Self-evaluation as a process and an instrument Laura Muresan PROSPER-ASE Bucharest QUEST Romania

Perspectives & interdependences n self-evaluation as institutional endeavour n contexts, functions, aims n instruments and interactions n self-evaluation and professional development n 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’ n usually the evaluation of a project or a programme n Self-evaluation as an instrument of quality management and control in a school, a language centre

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

Why? Functions & aims in relation to context è project / programme: to measure progress and outcomes w.r.t. initial objectives – Report è innovations: to diagnose problems and document the need for change è quality management: to examine all the aspects of the institutional activity – Action Plan – improvement è quality control by ‘insiders’: preparation for an inspection (i.e. quality control by ‘outsiders’) è ‘learning organisation’: formative role – enhancing development opportunities for all

‘insiders’ and outsiders’ in the S/E process n The evaluators themselves n the object of institutional S/E (processes, procedures, docs, etc.) n internal evaluation criteria n an external consultant as facilitator n 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 è Commitment to high quality standards, aiming higher and higher è transparency of ojectives è stimulating a positive learning attitude among all teachers and admin staff è creating and guaranteeing an atmosphere of confidence and honesty è team building è developing ‘listening skills’

Interactions personal S/E institutional S/E è can be Initiated either by the individual or through the instit. S/E process è can be integrated in the collective S/E exercise è can become an important motivation factor è its results may have an essential contribution to the overall picture è may provide the framework for personal self-evaluation è may trigger individual S/E exercises è 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 u initial objectives and expected outcomes u stages, instruments, interactions u additional long-term benefits

Interdependences (2) From personalised development and individual self-evaluation to institutional self-evaluation (case study – PROSPER-ASE)case study – PROSPER-ASE

S/E as ‘philosophy’ Organisational Culture n shared values n shared feeling of common identity n positive attitude n collective commitment n atmosphere of mutual trust n interdependences ‘Fountain tree’ (adapted from Pedler et al.)