Evaluation of School Improvement Approaches and Implementation Processes

Öz

The aim of this study is to systematically examine, evaluate and analyze the theoretical development process of school improvement approaches and practices. In the research, the historical development of school development was examined in periods and it was aimed to reveal 'what was effective' in school development approaches and practices carried out in these periods. The research was designed according to the document analysis method, which is one of the qualitative research methods. The documents were searched in databases and academic publication digital environments such as google scholar, ERIC, ProQuest, EBSCO, Dergipark, YÖK Thesis Search. In the research, a total of 328 documents, including 25 single-authored books, 48 editorial book chapters, 56 doctoral dissertations, 171 articles and 28 reports, were examined. Data analysis was done on the basis of each research problem. Content analysis and descriptive analysis were made on the documents. In the research, 9 themes and 14 categories were obtained. As a result, it has been seen that the approaches and practices that are accepted and thought to be effective in school development are respectively as follows: (1) developing a positive and supportive school culture and climate at school (2) defining the leadership roles of the school principal, (3) improving the professional knowledge and skills of teachers, (4) improving teaching practices and student learning outcomes, (5) promoting cooperation and cooperation among teachers, (6) including school self-evaluation and data-based decision making practices, (7) ensuring school accountability, (8) providing external expert support to the school, (9) change of the curriculum, (10) adopting a planned school development approach, (11) receiving family and community support, and (12) ensuring sustainability in practices.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• School Improvement
• School Effectiveness
• Change
• Reform
• Education Policies

Okul Geliştirme Yaklaşımları ve uygulama Süreçlerinin Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın genel amacı, okul geliştirme yaklaşımları ve uygulamalarının kuramsal gelişim sürecinin sistematik olarak incelenmesi ve değerlendirilmesidir. Araştırmada okul geliştirmenin tarihsel gelişim süreci dönemler halinde incelenmiş ve bu dönemlerdeki okul geliştirme yaklaşımları ve uygulamalarında ‘neyin/nelerin etkili olduğunun’ ortaya çıkarılması amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma modeli doküman incelemesi yöntemine göre kurgulanmıştır. Araştırma kapsamında dokümanlar google scholar, ERIC, ProQuest, EBSCO, Dergipark, YÖK Tez Tarama gibi veri tabanlarında ve akademik yayın dijital ortamlarında taranmıştır. Araştırmada 25 tek yazarlı kitap, 48 editörlü kitap bölümü, 56 doktora tezi, 171 makale ve 28 rapor olmak üzere toplam 328 doküman incelenmiştir. Her bir araştırma problemi temelinde dokümanlarda betimsel analiz ve içerik analizi yapılmıştır. Araştırmada 9 tema 14 kategori elde edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak okul geliştirmede kabul gören ve süreçte etkili olduğu düşünülen yaklaşım ve uygulamaların sırasıyla şunlar olduğu görülmüştür: (1) okulda olumlu ve destekleyici okul kültürü ve ikliminin geliştirilmesi (2) okul müdürünün liderlik rollerinin tanımlanması, (3) öğretmenlerin mesleki bilgi ve becerilerinin geliştirilmesi, (4) öğretim uygulamaları ve öğrenci öğrenme sonuçlarının geliştirilmesi, (5) öğretmenler arası işbirliği ve yardımlaşmanın teşvik edilmesi, (6) okul öz değerlendirmesi ve veriye dayalı karar verme uygulamalarına yer verilmesi, (7) okul hesap verebilirliğinin sağlanması, (8) okula uzman desteğinin verilmesi, (9) müfredatın değişimi (10) planlı okul gelişimi yaklaşımının benimsenmesi, (11) aile ve toplum desteğinin alınması ve (12) uygulamalarda sürdürülebilirliğin sağlanmasıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Okul Geliştirme
• Okul Etkililiği
• Değişme
• Reform
• Eğitim Politikaları

Kaynakça

1. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen C. K. (2010). Introduction to research in education. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
2. Bellei, C., Vanni, X., Valenzuela, J. P., & Contreras, D. (2016). School improvement trajectories: an empirical typology. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(3), 275-292. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2015.1083038
3. Chapman, C., & Muijs, D. (2014). Does school-to-school collaboration promote school improvement? A study of the impact of school federations on student outcomes. School effectiveness and school improvement, 25(3), 351-393. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2013.840319
4. Cheng, Y. C., & Tam, W. M. (2007). School effectiveness and improvement in Asia: Three waves, nine trends and challenges. In T. Townsend (Ed.), International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement (pp. 245-268). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5747-2_13
5. Creemers, B. P. (2007). Educational effectiveness and improvement: The development of the field in mainland Europe. In T. Townsend (Ed.), International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement (pp. 223-242). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5747-2_12
6. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teaching and educational transformation. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan and D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 505-520). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6_30
7. Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2007). Leadership in networked learning communities: Defining the terrain. School Leadership and Management, 27(3), 239-258. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701379503
8. Elgart, M. A. (2017). Can schools meet the promise of continuous improvement?. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(4), 54-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721717745546

9. Feldhoff, T., Radisch, F., & Bischof, L. M. (2016). Designs and methods in school improvement research: a systematic review. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(2), 209-240. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-07-2014-0083
10. Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. Routledge Falmer Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203976708
11. Gronn, P. (2002a). Distributed leadership. In K. Leithwood and P. Hallingers (Eds.). Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 653-696). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-010-0375-9_23
12. Gronn, P. (2002b). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The leadership quarterly, 13(4), 423-451. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00120-0
13. Hallinger, P. (2010). Leadership for learning: What we have learned from 30 years of empirical research (Seminar Series Paper No. 196). Melbourne: Centre for Strategic Education.
14. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational administration quarterly, 32(1), 5-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X96032001002
15. Hargreaves, D. H., & Hopkins, D. (Eds.). (1994). Development planning for school improvement. London: Cassell. Harris, A. (2000). What works in school improvement? Lessons from the field and future directions. Educational research, 42(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/001318800363872
16. Harris, A. (2001). Building the capacity for school improvement. School Leadership and Management, 21(3), 261-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430120074419
17. Harris, A. (2002). School Improvement: What's in it for Schools? Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203471968 Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement: leading or misleading? Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 32(1), 11-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143204039297
18. Harris, A. (2011). System improvement through collective capacity building. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 624–636. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111174785
19. Harris, A. (2013). Distributed leadership: Friend or foe? Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 41(5), 545-554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213497635
20. Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2010). Professional learning communities and system improvement. Improving schools, 13(2), 172-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480210376487
21. Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2013). System improvement through collective capacity building: The power and potential of professional learning communities. Journal of Organisational Change Management, 2, 4-17.
22. Harris, A., & Jones, M. S. (2017). Professional learning communities: A strategy for school and system improvement?. Cylchgrawn addysg cymru/wales journal of education, 19(1), 16-38.
23. Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2010a). Testing a longitudinal model of distributed leadership effects on school improvement. The leadership quarterly, 21(5), 867-885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.013
24. Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2010b). Collaborative leadership effects on school improvement: Integrating unidirectional-and reciprocal-effects models. The Elementary School Journal, 111(2), 226-252. https://doi.org/10.1086/656299
25. Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2014). Modeling the longitudinal effects of school leadership on teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 653-681. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2013-0097
26. Hopkins, D. (1994). Process indicators for school improvement. In Making Education Count: Developing and Using International Indicators, Cap, 8, (pp.145-170). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No: ED 411 322).
27. Hopkins, D. (2001). School improvement for real. Educational change and Development. London: Routledge Falmer. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203165799
28. Hopkins, D., (Ed.). (2005). Tensions in and prospects for school improvement. In The practice and theory of school improvement: International handbook of educational change, (pp.1-21). Dordrecht: Springer.
29. Hopkins, D. (2016). School improvement and system reform. In C. Chapman, D. Mujis, D. Reynolds, P. Sammons and C. Teddlie (Eds.), International handbook of educational effectiveness and improvement. Research, policy and practice, (pp.124-148). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.001
30. Hopkins, D., & Levin, B. (2000). Educational reform and school improvement. NIRA review, 7(3), 21-26.
31. Hopkins, D., & Reynolds, D. (2001). The past, present and future of school improvement: Towards the third age. British educational research journal, 27(4), 459-475. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920120071461
32. Hopkins, D., Stringfield, S., Harris, A., Stoll, L., & Mackay, T. (2014). School and system improvement: A narrative state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 257-281. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885452
33. Katz, S., & Earl, L. (2010). Learning about networked learning communities. School effectiveness and school improvement, 21(1), 27-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450903569718
34. Kidron, Y., & Darwin, M. J. (2007). A systematic review of whole school improvement models. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(1), 9-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824660701247226
35. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School leadership and management, 28(1), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701800060
36. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School leadership and management, 40(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701800060
37. Leithwood, K., Patten, S., and Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671-706. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10377347
38. Lezotte, L. W. (1990) Lessons learned, In B. O. Taylor (Ed.) Case Studies in Effective Schools Research. (pp.196-206). Madison, WI. The National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development.
39. Levin, B. (2010). The challenge of large-scale literacy improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(4), 359-376. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2010.486589
40. Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.
41. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
42. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (Edition 3). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
43. Mulford, B., and Silins, H. (2003). Leadership for organisational learning and improved student outcomes—What do we know?. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(2), 175-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640302041
44. Mulford, B., & Silins, H. (2011). Revised models and conceptualisation of successful school principalship for improved student outcomes. International Journal of Educational Management 25(1), 61-82.
45. Murphy, J. (2013). The architecture of school improvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 252-263. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311311465
46. Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1988). Characteristics of instructionally effective school districts. The Journal of educational research, 81(3), 175-181.
47. Potter, D., Reynolds, D., & Chapman, C. (2002). School improvement for schools facing challenging circumstances: A review of research and practice. School leadership & management, 22(3), 243-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243022000020381
48. Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational administration quarterly, 44(5), 635-674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321509
49. Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why. Best evidence synthesis. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Education.
50. Sackney, L. (2007). History of the school effectiveness and improvement movement in Canada over the past 25 years. In T. Townsend (Ed.) International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement (pp. 167-182). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5747-2_9
51. Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002). Leadership and school results. In K. Leithwood and P. Hallingers (Eds.). Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 561-612). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-010-0375-9_21
52. Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2007). Leadership and school effectiveness and improvement. In T. Townsend (Ed.), International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement (pp. 635-658). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5747-2_35
53. Spillane, J. P. (2004). Educational leadership. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 26(2), 169-172. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737026002169
54. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004).Towards a theory of leadership practice. A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1),3-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000106726
55. Stoll, L. (2009). Capacity building for school improvement or creating capacity for learning? A changing landscape. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9104-3
56. Stoll, L. (2010). Connecting learning communities: Capacity building for systemic change. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan and D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 469-484). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6_28
57. Stringfield, S., Reynolds, D., & Schaffer, E. C. (2008). Improving secondary students' academic achievement through a focus on reform reliability: 4-and 9-year findings from the High Reliability Schools project. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(4), 409-428.
58. Yıldırım A. ve Şimşek H.(2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.