The most effective solution to the problems of a system is “NOT WITH AN EMOTIONAL APPROACH,” but WITH THE SYSTEM ANALYSIS APPROACH. “A SYSTEM CAN BE AS SMART AS ITS DESIGNERS AT MOST.”
Table Of Contents
- About the author
- About the book
- This eBook can be cited
- List of Contributors
- School Self-Evaluation as a Trigger for School Improvement
- Interactive Evaluation of STEM Projects via Flipgrid Platform
- Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Levels and Opinions Towards Technology Integration in Education: The Case of Iğdır Province
- The Investigation of the Reflections of UbD-Based Differentiated Turkish Instruction
- Interdisciplinarity as an Instructing Approach: Assembling
- The Scalıng Based on Paır-Wıse Comparıson Method of Teachıng Courses Whıch the Pre-Servıce Teacher Have Dıfficulty In
- Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Teacher Leadership: The Case of Igdir Province
- Principal’s Professional Identity: An Overview of the Literature and Implications for Future Research
- The Administrators’ Feedback on Using Mobile Devices at English Preparatory Schools
- Comparison of Different Estimation Methods Used in Confirmatory Factor Analysis in a Real Data
- Bilingual Family Parents’ Practices to Raise a Bilingual Child
- Investigation of the Relationship between Emotional Labor Behavior and Subjective Well-Being Levels of High School Teachers
- Definition, Causes and Effects of Boredom in Work Life: A Review of Literature
- The Reality behind the Ideal: Children’s Rights as Perceived by Principals and Parents
- Evaluation of Occupational Therapists’ Lifelong Learning Tendencies
- The Investigation of the Impact of UbD-Based Learning Enrichment Activities on Students’ Mathematics Achievement
- Financial Literacy Concept and the Importance of Financial Education
- List of Figures
- List of Tables
Teacher. Ministry of National Education, Turkish teacher, firstname.lastname@example.org,
Ankara University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Ph.D. Student, email: email@example.com
Dr. Mehtap ÇAKAN
Gazi University, Faculty of Education, Department of Measurement and Evaluation in Education, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Dr. Seda ÇAKMAK
Near East University, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus email@example.com
Dr. Şakir ÇINKIR
Ankara University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Cebeci Campus, 06590
Dr. Necla COŞKUN
Anadolu University, Faculty of Education, Department of Fine Arts Educatıon, Arts and Craft
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7687-0630
Dr. Nihan DEMIRKASIMOĞLU
Hacetetpe University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Beytepe Campus, 06700
Dr. Didem ERDEL
Iğdır University, Faculty of Science and Letters, Department of English Language and Literature
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org←7 | 8→
Research Assistant, Ankara University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Cebeci Campus, 06590
Dr. Arhun ERSOY
Near East University, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
Dr. Ali ERSOY
Anadolu University, Faculty of Education,Department of Fundamental Education, Elementary Education e-mail: email@example.com
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5000-290X
Bahçeşehir University, Graduate School of Educational Sciences, firstname.lastname@example.org,
Dr. Semirhan GÖKÇE
Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University, e-mail: email@example.com
Public prosecutor at Ministry of Justices
Dr. Pelin TAŞKIN,
Ankara University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Cebeci Campus, 06590
Research Assistant, Gazi University, Faculty of Education, Department of Measurement and Evaluation in Education, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
ORCID: 0000-0002-0921-9290←8 | 9→
Near East University- Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
Dr. Gül KURUM
Trakya University, Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Administration,
e-mail address: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Lecturer, Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, Faculty of Education, Department of Measurement and Evaluation in Education, e-mail: email@example.com.
Dr. Funda NALBANTOĞLU YILMAZ
Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University, Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Science, firstname.lastname@example.org, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3228-4605
Dr. Berna COŞKUN ONAN
Bursa Uludağ University Faculty of Education Department of Fine Arts Educatıon, Arts and Craft Department,
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5149-670X
Dr. Arzu SÖNMEZ ERYAŞAR
Iğdır Üniversitesi, Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Batı Dilleri ve Edebiyatları Bölümü, e-mail: email@example.com
Dr. Arzu Aydoğan YENMEZ
Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University, Niğde, Turkey, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Dr. Yüksel Akay ÜNVAN
Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Faculty of Business Administration, Department of Banking and Finance, Tu e-mail:email@example.com
ORCID: 0000-0002-0983-1455←9 | 10→
Dr. Hüseyin YOLCU
Dr. Kastamonu University, Faculty of Education, E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Dr. Nihal YURTSEVEN
Corresponding Author, Bahçeşehir University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, email@example.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1338-4467.
Dr. Sinem KARS
Hacettepe University Faculty of Health Sciences Department of Occupational Therapy
Dr. Gökçen AKYÜREK
Hacettepe University Faculty of Health Sciences Department of Occupational Therapy
Şakir ÇINKIR, & Gül KURUM
Abstract: Accountability, quality, transparency and pursuit of effectiveness have changed the direction of studies in education system. Accordingly, the focus on studies has changed from school outputs toward process. School improvement may also be considered a process-driven area of study. For, school improvement, as a whole, is the efforts toward making the school a better place for students. The school improvement efforts are carried out through case studies specific to the school context. In this process, self-evaluation plays a key role in determining the current state of the school based on various data and evidence acquired through stakeholder participation. Hence, through self-evaluation, school’s strengths and weaknesses are identified to determine its effectiveness as a whole. However, it would be a grave misconception to expect a school to improve just by self-evaluation. The next would be improving the school by planning what to do for the school based on the results of the self-evaluation and acting on such planning. As said, the results of self-evaluation drive the school improvement efforts. In other words, school self-evaluation and school improvement works complement each other. Accordingly, the present compilation explores the place and importance of self-evaluation in school improvement process based on the literature. Thereunder, school self-evaluation, as a journey of schools to their inner world, limitations and benefits of self-evaluation, and school improvement and the role of self-evaluation in school improvement are described.
Keywords: School improvementschool self-evaluationaccountabilityeducational changecapacity building
Education system aims to raise the manpower required by countries through schools. It is by inspections and evaluations that how well education achieves this function is determined. For, effective inspection and evaluation plays a key role in improving the quality of education and school successalthough it varies by content and method, inspection and evaluation have been an established practice in place throughout history. In early periods, inspection and evaluation aimed to control such as ensuring legal compliance, searching for inadequacies, inspecting schools’ physical characteristics and if students received formal education (Sullivan & Glanz, 2015, xxiv). As we move closer to the present, however, inspection and evaluation transformed toward guidance, development and improvement. Accordingly, the judgment formed based on the evidence as ←11 | 12→a result of an evaluation is used to restructure, develop and improve education (Sergiovanni, 1984).
Efforts to evaluate a school or any organization serve to certain express or implied values and goals. Contrary to the common belief, evaluation derived from a biased origin. A person usually evaluates something if he/she wants to defend or attack it. Therefore, evaluation is not random but a guided behavior. The way the evaluation results are treated depends on whether such results will achieve the desired outcome for the relevant organization or person. Therefore, evaluation is an integral part of the political system. Evaluation comes with an instruction, cost and a specific audience potential. Among such variables, potential audience is very important. For, the audience sets the language of the evaluation. The most important audience whose mind, heart and trust must be won in public education is the society. Stories told about the schools and league tables showed must satisfy the parents and the society (MacBeath, 1999, pp. 4–7). In line with the above arguments, evaluation may be considered a form of accounting to the society which invests in education through their taxes.
During the dynamic process that provides an environment for communication to improve teaching in the 21st century, inspection and evaluation are considered the basis for the renewal of teaching and learning in class. For, inspection enables teachers who has a key role in the education process to think on and have a say in their own teaching activities in class,contributing to the improvement and renewal of education (Sullivan & Glanz, 2015, xxiv–29). Teachers play an important role in student learning. Teachers are not the only judge but the best judge of their own professional development. In fact, teachers are natural evaluators. Because of the nature of teaching, teachers evaluate student progress day-to-day. In this regard, self-evaluation is not new to teachers. Teachers evaluate what and how students learn and measure their learning levels (MacBeath, 1999, pp. 4–7).
Inspection and evaluation are valuable to the extent they contribute to the improvement of the school. Education inspection is also an effective force to improve the excellence of education in schools as a reflective, collaborative and continuous process without judging (Sullivan & Glanz, 2015, xxiv–29). In this context, schools that know and understand themselves can solve any problem they encounter during the education process. At this point, the importance of self-evaluation is undeniable. For, the better schools know their strengths and areas of improvement, the more accurate decisions they can make to improve themselves (Plowright, 2007). As seen, it is possible to say that inspection and evaluation have evolved from the control dimension that focuses on outputs to the school improvement dimension that focuses on the process.
With the new public administration concept, the concepts such as business administration, marketization, privatization, performance evaluation and accountability have come to the forefront. This has increased the impact of education stakeholders on the school as schools are managed with an understanding of local business administration. Furthermore, with the new public administration schools have acquired power over many areas, including planning, ←12 | 13→budgeting, hiring, monitoring and evaluating (Tolofari, 2005). Increased demand for equality, quality and effectiveness in education, broad and individual student evaluations, developments in communication technologies that allow for decentralized management and information sharing, and the need to rely more on evaluation results for evidence-based decision-making are among the key factors influencing the new trend in evaluation (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2013). This change in governance and policies has also affected the focus of the education inspection. In this context, the inspection focuses on accountability, school effectiveness, quality assurance, improvement of teaching and guiding teachers (Sullivan & Glanz, 2015, xxiv). Van Bruggen (2010) also suggests that evaluation bears accountability and improvement function to ensure that schools do not fall below the quality standards recognized by the central authority. With these changes, schools are beginning to have more say in inspection and evaluation.
The changes in education policies, as well as evidence-based understanding in school leadership and management (Jones, 2018) have led to the development of different models that increase transparency, accountability and stakeholder engagement in inspection and evaluation(Ladden, 2015). Sullivan and Glanz (2015, 45) also advocate the development of alternative approaches that consider teaching complex, teachers self-oriented, responsible and adequate and acknowledge that inspection is a process of evidence-based cooperation with education stakeholders. Accordingly, self-valuation has been developed based on the understanding that the improvement comes from the inside (MacBeath, 1999) and that the school’s development needs are best known by the school itself (Demirkasımoğlu, 2014, p. 117). Thereunder, a self-evaluation system is adopted in countries such as Scotland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. (Çınkır, 2014; MacBeath, 2005; Van Bruggen, 2010). In addition, school self-evaluation is widely used also in countries considered successful in education. For example, internal or self-evaluation is implemented in different ways in Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Finland, Estonia, Poland, Canada, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Slovenia, Britain, Denmark, Norway, Portugal which are among the top forty based on the 2016 PISA (2015) results. In fact, schools are required to perform self-evaluation in countries such as Slovenia, Poland, Ireland, Norway and Portugal (OECD, 2013). For these countries, it is possible to say that the school self-evaluation is an integrated element of education inspection in general.
In Turkey, education inspection is carried out by the Ministry of National Education (MoNE) and the educational inspectors. This practice shows the prevalence of external evaluation in Turkey. However, with the recent changes in the education inspection (MoNE Amended Law 6528 (2014)- 6764 (2016)), implementations such as total quality management, strategic planning, (Memduhoğlu &Uçar, 2012), Primary Education Standards (PES) (MoNE, 2015) and self-evaluation with a focus on quality improvement in professional and technical secondary institutions (MoNE, 2016) enable schools to evaluate themselves. Accordingly, it is possible to say that with a framework and standard forms defined by the ←13 | 14→MoNE, implementations carried out specifically within the context of PES, and professional and technical secondary education are transitions to school self-education. In line with these global developments, accountability, pursuing quality assurance, improvement, accreditation, transparency in education andschool self-evaluation are an important area for study. The present study also seeks to show the role of school self-evaluation, particularly as a driving force for school improvement.
School Self-Evaluation: A Journey to Inside Yourself
With the introduction of the free market economy in education, the concept of accountability has also been introduced to the schools. The start of the school self-evaluation is attributed to the new public administration understanding and the accountability of schools. For, schools are accountable to the society for everything they do for students. The re-introduction of accountability in the UK in mid-1970s led the local education authorities to launch the voluntary self-evaluation bill. In the 1990s, the issue of accountability became so widespread that schools faced national testing, (Office for Standards in Education [OFSTED]) external inspection and OFSTED-initiated school self-evaluation practices (Simons, 2013, pp.6–9). In this regard, schools are expected to self-evaluate with their own approaches based on the template set by the OFSTED. In theory, self-evaluation means that schools tell their own story based on their own set criteria. However, school administrators conduct the self-evaluation process according to the OFSTED’s template and use it to prepare for the OFSTED inspection (MacBeath, 2006, pp. 2–3). In other words, it is possible to say that the self-evaluation initially entered the lives of schools as a necessity.
School self-evaluation is based on the philosophy that development and change come from the inside, that people are committed to what they create, and that feedback is very important for individual learning and organizational development (MacBeath, 1999). MacBeath, Schratz, Jakobsen and Meuret (2000, p. 92) define school self-evaluation as starting a dialog on school and classroom level about goals, priorities and quality criteria, or achieving goals using appropriate and easily accessible tools. Simons (2013, 5), on the other hand, refers to school self-evaluation as the process of acquiring, gathering, analyzing and communicating information for the purposes of improving creativity in school, accountability, development, achieving goals, gaining community trust in school, attributing value to school, and informing stakeholders about the decision-making process within the school. On the other hand, self-evaluation allows schools to talk about themselves, set their own priorities and decide how to tell their stories. Self-evaluation also provides schools with autonomy in determining what is to be measured. In theory, self-evaluation is a continuous evaluation process that is embedded in daily classroom studies, and is candid, evidence-based, formative in identifying strengths and weaknesses (MacBeath, 2006, pp. 3–4). This is a cycle wherein school self-evaluation begins with preparation and planning, ←14 | 15→and continues with implementation, evaluation, action, monitoring and feedback (Kurum & Çınkır, 2019).
Self-evaluation is a discovery process, not a direct adherence to a common model. In this journey, participants seek to find their own way through surveys and research. Accordingly, a systematic self-evaluation must first have a clear purpose. To achieve this objective, the target audience to be included in the self-evaluation process is determined. For example, if it is only intended to prepare the school for inspection, this understanding is against the self-evaluation’s logic of focusing inwards. Therefore, the aim of self-evaluation should be to focus not on central impositions, but on the improvement of the school as a whole. It should then be decided on the framework according to whichthe self-evaluation is to be conducted. If there is a model or framework required by the Ministry of Education at this stage, the school may act accordingly (MacBeath, 2006, pp. 63–64). For example, in Ireland, school self-evaluation has been compulsory nationwide since 2012. The Ministry provides schools with guides and a six-stage school self-evaluation model. The focus the schools will have in self-evaluation is alsodetermined centrally (Department for Education and Skills [DES], 2016). However, schools can conduct the self-evaluation process by adapting this overall framework to their needs. If there is no framework, schools may use good practice or form their own framework.
Self-evaluation is based on evidence. Evaluation criteria are used as a source of the evidence. These criteria are set centrally according to the defined framework. If this framework is not available, the school will set its own criteria as an indicator of its success and progress. For example, exam data can be reported as scores or percentage points. At this point, when setting the criteria, practitioners must value the indicators that serve the self-evaluation purpose, not the things that are easily measured. For, in this process, school administrators, teachers, support staff, students and parents pass judgment on the school based on the criteria available. If this process is not well planned, it can cause time loss and complexity. However, it offers data and perspectives that are rich enough to improve the school if it is carried out systematically. This variety of data can be achieved through self-evaluation tools. At this point, teachers and students prefer more simple, accessible and powerful tools. However, care must be taken to avoid duplication and to provide diversity to the participants in the tool usage. If not, the use of similar tools may result in the participants making a wrong evaluation. Such wrong evaluation will also negatively impact the self-evaluation production. This production is often prepared as a report or presentation. However, this production should not be considered final as the self-evaluation is a continuous and developmental process. In contrast, this production is a series of files or reports that are attached to the portfolio as part of developing an understanding and perspective of the school. Therefore, the self-evaluation process is considered similar to metaphors such as “listening to a heartbeat, check-up” (MacBeath, 2006, pp. 64–67).←15 | 16→
Self-evaluation is a powerful practice embedded in the school’s daily routine. Self-evaluation derives this power from being based on realistic evidence, rather than intuition or subjective judgment. To achieve this, school culture and classroom climate are very important in self-evaluation (Vanhoof, Petegem,& Maeyer, 2015). To reveal more realistic lives placed in the nature of classroom practices, it is necessary to create a classroom climate where reflection and criticism become routine. Otherwise, course observations or reflections givea slice of the current state, and more like an ad-hoc impression. On the other hand, self-evaluation uses discussions with stakeholders as evidence. Although this qualitative data may seem a little more subjective, it is useful to uncover the school’s unique situation (MacBeath, 2006, pp. 59–60). For example, instead of saying that 40% of children are being bullied in school, saying that physical bullying is increasing from higher grades towards lower grades (Kurum, 2019) gives more details about the bullying at the school. Therefore, qualitative data is a key source of evidence to further determine and refine the school’s unique situation.
As a result, school self-evaluation is not a magic way to solve. It does not provide a direct template to act on. Self-evaluation can be built on existing practices that have no start and end. It should therefore not be expected in the self-evaluation process to introduce a new practice that is not available (MacBeath, 2006, p. 177). School self-evaluation is the dialog and cooperation of schools with their stakeholders on findings based on evidence. To strengthen this process, Simons (2013, p. 15) emphasizes that it is necessary to contact an external support that is defined as a critical friend from universities, local governments, consultants or other schools. On the other hand, MacBeath (2006, p. 118) suggests that visual and auditory evidence (photo, video, observation and discussion) should be provided to facilitate the school self-evaluation process, that planning must be made based on such evidence, that a connection must be established between data sources (such as student success and teacher qualification), that the self-evaluation process must be updated at regular intervals, and that the school stakeholders must be engaged.
School Self-Evaluation: The Benefits and Limitations
Inspection and evaluation determine the level of achievement of educational goals, while also driving educational policies and research. With the new public management concept, an inspection understanding has been adopted based on educational outputs, with outputs being based on national and international standard test results, in particular. However, inspection conducted with such an understanding may reflect a limited learning process, not consider the socio-cultural diversity and be influenced by some biases (Rey, 2010). In addition, classroom observations under school inspection do not reflect the real life experiences of teachers and students. Some of the selected students are well-educated for external inspectors to show that everything is going well in school. In other words, schools have two separate faces, one for visitors and one for their own ←16 | 17→members (MacBeath, 1999, p. 1). However, the school self-evaluation is a more uniform process in which school is examined in more depth. In addition, school self-evaluation allows stakeholders to reflect on the change within the school itself (MacBeath, 2008). In this regard, inspection and self-evaluation have different aspects. The different aspects of school self-evaluation and inspection are summarized in Tab. 1.
• From bottom to top
• Shows the change in school (offers an evolving Picture)
• Saves time
• Focuses on improvement
• Flexible and spontaneous
• Sets the relevant criteria
• Improves education-teaching
• Takes risks
• Celebrates differences
- ISBN (PDF)
- ISBN (ePUB)
- ISBN (MOBI)
- ISBN (Hardcover)
- Publication date
- 2021 (March)
- Empowering education school improvement and development educational research new directions educational policies education methodology
- Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien, 2020. 332 pp., 15 fig. b/w, 74 tables.