01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper
Locally Grounded School Development Projects on a Large-Scale – Mission Impossible?
Elin Bø Morud, Trygve Kvithyld, Anne Holten Kvistad
NTNU, Norway
Presenting Author: Morud, Elin Bø;
Kvithyld, Trygve
In what ways can «School-based professional development» (SBPF) be structured to ensure that the participants feel relevance, ownership, and opportunities to influence the content and design of the initiatives?
In a metropolitan network with 75 schools, this became a relevant question. A model for school development was needed, where the schools who needed professional development (PD) could participate within a reasonable time horizon. A group with partners from the university and the schools was established. Based on theories about school development (Robinson et al., 2009; Starkey et al., 2009; Timperley et al., 2007; Goodlad, 1988) they designed a model, “the resource group model”, to meet the network's goals. The aim of this study is to identify success factors in this model in a large-scale SBPD-project.
PD is a central part of the school's daily work, but there is disagreement about what the best means to achieve this are (Mausethagen & Helstad, 2023). While previous PD-schemes in Norway have been based on a model where a form of "competence transfer" was to take place from knowledge providers (universities) to knowledge receivers (teachers), the new model was based on co-creation in established partnerships between schools and universities (Meld.St. 21(2016-17)). SBPD should take place in schools where teachers and leaders develop knowledge about teaching and learning in the local school context (Postholm, 2018). An important aspect of this new thinking on school development is to meet the needs experienced by those who are closest to the students in the classroom.
Internationally, there has been a lot of research into factors that contribute to successful PD in schools. Several studies show that the leaders’ involvement is crucial for the success of collective PD (e.g. Stoll & Louis, 2017; Robinson, 2014). While it's important that the school leadership is involved in development projects, it is challenging if the leader must run the processes alone. This concerns that the initiative and chosen theme for the PD can be experienced as ”coming from above"; it is recommended to involve teachers (Postholm et al., 2018). Spillane (2006) uses the term "distributed leadership" for processes where the principal involves more than the formal leader group at the school, both in the design, implementation and leadership of development projects.
The schools that wanted to participate could choose between five different themes, maximum 5 schools per theme, and these were selected based on reported needs of the schools in the metropolitan network. The model is designed based on theories and evaluations of previous PD-projects.
The model presumes that each school participating in PD must establish a resource group (RG), consisting of teachers with a special interest in the topic they have chosen, and at least one person from the school management. The groups should be local promoters of the development work at their schools, and should work as a link between colleagues at the schools and professionals from the university.
A key aspect of the resource group model is that participation takes place over time. The 1st semester has common content and organization for all schools, and its main purpose is to prepare the RG to lead PD at their own school (Spillane, 2006). The 2nd to 4th semesters are devoted to topic-specific gatherings for the competence packages, with mandatory intermediate work at the schools.
The aim of this study is to respond to the following reseach question:
What experiences do the RG and the university employees in the metropolitan network have with the various elements in the resource group model, and what can these experiences tell us about which factors are important for success in a large-scale school development process?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo answer the research questions, we have collected both qualitative and quantitative data through two surveys and three focus group interviews. One survey is aimed at university staffs who have worked on developing and implementing the competence packages and the other survey has been aimed at the RG in the schools that have participated in the SBPD. Both surveys have a response rate of over 80.
The surveys consisted of questions which were to map the previous experience the participants had with school development, and questions where the participants were asked to evaluate the model by taking stances on various claims. The participants were asked to grade the claims on a five-point scale, ranging from "to a very small extent" to "to a very large extent". The surveys also had text boxes where the participants could write free-text answers with their own reflections.
The analyses of the two surveys were used as a basis for developing relevant questions for qualitative interviews with selected resource groups, teachers and university staff. The interview guides were designed based on the results of the surveys and the researchers' knowledge of the field. According to Cohen (2018), this form of data collection can be described as method triangulation.
The focus group (FG) interviews were conducted as qualitative, semi-structured interviews with a phenomenological approach. By choosing a FG interview, you facilitate follow-up questions, exchange of opinions and analysis along the way (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015). The FG's consisted of members of the resource group, teachers and school leaders. In the first FG there were six participants and in the second there was five. In the interview with university staff, two participants had contributed to both the development and implementation of the competence package. Audio recordings were made of the interviews, and notes were written during the conversations. The interviews were analyzed by the researchers together as a collective analysis (Eggebø, 2020), through a deductive analysis process based on the elements of the resource group model.
Overview data:
Survey University staff: 17 respondents/ 20 (85% of the population); Primary data
Survey Resource Group: 14 respondents (by groups) /17 (82% of the RG-population); Primary data
Interviews: 13 people / 3 interviews; Primary data
Background documents: Secondary data
Privacy in data handling has been approved by SIKT, and the guidelines of the National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and Humanities (NESH, 2021) are followed.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAn overarching finding, which also appears in many evaluations of school development projects, is that the role of the leadership is crucial. Important factors here are presence and stability in the leadership throughout the project.
An interesting finding is that the RG’s report that they have changed their teaching practice. A challenge, however, is that some RG’s did not meet the same enthusiasm and willingness to change when they tried to engage their colleagues. Based on the surveys, we find the ability to engage their colleagues appears to be a critical factor in succeeding.
Empowering the RG to be able to lead the school development at their schools has been central. The start-up semester only partially met their needs. The findings shows that the theme-specific gatherings in semesters 2–4 were more important for the experience of empowerment. The RG highlight the co-creation between university and the schools, and the valuing of their experiences from intermediate work, as important for becoming confident in their role as leaders of the development work vis-à-vis their own colleagues.
We also find that it is valuable when universities add new academic perspectives. In the literature, it is emphasized that external people can be a good support in the professional development of teachers. University staff expressed that their role required them to both bring something professionally new to the gatherings, while at the same time they reflect on the experiences of the RG’s. Put bluntly, we can say that even if the network work is largely based on co-creation and exchange of experience, exchange of experience is not sufficient. Our data supports the metropolitan network's intention that there should be a balance between co-creation, exchange of experience and new professional perspectives on the themes that each school will work on.
ReferencesCohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (8.utg). Routledge.
Eggebø, H. (2020). Kollektiv kvalitativ analyse. Norsk Sosiologisk Tidsskrift, 4(2), 106–122. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2535-2512-2020-02-03
Goodlad, J. (1988). School-university partnerships for educational renewal: rationale and concepts. In Kenneth Sirotnik & John Goodlad (Eds.), School-university partnerships in action (p. 3–31). Teacher College Press.
Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. (2015). Det kvalitative forskningsintervju. Gyldendal akademisk.
Mausethagen, S. & Helstad, K. (2023). Skoleutvikling – i forskning, politikk og praksis. In K. Helstad & S. Mausethagen (Eds.), Skoleutvikling i forskning, politikk og praksis (p. 15–34). Cappelen Damm akademisk.
Meld. St. 21 (2016-2017). Lærelyst – tidlig innsats og kvalitet i skolen. Kunnskapsdepartementet. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/meld.-st.-21-20162017/id2544344/
NESH (2021) Forskningsetiske retningslinjer for samfunnsvitenskap og humaniora. https://www.forskningsetikk.no/retningslinjer/hum-sam/forskningsetiske-retningslinjer-for samfunnsvitenskap-og-humaniora/
Postholm, M. B., Normann, A. Dahl, T., Dehlin, E. & Irgens, E. J. (2018). Lærerutdanning, nasjonale sentre og ungdomstrinn i utvikling. Læring og implikasjoner for rammer for og organisering av fremtidig utviklingsarbeid. In M.B. Postholm, A. Normann, T. Dahl, E. Dehlin, G. Engvik, & E. J. Irgens (Eds.), Skole og utdanningssektoren i utvikling (p. 299–319). Fagbokforlaget.
Robinson, V. M., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why (BES). New Zealand Ministry og Education.
Sales, A., Traver, J. A. & García, R. (2011). Action research as a school-based strategy in intercultural professional development for teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 911–919.
Starkey, L., Yates, A., Meyer, L. H., Hall, C., Taylor, M., Stevens, S., & Toia, R. (2009). Professional development design: Embedding educational reform in New Zealand. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 181–189.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Stoll, L. & Louis, K. S. (2007). Professional Learning Communities: Divergence, Depth and Dilemmas. Open University Press.
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung I. (2007). Teacher Professional Learning and Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES). New Zealand Ministry of Education.
01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper
Cross-lagged Panel and Multilevel Analysis for the Relationships Between Teacher Self-efficacy and Collective Teacher Efficacy
Takumi Yada1, Akie Yada2, Pirjo Savolainen3, Hannu Savolainen3
1Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä; 2Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland; 3School of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Eastern Finland
Presenting Author: Yada, Takumi
The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between collective teacher efficacy (CTE) and teacher self-efficacy (TSE) by a longitudinal and multilevel analysis.
To respond current complex educational circumstances, CTE is one of the most reliable factors of a school’s effectiveness in achieving its objectives as a group by leveraging each other’s strengths and compensating for one another’s limitations (Klassen et al., 2010; Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). CTE is defined as “the collective self-perception that teachers in a given school make an educational difference to their students over and above the educational impact of their homes and communities” (Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004, p. 190). Because of the nature of teacher efficacy, previous studies have indicated that CTE is closely related to TSE (Cansoy & Parlar, 2018; Ninković & Knežević Florić, 2018). As many researchers suggest that CTE and TSE are mutually reinforcing, educational organisation research highlights that CTE arises when teachers cooperate to solve problems and act towards the same goals (Goddard, 2001). However, in practice, school leaders and policy makers could be indecisive about whether they should focus on development of individual teachers first or school as an organisation first. This is because the causal relationship between CTE and TSE has not been clearly revealed.
It is easy to assume the path from TSE to CTE. An organisation or a group of individuals with high abilities can create a strong organisation and have confidence in the organisation (Caprara et al., 2003). When members of an organisation act with individual confidence and achieve success, the motivation of the entire organisation can increase, thereby enhancing collective efficacy as well. Therefore, teachers with high TSE may have the potential to form collaborative school organisations, thereby leading to enhancing CTE.
On the other hand, some researchers argue the path from CTE to TSE (Goddard et al., 2001; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). Meyer et al. (2020) note that CTE is likely related to teachers' collaborative behaviour. When educational organisations succeed in working together, teachers gain confidence, higher motivation, and engage more effectively in their work (Yada et al., 2022). In addition, it is known that CTE affects individual performance when task interdependency is high in organisational research (Katz-Navon & Erez, 2005), and schools can be considered high interdependency organisations (Moolenaar et al., 2012). TSE is enhanced through the strong belief in the ability of the organisation to accomplish high interdependent tasks that individuals cannot achieve alone. Being part of a collective efficacious school could provide more opportunities to experience professional collective action, which can enhance individual performance and improve TSE.
However, there some issues have been identified in prior studies on CTE. First, there is a discrepancy regarding whether TSE or CTE predicts the other. Second, there is a paucity of longitudinal and multilevel examinations between CTE and TSE, which enables more precise predictive relationship analyses. Sample design, size and methodological limitations hinder the longitudinal and multilevel examinations although studies have assumed a path from TSE to CTE in previous studies (Cansoy & Parlar, 2018; Ninković & Florić, 2018). Therefore, we set the research questions as follows:
RQ1: How is CTE related to TSE at individual level?
RQ2: How is CTE related to TSE at school level?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA total of 69 schools with 1081 teachers were included in the analyses. The size of schools ranged from 2 to 88 (M = 20.74, SD = 15.81). Due to the limited number of schools at school level (i.e., 69 schools), we used the mean scores of each variable for subsequent multilevel analysis instead of employing latent factors. The intraclass correlations, representing within-school homogeneity (i.e., between variances), of CTE are 21.4% at T1 and 20.0% at T2 of the variability, while 5.5% at T1 and 7.4% at T2 of variances in TSE. Although school level variation was not large in TSE, statistically significant school level variation in all the observed variables was confirmed, and, thus, multilevel analysis was considered as applicable.
CTE was assessed using the student discipline subscale (6 items, 9-point Likert-type scales; e.g., To what extent can teachers in your school make expectations clear about appropriate student behavior?) of the Collective Teacher Beliefs Scale (CTBS) (Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). This study had high reliability for the scale at the first (α = .87) and the second time point (α = .89). TSE was measured using one subscale (6 items, 6-point Likert-type scale; e.g., I am able to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy) of the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices Scale (TEIP) to measure teacher’s self-efficacy in managing behaviour (Sharma et al., 2012). This study had high reliability for the scale at the fist (α = .82) and the second time point (α = .83).
The analyses followed the steps. First, longitudinal measurement invariance was tested to examine whether the same constructs were measured across different timepoints. The scalar invariance models, where factor loadings and intercepts were set to be equal across timepoints, achieved acceptable fit, and there were not large differences in the fit indices when compared to the other models. Achieving scalar invariance implies that variations in the latent construct's means account for all variations in the common variance among the items (Putnick & Bornstein, 2016), thus, we could conclude that mean differences across timpoints were comparable in our data.
Next, a cross-lagged panel model analysis with a multilevel approach was performed to answer the research questions. The estimated models were examined using three indicators: RMSEA (<.060), standardised root mean square residual (SRMR, <.080), and CFI (>.950) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The Mplus statistical software was used for all the analyses.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsA two-level path model was analysed. The estimated model fit the data well, χ2(7) = 2.711, p = .258, CFI = .999, RMSEA = .018, SRMRwithin = .001, SRMRbetween = .040. The results for individual and school levels indicated that there were statistically significant auto-regressive paths from T1 to T2 between CTE and TSE. In the light of cross-lagged paths at individual level, a statistically significant path was found from CTE at T1 to TSE at T2 (T1–T2: β = .127, p < .01). Regarding school level, the cross-lagged paths worked differently, where only the path from TSE at T1 to CTE at T2 was statistically significant (T1–T2: β = .621, p < .01).
The results showed that the relationships between CTE and TSE differed at individual and school levels. First, as many previous studies have shown (e.g., Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007), the results supported that CTE predicts TSE at individual level, which answered RQ1. In other words, when a teacher experiences collective action and perceives that colleagues and staff in the school have high collective capability beliefs, the teacher will be influenced by this and increase their own TSE. This motivational extension could be explained by motivational sources and school atmosphere that are created by highly motivated colleagues, which are sources of efficacy (Bandura, 1997).
At school level, the relationship between CTE and TSE showed an inverse direction, which is regarding RQ2. The higher the TSE of a teacher, the higher the CTE of the school, rather than supporting previous’ results (Goddard & Goddard, 2001). This suggests that a group of teachers with high TSE could generate CTE when the individual teachers are aware of collective action, in which they have opportunities to use their expertise. The results enhance current debates and theories on teacher efficacy.
ReferencesBandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Cansoy, R., & Parlar, H. (2018). Examining the relationship between school principals’ instructional leadership behaviors, teacher self-efficacy, and collective teacher efficacy. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(4), 550–567.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy Beliefs as Determinants of Teachers ’ Job Satisfaction. 95(4), 821–832.
Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 467–476.
Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). A Multilevel Examination of the Distribution and Effects of Teacher Trust in Students and Parents in Urban Elementary Schools. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 3–17.
Katz-Navon, T. Y., & Erez, M. (2005). When collective- And self-efficacy affect team performance the role of task interdependence. Small Group Research, 36(4), 437–465.
Klassen, R. M., Usher, E. L., Bong, M., Klassen, R. M., & Usher, E. L. (2010). Teachers ’ Collective Efficacy , Job Satisfaction , and Job Stress in Cross-Cultural Context Teachers ’ Collective Efficacy , Job Satisfaction , and Job Stress in Cross-Cultural Context. 0973.
Meyer, A., Richter, D., & Hartung-Beck, V. (2020). The relationship between principal leadership and teacher collaboration: Investigating the mediating effect of teachers’ collective efficacy. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 50(4), 593–612.
Moolenaar, N. M., Sleegers, P. J. C., & Daly, A. J. (2012). Teaming up: Linking collaboration networks, collective efficacy, and student achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 251–262.
Ninković, S. R., & Knežević Florić, O. (2018). Transformational school leadership and teacher self-efficacy as predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 46(1), 49–64.
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental review, 41, 71-90.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611–625.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Barr, M. (2004). Fostering student learning: The relationship of collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 189–209.
Yada, T., Yada, A., Choshi, D., Sakata, T., Wakimoto, T., & Nakada, M. (2022). Examining the relationships between teacher self-efficacy, professional learning community, and experiential learning in Japan. School Effectiveness and School Improvement.
01. Professional Learning and Development
Paper
Teachers' Perceptions of Teacher Assessment and School Assessment Culture
Irit Levy-Feldman1, Barbara Fresko2
1kibbutzim college of education, Technology and the Arts; 2Beit Berl college of education
Presenting Author: Levy-Feldman, Irit;
Fresko, Barbara
Organizational culture consists of the values, beliefs, and worldview that shape individuals’ behavioral patterns within an organization and is expressed through shared language, symbols, norms, and established guidelines (Teasley, 2017). Schools are organizations that share educational goals defined externally by the community or government authorities (Berman et al., 2019). However, each school has its own organizational culture which defines how members go about achieving these goals. The school’s assessment culture is part of its general organizational culture, reflecting attitudes and beliefs concerning autonomy, transparency, and partnership. It includes the reasons and the goals for doing assessments and the climate in which these assessments are carried out, which in turn will influence how assessment is perceived.
School organizational assessment culture may be seen as a continuum ranging between a summative-measurement culture on one end, and a formative-assessment culture on the other end. Summative-measurement culture is referred to as “assessment of learning” (Earl & Katz, 2006), focusing on decision-making, accountability, and demonstration of authority. Quantitative methodologies and external measures are generally employed to collect information. In contrast, formative-assessment culture emphasizes growth, development, and improvement (“assessment for learning”) (Earl & Katz, 2006). It is anchored in an interpretive, critical perspective and espouses a pluralistic and individualistic concept of reality requiring information reflecting multiple perspectives that is interpreted through dialogue and collaboration (e.g., Shepard, 2000). Assessment is incorporated into school life as a crucial mechanism for promoting organizational learning for the advancement of educational goals (Torres & Preskill, 2001; Wendy & Wenyan, 2013).
The study focuses on teacher assessment in relation to school organizational assessment culture. One aim was to investigate whether teachers’ perceptions of their school’s organizational assessment culture is congruent with their perceptions of teacher assessment at their school. A second aim was to examine the degree to which exposure to different school organizational assessment cultures is related to teachers’ ideas concerning the components of an ideal formative teacher assessment model in line with views that professional development of teachers should be the primary aim of teacher assessment (e.g., Flores & Derrington, 2017). Understanding how the school’s organizational assessment culture is related to teachers’ perceptions and opinions regarding teacher assessment, can be useful to both school administrators and educational authorities interested in strengthening the use of teacher assessment for the purpose of achieving educational goals.
The study was conducted in Israel where formal teacher assessment was mandated beginning in 2010 as part of a wage agreement between the Ministry of Education and the elementary school teachers’ union. The agreement transferred teacher assessment for administrative decisions from external inspectors to school principals and strongly promoted the implementation of routine formative teacher assessment. The intention was to improve the quality of instruction in schools and to foster teachers’ professional identity. Principals participated in in-service training to prepare them for their task and acquaint them with procedures and rubrics which had been developed to define criteria and levels of expected performance.
Only teacher assessment results for administrative decisions are reported to the Ministry of Education, which is the final authority for awarding licensure and approving salary advancement, meaning that only summative teacher assessment is monitored. Thus, it is not surprising to learn that research in Israel has shown that schools greatly differ in the manner and extent to which formative teacher assessment is conducted, and that principals’ leadership styles (Nashef, 2023), their assessment training, experience, and perceptions of the benefits of teacher evaluation (Fresko & Levy-Feldman, 2023) are all related to this variation.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedData were collected from 1,029 elementary school teachers by a questionnaire that addressed the following variables:
1) Background information regarding both the respondents and the schools where they teach.
2) Teachers' perceptions of their schools’ organizational assessment culture. A scale was prepared that focuses on the organizational assessment culture from the viewpoint of formative assessment, i.e., an organizational learning culture that stresses the use of assessment information, feedback, and dialogue to advance educational processes.
3) Teachers' perceptions of four aspects of teacher assessment at their schools. Two variables related to the assessment process: the extent to which it is conducted for formative purposes and the climate in which it is done. Another two variables addressed perceptions of the impact of the assessment process: its contribution to school functioning and its negative impact.
4) Teachers' views regarding an ideal formative teacher assessment model. Three general components were addressed in assessing teachers’ vision of an effective formative teacher assessment model: criteria to be used, sources of information or testimony for the assessment, and participants to be involved in the process. The content of the items for each area were selected based on existing options relevant to the Israeli context.
Administration of the questionnaire began after receiving approval by the ethics committee of the Office of the Chief Scientist at the Ministry of Education. Initially, the research questionnaire was distributed to teachers with the assistance of the supervisor responsible for teaching and administrative personnel at the Ministry of Education and was administered electronically using Google Forms. Questionnaires were received anonymously from 831 elementary school teachers. In addition, the questionnaire was administered by the researchers in printed form to teachers studying for M.Ed. degrees at two teacher education colleges. An additional 198 questionnaires were added to the sample in this way (105 from one college and 93 from the other).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsFindings revealed that teachers who reported a strong formative assessment culture in their schools more often indicated that teacher assessment is conducted to promote teacher development, that the climate surrounding teacher assessment is open and transparent, that it contributes to improved school functioning, and that its negative influences are relatively few, compared to teachers in weak formative assessment culture schools. Differences were consistently large regarding assessment climate, contribution, and use of teacher assessment for professional development, while quite small regarding negative effects, suggesting that other factors (i.e., school size) may be relevant.
When relating to their views of an ideal formative teacher assessment model, teachers in strong formative assessment culture schools attributed greater importance to the inclusion of all types of assessment criteria, the use of observations, recommendations, and teaching products as testimony, and the required participation of the school principal in the process, as compared to teachers in schools with weak formative assessment cultures.
Despite the differences between groups, all teachers appeared to share a general view with respect to the important components of an ideal formative teacher assessment model. Both groups attributed greatest importance to what should be assessed (criteria), attributing secondary importance to how assessment should be conducted. Both groups rated the use of observations and recommendations higher than the use of teaching products, and both valued the participation of the school principal. The differences in the strength of their responses may be interpreted as an expression of the confidence they have in their opinions. Exposure of teachers to a strong formative assessment culture appears to result in a stronger and more confident vision of an ideal formative teacher assessment model.
School principals are responsible for defining school organizational culture and need to be made aware of its implications for school improvement through teacher assessment.
ReferencesBerman, A. I., Feuer, M. J., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2019). What use is educational assessment? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 683, 8–21.
Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2006). Rethinking classroom assessment with purpose in mind: Assessment for learning, assessment as learning and assessment of learning. Western Northern Canadian Protocol Assessment Document. 4.3 Rethinking assessment with purpose in mind Full Document.doc (education.sa.gov.au)
Flores, M. A., & Derrington, M.L. (2017). School principals’ views of teacher evaluation policy: lessons learned from two empirical studies. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(4), 416-431.
Fresko, B. & Levy-Feldman, I. (2023). Principals’ implementation of teacher evaluation and its relationship to intended purpose, perceived benefits, training, and background variables. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 30(1), 18-32.
Nashef, M. (2023). The relationship between teachers’ perceptions of the principal’s leadership style and their perceptions of the teacher evaluation process and its influence on the educational work at school. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Beit Berl Academic College, Israel [Hebrew]
Shepard, L.A. (2000). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp.1066-1101). American Education Research Association. TECH517.pdf (cresst.org)
Teasley, M.L. (2017). Organizational culture and schools: A call for leadership and collaboration. Children & Schools, 39(1), 3-6.
Torres, R. T., & Preskill, H. (2001). Evaluation and organizational learning: Past, present, and future. The American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3), 387-395.
Wendy, P. H., & Wenyan, C. (2013). Teacher evaluation as an approach to organizational learning: A case study of Taiwan. In E Hau-Fai Law & C. Li (eds.), Curriculum innovations in changing societies: Chinese perspectives from Hong Kong Taiwan and Mainland China (pp. 431-447). Sense.
|
