and data source should be utilized.

Keywords

Teacher evaluation model, professional development, teacher competencies

References

• Altınışık, S. (1996). Hizmetiçi eğitim ve Türkiye’deki uygulama. Eğitim Yönetimi, 2 (3), 329-348.
• APS. (2012). Teacher evaluation handbook 2012-2013. [https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/APS_teacher_eval_handbook_Sept15.pdf] Erişim tarihi: 19.06.2019.
• Begum, F. (2008). Assistant principals and teacher supervision: Roles, responsibilities, and regulations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Faculty of the College of Education University of Houston, USA.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akbaba-Altun, S. ve Yıldırım, K. (2010). TALIS Türkiye ulusal raporu. Ankara: MEB Dış İlişkiler Genel Müdürlüğü.
• Cohen, L. Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education (5. Edition). London: Routledge Falmer.
• CSBE. (2014). The Connecticut common core of teaching (CCT) rubric for effective teaching 2014. [https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/SDE/SEED/CCT_Rubric_for_Effective_Teaching_2014.pdf] Erişim tarihi: 19.06.2019.
• Creswell, J. W. & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2014). Karma yöntem araştırmaları: Tasarımı ve yürütülmesi (A. Delice Çev.). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık (2007).
• Çınkır, Ş. (2015). Öğretmeni geliştirmenin aracı olarak nitelik değerlendirmesi. İ. Aydın ve Ş. Çınkır. (Ed.), Prof. Dr. İbrahim Ethem Başaran’a armağan (s.189-204). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık
• Danielson, C. (2001). New trends in teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 58 (5), 12-15.
• Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (1. and 2. Editions), Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), Alexandria, Virginia.
• Danielson, C. & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional learning. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
• EARGED (2006). Okulda performans yönetimi modeli. Ankara: MEB
• Freeman, J. J. (1998). The teaching portfolio as a vehicle for professional growth. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New Hampshire, USA.
• French, R. Kuligowski, B. & Holdzkom, D. (1993). Teacher performance evaluation in the southeastern states: Forms and functions. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 6, 335-358.
• Fullan, M. G. (1990). Staff development, innovation, and institutional development. B. Joyce (Ed.), Changing school culture through staff development (p. 3-25). Alexandria, VI: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Ganser, T. (2000). An ambitious vision of professional development for teachers. NASSP Bulletin, 84 (618), 6-12.
• Glatthorn, A. (1995). Teacher development. L. Anderson, (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (2. Edition) (p. 41-57). London: Pergamon Press.
• Goe, L., Bell, C. & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness: A research synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
• Guskey, T. R. (2007). Results-oriented professional development, In A. C. Onstein, E. F. Pajak, and S. B. Ornstein (Eds.), Contemporary issues in curriculum (p. 334–346), Pearson Education, Boston.
• Hull, J. (2013). Trends in teacher evaluation: How states are measuring teacher performance. Alexandria, VA: Center for Public Education.
• Isoré, M. (2009). Teacher Evaluation: Current Practices in OECD Countries and a Literature Review. OECD Education Working Paper No.23, OECD, Paris. [https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/teacher-evaluation-current-practices-in-oecd-countries-and-a-literature-review_223283631428] Erişim tarihi: 19.06.2019.
• Jacob, B. & Lefgren, L. (2007). What do parents value in education: An empirical investigation of parents’ revealed preferences for teachers. The Quarter Journal of Economics, 122 (4), 1603-1637.
• Jenkins, B. (2009). What it takes to be an instructional leader. Principal, 88 (3), 34-37.
• Kızılkanat, A. (2011). İlköğretim okullarında yapılan denetim etkinliklerinin öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişimlerine katkısı. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Lyytinen, H. K. (1998). The Value Of External Evaluatıon To School's Self-Assessment. In H. Jokinen and J. Rushton (Eds.). Changing contexts of school development - the challenges to evaluation and assessment (p.23-32). Jyväskylä: Finland Educational Research Institute.
• McGreal, T. L. (1983). Successful teacher evaluation. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• MEB. (2007). Okul temelli mesleki gelişim kılavuzu. Ankara: MEB Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Eğitimi Genel Müdürlüğü.
• MEB. (2011) Öğretmen Denetim Rehberi. [http://mebk12.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/61/02/319223/dosyalar/2015_04/15014638_ogretmen_denetim_rehberi.pdf] Erişim tarihi: 19.06.2019.
• MEB. (2017). Öğretmen Performans Sistemi Bu Yıl Uygulanmayacak. [https://www.meb.gov.tr/ogretmen-performans-sistemi-bu-yil-uygulanmayacak/haber/16334/tr] Erişim tarihi: 19.06.2019.
• MEB. (2018). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Öğretmen Performans Değerlendirme ve Aday Öğretmenlik İş ve İşlemleri Yönetmeliği (Taslak). [https://www.ogretmenlericin.com/wp-content/uploads/Ogretmen-Performans-Degerlendirme-ve-Aday-Ogretmenlik.pdf] Erişim tarihi: 19.06.2019.
• Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
• NCCTQ. (2011). A Practical Guide to Designing Comprehensive Teacher Evaluation Systems. [http://www.lauragoe.com/LauraGoe/practicalGuideEvalSystems.pdf] Erişim tarihi: 19.06.2019.
• NEPC. (2010). What policymakers can learn from research. [http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/PB-TEval-Hinchey_0.pdf] Erişim tarihi: 19.06.2019.
• NSDC. (2010). Teacher professional development education guide. [http://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/evaluationguide.pdf?sfvrsn=0] Erişim tarihi: 19.06.2019.
• NPS. (2014). Framework for effective teaching. A guidebook for teachers and administrators 2014-2015 [http://www.nps.k12.nj.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NPSTeacherEvaluationGuidebook2014-15.pdf] Erişim tarihi: 19.06.2019.
• OECD. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First result from TALIS. [https://www.oecd.org/education/school/43023606.pdf] Erişim tarihi: 19.06.2019.
• OECD. (2013a). Teachers for the 21st century. Using evaluation to improve teaching. [http://www.oecd.org/site/eduistp13/TS2013%20Background%20Report.pdf] Erişim tarihi: 19.06.2019.
• OECD. (2013b). OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in education: Teacher evaluation in Chile. [https://www.oecd.org/chile/OECD%20Review%20Teacher%20Evaluation%20Chile.pdf] Erişim tarihi: 19.06.2019.
• OFSTED. (2006). Office for standards in education. The logical chain: Continuing professional development in effective schools. OFSTED Publications No. 2639, United Kingdom.
• Ostovar-Namaghi, S. A. (2010). A data-driven conceptualization of teacher evaluation. The Qualitative Report, 15 (6), 1504-1522.
• Paik, C. S. (2006). A closer look at the ımpact of the teacher evaluation: A case study in a high performing california elementary school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, USA.
• Peterson, K. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practice. California: CORWIN.
• Powell. E. D. (2011). The relationship between elementary school climate and teacher perceptions about evaluation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Houston-Clear Lake, USA.
• Rebore, R. (1991). Personnel administration in education: A management approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Rockoff, J. E. & Speroni, C. (2011). Subjective and objective evaluations of teacher effectiveness: evidence from New York City. Labour Economics, 18, 687-696.
• Scriven, M. (1973). Handbook for model training program in qualitative educational evaluation. Berkeley: California University.
• Stronge, J. H. (2007). Planning and organizing for instruction. In J. H. Stronge (Ed.), Qualities of effective teachers (p. 212-243). Alexanderia, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Şahin, S. (2005). İlköğretim okullarında uygulanan öğretmen teftiş formlarının yeterliliğinin değerlendirilmesi (Gaziantep ili Şahinbey ilçesi örneği). Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1, 113-124.
• TDA (Training and Development Agency for Schools, 2007), Professional Standards for Teachers: Why Sit Still in Your Career?: United Kingdom. [https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pdf/standards_core.pdf] Erişim tarihi: 19.06.2019
• Thomas, N. (1988). The appraisal of teachers. In L. Bell (Ed.), Appraising teachers in school. London: Routledge, Chapman and Hall.
• UNESCO. (2007). Evaluación del desempeño y carrera profesional docente: Una panorámica de américa y europa, Oficina Regional de Educación para américa Latina y el Caribe, UNESCO.
• Uysal, E. A. (2011). Öğretmenlerin performanslarının değerlendirilmesi: Bir araştırma ve model önerisi. Yayımlanmamış tezsiz yüksek lisans bitirme projesi, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Isparta.
• Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: An ınternational review of the literature. UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning. Paris.
• Wanzare, Z. & da Costa, J. L. (2000). Supervision and staff development: Overview of literature. NASSP Bulletin, 85 (618), 47-54.