Self-evaluation as a process and an instrument

Laura Muresan

PROSPER-ASE Bucharest

QUEST Romania

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?

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

Institutional self-evaluation

Contexts:

a programme or a project

the institution itself

a national or international organisation

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)

‘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

What?

all the aspects of the teaching operation

only certain selected aspects (e.g. because

they are associated with problems)

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

‘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 one’s own school through the ‘inspector’s eyes’)

Key concepts

Professional development for all

Democracy: involving all staff

members in the S/E and decision

making processes

The management team’s 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’

Interactions personal S/E < – > 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

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

Interdependences (2)

From personalised development and

individual self-evaluation to

institutional self-evaluation

(case study – PROSPER-ASE)

S/E as ‘philosophy’Organisational

Culture shared values shared feeling of

common identity positive attitude collective

commitment atmosphere of

mutual trust interdependences

‘Fountain tree’ (adapted from Pedler et al.)