Evaluation as an Opportunity for Reflection: Stakeholder View of Teacher Performance

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 127 - 142, 19.02.2020

Hasan Tabak

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.20.8.7.1

Öz

This study aimed to determine opinion of the parties who are responsible for the teacher performance evaluation process in private schools. Carried out to determine views of the responsible parties in TPE in private schools, this study was a qualitative type using the phenomenographic model. The study group consisted of a total of 20 individuals including school principals, vice-principals, group leaders who are responsible for teacher performance evaluation, and teachers whose performance was evaluated. The interviews were conducted using semi-structured interview questions. The face-to-face interview protocol was applied during the planning of the data collection process. The content analysis method was resorted to analyze the data obtained in the study. The fact that this study consulted not only teachers or school management but also all stakeholders responsible for TP shows that the study has considerable strength. In qualitative analysis, analyzing the views according to the theoretical framework can sometimes be difficult. As laid out by the results of the study, the views are centered on the “effect” theme of the teacher performance evaluation process. The study concluded that, the teachers encountered the possibility of understanding their qualifications as a teacher by turning the teacher performance evaluation process into an opportunity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Teacher performance evaluation, Responsible stakeholder in performance evaluation, School principals

Kaynakça

• Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1997). Qualitative research for education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Briggs, D., & Domingue, B. (2011). A review of the value-added analysis underlying the effectiveness rankings of Los Angeles Unified School District teachers by the Los Angeles Times. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
• Cohen, J., & Goldhaber, D. (2016). Building a more complete understanding of teacher evaluation using classroom observations. Educational Researcher, 45(6), 378-387.
• Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Teaching as a profession: Lessons in teacher preparation and professional development. Phi delta kappan, 87(3), 237-240.
• Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Securing the right to learn: Policy and practice for powerful teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 13-24.
• Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). The right start: Creating a strong foundation for the teaching career. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(3), 8-13.
• Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). Can value added add value to teacher evaluation?. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 132-137.
• Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012). Evaluating teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 8-15.
• Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E., & Pease, S. R. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the organizational context: A review of the literature. Review of educational research, 53(3), 285-328.
• Davey, B. (1991). Evaluating teacher competence through the use of performance assessment tasks: An overview. Journal of personnel evaluation in education, 5(2), 121-132.
• Donaldson, M. L., & Woulfin, S. (2018). From tinkering to going “rogue”: How principals use agency when enacting new teacher evaluation systems. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(4), 531-556.
• Ellett, C. D., Wren, C. Y., Callender, K. E., Loup, K. S. & Liu, X. (1996). Looking Backwards with the" Personnel Evaluation Standards": An Analysis of the Development and Implementation of a Statewide Teacher Assessment Program. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 22(1), 79-113.
• Epstein, J. L. (1985). A question of merit: Principals' and parents' evaluations of teachers. Educational Researcher, 14(7), 3-10.
• Ghamrawi, N. (2010). No teacher left behind: Subject leadership that promotes teacher leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(3), 304-320. Haefele, D. L. (1992). Evaluating teachers: An alternative model. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 5(4), 335-345.
• Harvey, L. (2002). Evaluation for what?. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(3), 245-263.
• Herbert, J., & Mcnergney, R. (1989). Evaluating teacher evaluators using a set of public standards. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 2(4), 321-333.
• Kitsantas, A., & Baylor, A. (2001). The impact of the instructional planning self-reflective tool on preservice teacher performance, disposition, and self-efficacy beliefs regarding systematic instructional planning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 97-106.
• Lejonberg, E., Elstad, E., & Christophersen, K. A. (2018). Teaching evaluation: antecedents of teachers’ perceived usefulness of follow-up sessions and perceived stress related to the evaluation process. Teachers and Teaching, 24(3), 281-296.
• Loup, K. S., Garland, J. S., Ellett, C. D., & Rugutt, J. K. (1996). Ten years later: Findings from a replication of a study of teacher evaluation practices in our 100 largest school districts. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10(3), 203-226.
• Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching. London: Sage.
• McGreal, T. L. (1982). Effective Teacher Evaluation Systems. Educational Leadership, 39(4), 303-5.
• Milanowski, A. T., & Heneman, H. G. (2001). Assessment of teacher reactions to a standards-based teacher evaluation system: A pilot study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15(3), 193-212.
• Miles, M., B. & Huberman, A., M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (Second Edition). New York: Sage.
• Mintrop, R., Ordenes, M., Coghlan, E., Pryor, L., & Madero, C. (2018). Teacher evaluation, pay for performance, and learning around instruction: between dissonant incentives and resonant procedures. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(1), 3-46.
• Murphy, J. (1987). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive framework for supervisors. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1(2), 157-180.
• Painter, S. R. (2000). Principals’ efficacy beliefs about teacher evaluation. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(4), 368-378.
• Peterson, K. D. (1989). Parent surveys for school teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel evaluation in Education, 2(3), 239-249.
• Peterson, K. D., & Stevens, D. (1988). Student reports for school teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 2(1), 19-31.
• Peterson, P. L., & Comeaux, M. A. (1990). Evaluating the systems: Teachers’ perspectives on teacher evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(1), 3-24.
• Qi, Y., Bell, C. A., Jones, N. D., Lewis, J. M., Witherspoon, M. W., & Redash, A. (2018). Administrators' Uses of Teacher Observation Protocol in Different Rating Contexts. ETS Research Report Series, 2018(1), 1-19.
• Reid, D. B. (2019). What information do principals consider when evaluating teachers?. School Leadership & Management, 1-21.
• Richardson, J., T., E. (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 53-82.
• Ross, D. E., Singer-Dudek, J., & Greer, R. D. (2005). The teacher performance rate and accuracy scale (TPRA): Training as evaluation. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40(4), 411-423.
• Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage.
• Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review, 57(1), 1-23.
• Stiggins, R. J., & Bridgeford, N. J. (1985). Performance assessment for teacher development. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7(1), 85-97.
• Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of educational research, 68(2), 202-248.
• Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2014). How to activate teachers through teacher evaluation?. School effectiveness and school improvement, 25(4), 509-530.
• Wilson, B., & Wood, J. A. (1996). Teacher evaluation: A national dilemma. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10(1), 75-82.
• Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (7th edition). Ankara: Seçkin.