Selfevaluation as a process and an instrument

1
Self-evaluation as a process and an instrument

• Laura Muresan
• PROSPER-ASE Bucharest
• QUEST Romania

2
Perspectives interdependences

• self-evaluation as institutional endeavour
• contexts, functions, aims
• instruments and interactions
• self-evaluation and professional development
• self-evaluation as  philosophy - how can we
  integrate it in the organisational culture?

3
Personal self-evaluation

• Contexts
• professional development, a teacher training
  course etc.
• the teaching process, linked to action research
  and self-reflection
• complementary to classroom observation and peer
  review

4
Institutional self-evaluation

• Contexts
• a programme or a project
• the institution itself
• a national or international organisation

5
Institutional self-evaluation

• Definition
• participatory evaluation initiated in the
  institution (school, language centre, programme)
  by the school / centre personnel or project team
  to facilitate periodic or continuous improvement
  of the teaching operation/ language services /
  the overall activity.
• (adapted from Mackay et al., 1998)

6
Retrospective vs Prospective

• usually the evaluation of a project or a programme

• Self-evaluation as an instrument of quality
  management and control in a school, a language
  centre

7
What?

• all the aspects of the teaching operation
• only certain selected aspects (e.g. because they
  are associated with problems)

8
Why? Functions aims in relation to context

• project / programme to measure progress and
  outcomes w.r.t. initial objectives Report
• innovations to diagnose problems and document
  the need for change
• quality management to examine all the aspects of
  the institutional activity Action Plan
  improvement
• quality control by insiders preparation for an
  inspection (i.e. quality control by outsiders)
• learning organisation formative role
  enhancing development opportunities for all

9
insiders and outsiders in the S/E process

• The evaluators themselves
• the object of institutional S/E (processes,
  procedures, docs, etc.)
• internal evaluation criteria

• an external consultant as facilitator
• exterior criteria (e.g. looking at ones own
  school through the inspectors eyes)

10
Key concepts

• Professional development for all
• Democracy involving all staff members in the S/E
  and decision making processes

11
The management teams role

• Commitment to high quality standards, aiming
  higher and higher
• transparency of ojectives
• stimulating a positive learning attitude among
  all teachers and admin staff
• creating and guaranteeing an atmosphere of
  confidence and honesty
• team building
• developing listening skills

12
Interactions personal S/E lt gt institutional
S/E

• can be Initiated either by the individual or
  through the instit. S/E process
• can be integrated in the collective S/E exercise
• can become an important motivation factor
• its results may have an essential contribution to
  the overall picture

• may provide the framework for personal
  self-evaluation
• may trigger individual S/E exercises
• interrelatedness with professional dev. of both
  the team and individual staff members

13
Interdependences (1)

• From institutional quality control as a team
  exercise to personalised staff development
• initial objectives and expected outcomes
• stages, instruments, interactions
• additional long-term benefits

14
Interdependences (2)

• From personalised development and individual
  self-evaluation to institutional self-evaluation
• (case study PROSPER-ASE)

15
S/E as philosophy
Instit. growth
Personal growth
Better Quality

• Organisational Culture
• shared values
• shared feeling of common identity
• positive attitude
• collective commitment
• atmosphere of mutual trust
• interdependences

Motivation for all
Innovation
PURPOSE
Reward flexibility
IDENTITY
PEOPLE
Inter-company learning
Mutual confidence
Participative processes
Shared values
Learning climate
Fountain tree (adapted from Pedler et al.)