Çeşitli Ülkelerde Öğretmen Değerlendirme

İlkay Doğan TAŞ (Kırıkkale Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Eğitim programları ve Öğretimi Anabilim Dalı, Kırıkkkale, Türkiye)
Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi
5 3
Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 22 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 311 - 332 Metin Dili: Türkçe DOI: 10.17556/erziefd.525461 İndeks Tarihi: 28-12-2020

Çeşitli Ülkelerde Öğretmen Değerlendirme

Öz:
Araştırmada çeşitli ülkelerin öğretmen değerlendirme sisteminin benzer ve farklı yönlerininbelirlenmesi ve bu doğrultuda da öğretmen değerlendirmedeki mevcut yönelimleri belirlemekamaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada doküman incelemesi yönteminden yararlanılmıştır. Bu bağlamdaABD, Almanya, İngiltere, Çin, Singapur, Portekiz, Türkiye gibi ülkelerin öğretmen değerlendirmesistemleri araştırma kapsamına alınmıştır. Ülkelerin öğretmen değerlendirme sistemleriaraştırmacı tarafından hazırlanan doküman incelemesi ölçütlerine göre analiz edilmiştir.Araştırmada, öğretmen değerlendirmenin genellikle öğretmenleri akredite etmek, sözleşmeyenilemek, performans artırmak, kariyer ilerlemeleri ve maaş düzenlemeleri yapmak gibiamaçlarla kullanıldığı belirlenmiştir. Bunun yanında ülkeler genelinde öğretmendeğerlendirmenin 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 sonundaöğretmenlerin eğitime gönderildiği ya da ödüllendirildiği belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca değerlendirmedetemel alınan alanların Türkiye’de kullanılan “Öğretmenlik Mesleği Genel Yeterlikleri” ile benzerlikgösterdiği görülmüştür.
Anahtar Kelime:

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 the 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 Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Australian Government Department of Education and Training. (2017). Teacher effectiveness systems, frameworks and measures: A review. Erişim adresi: https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/teachereffectrpt2017.pdf
  • Avalos, B. & 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.
  • Bacharach. S. B. Conley. S. C. & 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.
  • Borman, G. & 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.
  • Brandon, J., Hollweck, T., Donlevy, J., & Whalen, C. (2018). Teacher supervision and evaluation challenges: Canadian perspectives on overall instructional leadership. Teachers and Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2018.1425678
  • Bridges, E. M. (1992). The incompetent teacher (2. Edition). Philedelphia: Falmer. Büyüköztürk, Ş. Akbaba Altun, S. ve Yıldırım, K. (2010). TALIS Türkiye ulusal raporu. Ankara: MEB Dış İlişkiler Genel Müdürlüğü.
  • Choi, H. J. & Park, J. (2016). An analysis of critical ıssues in korean teacher evaluation systems. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal. 6 (2), 151-171.
  • Christensen, L. B., Burke Johnson, R., & Turner, L. A. (2015). Research methods, design, and analysis. Essex: Pearson.
  • Connecticut State Board of Education. (2012). Recommendation for the adoption of the Connecticut guidelines for educator evaluation. Erişim adresi: https://portal.ct.gov/- /media/SDE/Press-Room/Press-Releases/2012/Adopted_PEAC_Guidelines.pdf
  • Danielson, C. (2001). New trends in teacher evaluation. Educational Leardership, 58 (5), 12-15.
  • Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (1. and 2. Editions), Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), Alexandria, Virginia.
  • Danielson, C. (2011). Evaluations that help teachers learn. The Effective Educator, 4, 35-39.
  • Danielson, C. & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional learning. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
  • 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.
  • Education Regulations. (2012). Education (School teachers' appraisal) (England) regulations 2012. Erişim adresi: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/115/contents/made
  • Education and Manpower Bureau. (2003). Teacher performance management guide. Erişim adresi: https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/sch-admin/sbm/sbm-forms-references/staffappraisal- system/TPMguide.pdf
  • Eurydice. (2019). The education system in the federal republic of Germany 2016/2017. Erişim Adresi: https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/pdf/Eurydice/Bildungswesen-englpdfs/ dossier_en_ebook.pdf
  • Flores, M.A. (2010). Teacher performance appraisal in Portugal: the (im)possibilities of a contested model. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Studies, 15(1), 41-60.
  • Forster, N. S. (2006). The analysis of company documentation. In J. P. Scott (Ed.), Documentary research (p.83-106). London: Sage.
  • French, R. Kuligowski, B. & Holdzkom, D. (1993). Teacher performance evaluation in the southeastern states: Forms and functions. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 6, 335-358. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122134
  • Georgia Department of Education. (2003). Georgia teacher evaluation program. Evaluation manuel. Erişim adresi: https://www.polk.k12.ga.us/docs/gtepresourcemanual-0.pdf
  • Goe, L., Holdheide, L., & Miller, T. (2011). A practical guide to designing comprehensive teacher evaluation systems. Erişim adresi: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED520828.pdf
  • Heneman, H. Milanowski, A. Kimball, S. & 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.
  • Hughes, V. M. (2006). Teacher evaluation practices and teacher job satisfaction, (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of Missouri, Columbia.
  • Hull, J. (2013). Trends in teacher evaluation: How states are measuring teacher performance. Alexandria, VA: Center for Public Education.
  • Isoré, M. (2009). Teacher Evaluation: Current Practices in OECD Countries and a Literature Review. OECD Education Working Paper No.23, OECD, Paris. Erişim adresi: www.oecd.org/edu/workingpapers
  • Kleinhenz, E. & 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267152032000176963
  • Kremer, M. (1988). Supervision/Evaluation system: The school district of Janesville. ERS Spectrum, 6, 41-47.
  • Liu, S., & Zhao, D. (2013). Teacher evaluation in China: Latest trends and future directions. Educ Asse Eval Acc, 25, 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9168-8
  • Marzano, R. J. (2013). The Marzano teacher evaluation model. Erişim adresi: https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/tpep/frameworks/marzano/marzan o_teacher_evaluation_model.pdf
  • McGreal, T. L. (1983). Successful teacher evaluation. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • McNergney R. F. & Imig S. R. (2006). Teacher evaluation. Erişim adresi: http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2482/TeacherEvaluation.html McREL. Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (2009). McREL's teacher evaluation system. Denver: McREL
  • 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.
  • Medley, D. M., Coker, H. & Soar, R. S. (1984). Measurement-based evaluation of teacher performance: An empirical approach. New York: Longman.
  • Middlewood, D. & 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.
  • Milanowski, A. (2004). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores and student achievement: Evidence from Cincinatti. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 33- 53. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327930pje7904_3
  • NASUWT. (2012). Teacher appraisal: A practical guide. England: NASUWT
  • MEB. (2018). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı öğretmen performans değerlendirme ve aday öğretmenlik iş ve işlemleri yönetmeliği (Taslak). Erişim adresi: https://www.memurlar.net/common/news/documents/730414/ogretmen_performans _degerlendirme_ve_aday_ogretmenlik.pdf
  • National Council on Teacher Quality. (2013). State of the states 2013. Connect the dots: Using evaluations of teacher effectiveness to inform policy and practice. Erişim adresi: http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/State_of_the_States_2013_Using_Teacher_Evaluations_N CTQ_Report
  • National Staff Deelopment Council. (2011). Standards for professional learning. Erişim adresi: https://learningforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/facilitator-guide.pdf
  • 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.
  • OECD. (2009a). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First result from TALIS. Erişim adresi: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/51/43023606.pdf
  • OECD. (2009b). Teacher evaluation: A conceptual framework and examples of country practices. Erişim adresi: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/24/44568106.pdf
  • OECD. (2011a). OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in education: Australia 2011. Erişim adresi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264116672-en
  • OECD. (2012). OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in education: Portugal 2012. Erişim adresi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264117020-en
  • OECD. (2013a). Teachers for the 21st century. Using evaluation to improve teaching. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1787/9789264193864-en
  • OECD. (2020). TALIS 2018 Resuts (Volume II): Teachers and school leaders as valued professionals. Erişim adresi: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/talis-2018-results-volumeii_ 19cf08df-en#page27
  • OFSTED. (2006). Office for standards in education. The logical chain: Continuing professional development in effective schools. OFSTED Publications No. 2639, United Kingdom.
  • Ornstein, A. C. (1985). Research on teaching: Issues and trends. Journal of Teacher Education, 36 (6), 27-31.
  • Peterson, K. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practice. California: CORWIN.
  • Rebore, R. (1991). Personnel administration in education: A management approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  • Reynolds. D., Muijs. D. & Treharne. D. (2003). Teacher evaluation and teacher effectiveness in The United Kingdom. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(1), 83-100.
  • Santelices, M. V. & 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2011.534948
  • Scriven, M. (1973). Handbook for model training program in qualitative educational evaluation. Berkeley: California University.
  • Speer, S. & Harich, K. (2005). A description of responsibilities, structures and developments in the field of teacher and trainer evaluation. Köln: Evaluation Institute
  • Stanley, S. J. & Popham, W. J. (1988). Teacher evaluation: Six prescriptions for success. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • 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. Erişim adresi: http://opportunityculture.org/images/stories/singapore_lessons_2010.pdf
  • Stronge, J. H. (2012). Stronge teacher effectiveness performance evaluation system. Erişim adresi: http://mnprek-3.wdfiles.com/local--files/teacher-effectiveness/TEPES%20- %20Stronge.pdf
  • 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.
  • Taut, S., Santelices, M. V. & Stecher, B. (2007). Validation of the Chilean national teacher evaluation system. Erişim adresi:http://www.sociedadpoliticaspublicas.cl/archivos/BLOQUEM/Docentes_y_Directivos_Es colares/Teacher_Evaluation_System.pdf
  • The Howard County Public School System. (2015). Framework for teacher evaluation: The teacher evaluation process guide. Erişim adresi: https://www.nctq.org/dmsView/teach_eval_guide
  • The Massachusetts Teachers Association. (2010). Reinventing educator evaluation. Erişim adresi: http://coventryea.ohea.us/files/2012/11/Reinventing-Teacher-Eval_Full- Report_FINAL.pdf
  • The National Center on Education and the Economy. (2016). Empowered educators. Teacher appraisal and feedback. Erişim Adresi: http://ncee.org/wpcontent/ uploads/2017/02/AppraisalPolicyBrief.pdf
  • The New Teacher Project. (2012). The Indiana evaluation pilot: Mid-year report and recommendations. Erişim adresi: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED566115.pdf
  • Training and Development Agency for Schools. (2007a). Professional standards for teachers: Why sit still in your career?: United Kingdom. Erişim adresi: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110202195122/http://www.tda.gov.uk/t eacher/developing-career/professional-standardsguidance/~/ media/resources/teacher/professional-standards/standards_a4.pdf
  • Training and Development Agency for Schools. (2007b). Professional standards for teachers’ core. Erişim adresi: https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/PDF/standards_core.pdf
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Weiss, E. M. & Weiss, G. (1998). New directions in teacher evaluation. Washington D.C.
  • Williams, J. (2009). McREL's teacher evaluation system. Erişim adresi: https://www.medford.k12.nj.us/cms/lib07/NJ01001377/Centricity/Domain/3/McREL Teacher%20Evaluation%20Users%20Guide.pdf
  • Williams. J. H. & Engel. L. C. (2013). How do other countries evaluate teachers? Phi Delta Kappan, 94 (4), 53-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171209400414
  • Wise, A. E. Darling-Hammond, L. McLaughlin, M. W. & Berstein, H. T. (1984). Teacher evaluation: A study of effective practices. California: RAND
  • Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (9. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yoo, J. (2018). Evaluating the new teacher evaluation system in South Korea: Case studies of successful implementation, adaptation, and transformation of mandated policy. Policy Futures in Education, 16(3), 277-290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1478210317751274
  • Zhao, S. (2009). 2+2 program for teachers' performance appraisal in China. English Language Teaching, 2(2), 60-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v2n2p60
APA taş i (2020). Çeşitli Ülkelerde Öğretmen Değerlendirme. , 311 - 332. 10.17556/erziefd.525461
Chicago taş ilkay doğan Çeşitli Ülkelerde Öğretmen Değerlendirme. (2020): 311 - 332. 10.17556/erziefd.525461
MLA taş ilkay doğan Çeşitli Ülkelerde Öğretmen Değerlendirme. , 2020, ss.311 - 332. 10.17556/erziefd.525461
AMA taş i Çeşitli Ülkelerde Öğretmen Değerlendirme. . 2020; 311 - 332. 10.17556/erziefd.525461
Vancouver taş i Çeşitli Ülkelerde Öğretmen Değerlendirme. . 2020; 311 - 332. 10.17556/erziefd.525461
IEEE taş i "Çeşitli Ülkelerde Öğretmen Değerlendirme." , ss.311 - 332, 2020. 10.17556/erziefd.525461
ISNAD taş, ilkay doğan. "Çeşitli Ülkelerde Öğretmen Değerlendirme". (2020), 311-332. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.525461
APA taş i (2020). Çeşitli Ülkelerde Öğretmen Değerlendirme. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2), 311 - 332. 10.17556/erziefd.525461
Chicago taş ilkay doğan Çeşitli Ülkelerde Öğretmen Değerlendirme. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 22, no.2 (2020): 311 - 332. 10.17556/erziefd.525461
MLA taş ilkay doğan Çeşitli Ülkelerde Öğretmen Değerlendirme. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, vol.22, no.2, 2020, ss.311 - 332. 10.17556/erziefd.525461
AMA taş i Çeşitli Ülkelerde Öğretmen Değerlendirme. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2020; 22(2): 311 - 332. 10.17556/erziefd.525461
Vancouver taş i Çeşitli Ülkelerde Öğretmen Değerlendirme. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2020; 22(2): 311 - 332. 10.17556/erziefd.525461
IEEE taş i "Çeşitli Ülkelerde Öğretmen Değerlendirme." Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22, ss.311 - 332, 2020. 10.17556/erziefd.525461
ISNAD taş, ilkay doğan. "Çeşitli Ülkelerde Öğretmen Değerlendirme". Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 22/2 (2020), 311-332. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.525461
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
24-04-2024 21:21

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları