Çeşitli Ülkelerde Öğretmen Değerlendirme

Öz

Araştırmada çeşitli ülkelerin öğretmen değerlendirme sisteminin benzer ve farklı yönlerinin belirlenmesi ve bu doğrultuda da öğretmen değerlendirmedeki mevcut yönelimleri belirlemek amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada doküman incelemesi yönteminden yararlanılmıştır. Bu bağlamda ABD, Almanya, İngiltere, Çin, Singapur, Portekiz, Türkiye gibi ülkelerin öğretmen değerlendirme sistemleri araştırma kapsamına alınmıştır. Ülkelerin öğretmen değerlendirme sistemleri araştırmacı tarafından hazırlanan doküman incelemesi ölçütlerine göre analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmada, öğretmen değerlendirmenin genellikle öğretmenleri akredite etmek, sözleşme yenilemek, performans artırmak, kariyer ilerlemeleri ve maaş düzenlemeleri yapmak gibi amaçlarla kullanıldığı belirlenmiştir. Bunun yanında ülkeler genelinde öğretmen değerlendirmenin her yıl tekrarlandığı, eğitim bakanlıkları tarafından yürütüldüğü, yöneticiler, öğretmenin kendisi, akran öğretmen gibi birden fazla katılımcının olduğu, verilerin gözlem, görüşme, öz değerlendirme, ürün dosyası aracılığıyla toplandığı, değerlendirme süreci sonunda öğretmenlerin eğitime gönderildiği ya da ödüllendirildiği belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca değerlendirmede temel alınan alanların Türkiye’de kullanılan “Öğretmenlik Mesleği Genel Yeterlikleri” ile benzerlik gösterdiği görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öğretmen değerlendirme,Değerlendirme modelleri,Doküman incelemesi

Teacher Evaluation in Various Countries

Öz

The purpose of the study is to determine the similar and different aspects of the teacher evaluation system of various countries and the current trends in teacher evaluation. Document analysis method was used in the research. In this context, countries like China, Germany, Portugal, Singapore, Turkey, UK, USA teacher evaluation systems were included in the study. Teacher evaluation systems of countries were analyzed according to document review criteria prepared by the researcher. In the research, it was determined that teacher evaluation is generally used for accrediting teachers, renewing contracts, increasing performance, career progression and making salary arrangements. Besides, it has been revealed that the teacher evaluation was repeated every year and carried out with education ministries. In evaluation process there are multiple participants such as administrators, teacher himself and peer teacher and multiple data collection tools like observation, interview, self-assessment and portfolio. At the end of the evaluation process, teachers are sent to education or they are rewarded. In addition, it has been determined that the areas that are based on the evaluation are similar to the “General competencies of teaching profession” used in Turkey. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Teacher evaluation,Evaluation models,Document analysis

Kaynakça

1. Avalos, B. and Assael, J. (2006). Moving from resistance to agreement: The case of the Chilean teacher performance evaluation. International Journal of Educational Research, 45 (4-5), 254-266.
2. Bacharach. S. B. Conley. S. C. and Shedd. J. B. (1990). Evaluating teachers for career awards and merit pay. In J. Millman and L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation (133–146). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
3. Borman, G. and Kimball, S. (2005). Teacher quality and educational equality: Do teachers with higher standards-based evaluation ratings close student achievement gaps? The Elementary School Journal, 106 (1), 3-20.
4. Bridges, E. M. (1992). The incompetent teacher (2. Edition). Philedelphia: Falmer.
5. Büyüköztürk, Ş. Akbaba Altun, S. ve Yıldırım, K. (2010). TALIS Türkiye ulusal raporu. Ankara: MEB Dış İlişkiler Genel Müdürlüğü.
6. CSBE. (2012). (Connecticut State Board of Education). Recommendation for the Adoption of the Connecticut Guidelines for Educator Evaluation. http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/adopted_peac_guidelines.pdf adresinden 18.02.2015 tarihinde alınmıştır.
7. Danielson, C. (2001). New trends in teacher evaluation. Educational Leardership, 58 (5), 12-15.
8. Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (1. and 2. Editions), Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), Alexandria, Virginia.

9. Danielson, C. (2011). Evaluations that help teachers learn. The Effective Educator, 4, 35-39.
10. Danielson, C. and McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional learning. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
11. Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Teacher evaluation in transition: Emerging roles and evolving methods. In L. Darling-Hammond and J. Millman (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation (p. 17-35). California: Corwin.
12. Education Regulations. (2012). Education (School Teachers’ Appraisal) (England) Regulations 2012. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/115/contents/made adresinden 12.12.2012 tarihinde alınmıştır.
13. Forster, N. S. (2006). The analysis of company documentation. In J. P. Scott (Ed.), Documentary research (p.83-106). London: Sage.
14. French, R. Kuligowski, B. and Holdzkom, D. (1993). Teacher performance evaluation in the southeastern states: Forms and functions. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 6, 335-358.
15. Georgia Department of Education, GDE. (2005). Georgia teacher evaluation program. Evaluation manuel. https://www.jackson.k12.ga.us/fs/gtep.pdf adresinden 03.05.2015 tarihinde alınmıştır.
16. Heneman, H. Milanowski, A. Kimball, S. and Odden, A. (2006) “Standards-Based Teacher Evaluation as a Foundation for Knowledge- and Skill-Based Pay”, Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) Policy Briefs RB-45.
17. Hughes, V. M. (2006). Teacher evaluation practices and teacher job satisfaction, (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of Missouri, Columbia.
18. Hull, J. (2013). Trends in teacher evaluation: How states are measuring teacher performance. Alexandria, VA: Center for Public Education.
19. Isoré, M. (2009). Teacher Evaluation: Current Practices in OECD Countries and a Literature Review. OECD Education Working Paper No.23, OECD, Paris. www.oecd.org/edu/workingpapers adresinden 19.06.2013 tarihinde alınmıştır.
20. Kleinhenz, E. and Ingvarson, L. (2006). Teacher accountability in Australia: Current policies and practices and their relation to the ımprovement of teaching and learning. Research Papers in Education, 19 (1), 31-49.
21. Kremer, M. (1988). Supervision/Evaluation system: The school district of janesville. ERS Spectrum, 6, 41-47.
22. Learning Sciences International. LSI. (2011). State alignments. http://www.marzanoevaluation.com/alignment/ adresinden 03.05.2015 tarihinde alınmıştır.
23. McGreal, T. L. (1983). Successful teacher evaluation. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
24. McNergney R. F. and Imig S. R. (2006). Teacher Evaluation. http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2482/TeacherEvaluation.html adresinden 17.06.2012 tarihinde alınmıştır.
25. McREL. Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (2009). McREL’s teacher evaluation system. Denver: McREL
26. Medley, D. M. (1979). The effectiveness of teachers. In L. P. Penelope and J. W. Herbert (Eds.). Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications (p. 1-11). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
27. Medley, D. M., Coker, H. and Soar, R. S. (1984). Measurement-based evaluation of teacher performance: An empirical approach. New York: Longman.
28. Middlewood, D. and Cardno, C. (2001). The significance of teacher performance and its appraisal. In D. Middlewood and C. Cardno (Eds.). Managing teacher appraisal and performance: A comparative approach. (1-16). London: Routledge Falmer.
29. Milanowski, A. (2004). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores and student achievement: Evidence from Cincinatti. Peabody Journal of Education, 79 (4), 33-53.
30. MTA. (2010). (The Massachusetts Teachers Association). Reinventing Educator Evaluation. http://www.massteacher.org/~/~/media/Files/cepp/evalreport.pdf adresinden 03.05.2015 tarihinde alınmıştır.
31. NASUWT. (2012). Teacher appraisal: A practical guide. England: NASUWT
32. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality NCCTQ.(2011). A Practical Guide to Designing Comprehensive Teacher Evaluation Systems. http://www.lauragoe.com/LauraGoe/practicalGuideEvalSystems.pdf adresinden 11.12.2014 tarihinde alınmıştır.
33. National Council on Teacher Quality NCTQ, (2013). State of the States 2013. Connect tne Dots: Using evaluations of teacher effectiveness to inform policy and practice. http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/State_of_the_States_2013_Using_Teacher_Evaluations_NCTQ_Report adresinden 03.05.2015 tarihinde alınmıştır.
34. National Staff Deelopment Council (NSDC). (2010). Standards for Staff Development http://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/facilitatorguide.pdf?sfvrsn=2 adresinden 05.04.2013 tarihinde alınmıştır.
35. Natriello, G. (1990). Intended and unintended consequences: Purposes and effects of teacher evaluation. In L. Darling-Hammond and J. Millman (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation (p. 35-46). California: Corwin.
36. OECD. (2009a). Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Result From TALIS. www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/51/43023606.pdf adresinden 27.04.2012 tarihinde alınmıştır.
37. OECD. (2009b). Teacher Evaluation: A Conceptual Framework and Examples of Country Practices. www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/24/44568106.pdf adresinden 11.12.2012 tarihinde alınmıştır.
38. OECD. (2011a). OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: Australia 2011 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264116672-en adresinden 11.12.2012 tarihinde alınmıştır.
39. OECD. (2012). OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: Portugal 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264117020-en adresinden 11.12.2012 tarihinde alınmıştır.
40. OECD. (2013a). Teachers for the 21st century. Using evaluation to improve teaching. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1787/9789264193864-en adresinden 11.12.2014 tarihinde alınmıştır.
41. OFSTED. (2006). Office for standards in education. The logical chain: Continuing professional development in effective schools. OFSTED Publications No. 2639, United Kingdom.
42. Ornstein, A. C. (1985). Research on teaching: Issues and trends. Journal of Teacher Education, 36 (6), 27-31.
43. Peterson, K. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practice. California: CORWIN.
44. Rebore, R. (1991). Personnel administration in education: A management approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
45. Reynolds. D., Muijs. D. and Treharne. D. (2003). Teacher evaluation and teacher effectiveness in The United Kingdom. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17 (1), 83-100.
46. Santellices, M. V. and Taut, S. (2011). Convergent validity evidence regarding the validity of the chilean standards‐based teacher evaluation system. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 18 (1) 73-93.
47. Scriven, M. (1973). Handbook for model training program in qualitative educational evaluation. Berkeley: California University.
48. Speer, S. and Harich, K. (2005). A description of responsibilities, structures and developments in the field of teacher and trainer evaluation. Köln: Evaluation Institute
49. Stanley, S. J. and Popham, W. J. (1988). Teacher evaluation: Six prescriptions for success. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
50. Steiner, L. (2010). Using Competency-Based Evaluation to Drive Teacher Excellence. In P. Impact (Ed.), Building an Opportunity Culture for America's Teachers. Chapel Hill: Public Impact. http://opportunityculture.org/images/stories/singapore_lessons_2010.pdf adresinden 03.05.2015 tarihinde alınmıştır.
51. Stronge, J. H. (2012). Stronge Teacher Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System. http://www.strongeandassociates.com/files/Stronge%20Evaluation%20System%20Report.pdf adresinden 20.11.2012 tarihinde alınmıştır.
52. Sykes, G. (1990). Licensure and certification of teachers: An appraisal. In J. Millman and L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation (p. 62–75). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
53. Taut, S., Santelices, M. V. and Stecher, B. (2007). Validation of the Chilean national teacher evaluation system. http://www.sociedadpoliticaspublicas.cl/archivos/BLOQUEM/Docentes_y_Directivos_Escolares/Teacher_Evaluation_System.pdf adresinden 11.12.2012 tarihinde alınmıştır.
54. TDA (Training and Development Agency for Schools, 2007a), Professional Standards for Teachers: Why Sit Still in Your Career?: United Kingdom. www.plymouth.gov.uk/professional_standards_for_teachers_pages_1_to_13.pdf adresinden 11.12.2014 tarihinde alınmıştır.
55. TDA (Training and Development Agency for Schools, 2007b), Professional Standards for Teachers, The Training and Development Agency for Teachers: London, www.tda.gov.uk/upload/resources/pdf/s/standards_a4.pdf adresinden 11.12.2014 tarihinde alınmıştır.
56. The Howard County Public School System, HCPSS (2015). Framework for Teacher Evaluation The Teacher Evaluation Process Guide. http://www.hcpss.org/f/aboutus/teacher_eval/teach_eval_guide.pdf adresinden 03.05.2015 tarihinde alınmıştır.
57. TNTP. (2012). (The New Teacher Project). The Indiana Evaluation Pilot: Mid-Year Report and Recommendations. http://www.riseindiana.org/sites/default/files/files/IN_MidYear_FINAL_052312%282%29.pdf adresinden 11.12.2014 tarihinde alınmıştır.
58. TPMG. (2003). Teacher performance management guide. China: Education and Manpower Bureau
59. Uçar, A. ve Öztürk, N. (2002). Mesleki Eğitimde Kalitenin Geliştirilmesi ve Türkiye’nin Öncelikleri. http://www.mufettisler.net/mesleki-calismalar/makaleler/10-mesleki-egitimde-kalitenin-gelistirilmesi-ali-ucar.html adresinden 06.10.2012 tarihinde alınmıştır.
60. Uğurlu, C. T. (2006). Öğretimin Denetimi. http://www.mufettisler.net/mesleki-calismalar/makaleler/11-ogretimin-denetimi-celal-tayyar-ugurlu.html adresinden 06.10.2012 tarihinde alınmıştır.
61. 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.
62. 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.
63. Weiss, E. M. and Weiss, G. (1998). New directions in teacher evaluation. Washington D.C.
64. Williams, J. (2009). McREL’s Teacher Evaluation System. http://fea.njpsa.org/teacherevaluation.aspx adresinden 26.06.2012 tarihinde alınmıştır.
65. Williams. J. H. and Engel. L. C. (2013). How do other countries evaluate teachers? Phi Delta Kappan, 94 (4), 53-57.
66. Wise, A. E. Darling-Hammond, L. McLaughlin, M. W. and Berstein, H. T. (1984). Teacher evaluation: A study of effective practices. California: RAND
67. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (9. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
68. Zhao, S. (2009). 2+2 program for teachers’ performance appraisal in China. English Language Teaching, 2 (2), 60-68.