Self-evaluation 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. 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 ‘Retrospective’ vs ‘Prospective’

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. 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’) ‘insiders’ and outsiders’ in the S/E process

10. Key concepts • Professional development for all • Democracy: involving all staff members in the S/E and decision making processes

11. 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’

12. 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 Interactionspersonal S/E < – > institutional S/E

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 Motivation for all Organisational Culture • shared values • shared feeling of common identity • positive attitude • collective commitment • atmosphere of mutual trust • interdependences Innovation PURPOSE Reward flexibility IDENTITY PEOPLE Inter-company learning Mutual confidence Participative processes Shared values Learning climate ‘Fountain tree’ (adapted from Pedler et al.)