2019 Kurum&Cinkir An Authentic Look at Evaluation in Education PDF

Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 83 (2019) 253-286
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research

www.ejer.com.tr
An Authentic Look at Evaluation in Education: A School Self-

Evaluation1 Model Supporting School Development
Gul KURUM2, Sakir CINKIR3
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Article History: Purpose: Inspection and evaluation in education

Received: 31 May 2019 gained a different dimension with the
Received in revised form: 08 Aug. 2019 implementation of concepts such as accountability,
Accepted: 16 Sept. 2019 transparency and effectiveness to educational
DOI: 10.14689/ejer.2019.83.12 organizations. School self-evaluation is put into
Keywords practice based on evidence in cooperation with
School self-evaluation, school stakeholders in order to develop and improve
development, school improvement, schools accordingly. The overall objective of this
model development, research-
development methodology.
research is to develop a school self-evaluation
model supporting school development for public
secondary schools.
Methods: Among the mixed research methods, multi-stage mixed pattern is used for this
purpose. The stages of this pattern are structured in accordance with the Research and
Development (R&D) methodology. The documents are examined and the opinions of 9 experts
are obtained by means of surveys in order to develop the model draft.
Results: A school self-evaluation model supporting school development, which is planned to be
implemented annually, is developed in line with the overall objective of this research. This model
consists of the following six stages: preparation, planning, implementation, evaluation, taking action,
monitoring and reviewing. The first four stages are used for self-evaluation, and the last two stages are
for development. The content of the model consists of the following six areas: “administration and
leadership, education-training process, school-family-community cooperation, school health and
safety, relations and communication at school, professional development”.
Implications for Research and Practice: In conclusion, a six-stage school self-evaluation
model for secondary schools is developed. The model that is developed may be used by
adapting it according to the type of school, teaching level and needs. However, the school
administrators and teachers need training on basic statistics, research and report writing
during the implementation of the model. Experts with postgraduate diploma in fields such as
education administration, supervision/evaluation may provide support in this matter.
Moreover, opinions may be obtained from field expert academic members, education
inspectors, school administrators and teachers regarding the applicability and adoptability of
the model that is developed.
© 2019 Ani Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved
1 This article is produced from the dissertation supervised by Assoc. Dr. Şakir Çınkır at the Department of
Educational Administration, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Ankara University.
2 Corresponding Author: Dr., Trakya University, Faculty of Education, Educational Sciences Department,
Educational Administration Division, Edirne-Turkey. e-mail: [email protected], [email protected],

ORCID: 0000-0002-8686-7339
3 Ankara University, Faculty of Educationall Sciences, TURKEY, [email protected] ORCID:
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8057-938X
254 Gul KURUM – Sakir CINKIR
Introduction
One of the important resources of countries is their young population. One of the
main objectives of the education system is to educate this young population as
qualified manpower according to the needs. The quality of education is determined
with the level of achievement of goals. Serious resources are allocated to education in
order to achieve these goals. The quality level of the education outcomes may
determine whether or not resources are used effectively. We may suggest that this is
possible by inspecting and evaluating the educational activities provided in schools.
Effective inspection and evaluation play a key role in improving the quality of
education and school success (Aydin & Toptas, 2017, 168). Therefore, schools are not
left to their own fate in almost every education system in the world. Schools and
education and training services provided there are inspected through various models
such as scientific, artistic, developmental, instructional, clinical, differentiated, risk-
oriented and thematic models.
The education inspectors of the ministry conduct school inspections in Turkey once
in three years within the scope of recent legislation (Law No. 6764 and the Supervisory
Board Regulations). In other words, only 500 education inspectors of the ministry are
expected to inspect 65 thousand 564 schools, approximately 18 million students and 1
million 68 thousand 979 teachers (MoNE, 2018a) (Law No. 6764). When we examine
these figures, we find that there are approximately 130 schools, 36 thousand students
and 2 thousand teachers per inspector in average.
Schools are only open 180 business days of the year. In this case, it does not seem
possible for the inspectors to inspect every school even if they work continuously
throughout the year on weekdays and weekends. Shortly, inadequate external
evaluation in education has led to the development of different inspection and
evaluation models. In this context, school self-evaluation as a product of this pursuit
may be considered as an internal evaluation practice that enables schools to recognize
and know themselves together with their stakeholders and complete the external
evaluation.
A valid and reliable evaluation in the development of educational practices and
the improvement of student learning at all levels is at the heart of establishing thriving
education systems. The concept of effective use of public resources and providing
qualified education services for every person started to become dominant in education
policies. Moreover, increasing expectations from school, more educated parents,
evidence-based decision-making, technological developments and looking after
commercial interests in education are the factors that trigger the self-evaluation
process (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2013).
School Self-Evaluation
School self-evaluation may be considered as an alternative approach to inspection.
Each individual in this context is considered a natural learner. Moreover, the basis of
school self-evaluation is the philosophy that development and change come from
Gul KURUM – Sakir CINKIR 255
within, that individuals have commitment to what they generate and that feedback is
crucial for individual learning and organizational development (MacBeath, 1999).
MacBeath, Schratz, Jakobsen and Meuret (2000, 92) define school self-evaluation as
starting a dialogue on targets, priorities and quality criteria at the school and grade
levels, or achieving targets by using tools that are appropriate and easily accessible.
On the other hand, Simons (2013, 5) defines school self-evaluation as the process of
obtaining, collecting, analyzing and transmitting the information with the purposes of
increasing creativity at school, achieving the targets of accountability, development
and knowledge, providing professional self-accountability, gaining the trust of the
society in the school, attributing the school value to the school, and informing the
stakeholders about the decision-making process within the school.
Self-evaluation is an extensive process. MacBeath (2006, 62-65-111) determined
seven factors in this process for self-evaluation: purpose, intended audience,
framework, criterion, process, tools and product. First of all, the purpose of self-
evaluation should be identified. This goal should not only serve the expectations of
inspectors coming from central offices such as Ofsted, but also focus on the identity of
the school itself, which will respond to the challenges of the changing world. Schools
may develop and center their activities towards criteria that are meaningful for and
valued by the school stakeholders, rather than taking easily accessible standards, such
as national or international test results for the reason that self-evaluation is the process
of schools writing their own stories.
Self-evaluation in education in the globalizing world has become an increasingly
important matter. Common points such as quality assurance and effectiveness in the
context of self-evaluation are used in the ranking of countries in international
comparisons according to specific indicators (OECD, 2009). Moreover, another
reasoning behind the transition to self-evaluation at the international level is the
transfer of decision-making process about education to the local school level (Ladden,
2015). Shortly, it may be suggested that self-evaluation practice attracts more attention
at the international level as the matters such as quality assurance, effectiveness,
accountability, and local decision-making gain more importance.
Self-evaluation has a multidimensional structure. MacBeath et al. (2000, 93)
explained this multidimensional structure within the context of internal and external
evaluation, development and accountability. According to the authors, self-evaluation
is at a point where internal and external evaluation, accountability and development
dimensions combine. Self-evaluation may be defined as a bottom-up process. The
internal evidence of the school must meet the external expectations. However, self-
evaluation needs to be school-based by being supported and not imposed by the
central office to improve and develop education (MacBeath, 1999, 2).
School Self-Evaluation in Various Countries

Self-evaluation within the context of international policy is directed by three basic
reasoning: economy, accountability and school improvement. This is because the cost
of training, administration, execution and observing external evaluation is very high
in terms of economy and they do not add value to money. In terms of accountability,
schools have to report to the government and parents who invest in them and to
maintain community trust in teachers and school administrators. Reflection, dialogue
process and evidence-based evaluation are the driving forces of better schools
(MacBeath, 2006). There are differences in self-evaluation practices to answer the
questions that arise within this reasoning. The self-evaluation process that is used in
various countries and organizations is carried out with models consisting of different
stages. These models are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1.
Self-Evaluation Model Samples from Various Countries and Institutions
The name of the
Model Developers The Stages of the Model
Model
1. Identify focus
2. Gather evidence
1. Irish Department of Six Staged School 3. Analyse and make judgments
Education and Skills Self-Evaluation
(DES, 2016a) Model 4. Write and share report and improvement plan
5. Put improvement plan into action
6. Monitor actions and evaluate the impact
1. Engage the management team
European
2. Plan the assessment
Foundation for
2. European 3. Train the participants
Quality
Foundation for
Management 4. Conduct the assessment
Quality Management
Excellence Model 5. Agree with priorities
[EFQM], 2013)
Self-Assessment
6. Develop action plans
Cycle
7. Monitor progress
1. Input
3. The Standing
Effective School 2. Process
International
Self-Evaluation
Conference of 3. Outcomes
[ESSE]
Inspectors (SICI, 2003) 4. External support
1. Looking inwards (knowing ourselves inside out
through effective self-evaluation)
4. Scotland (How 2. Looking outwards (learning from what happens
good is our school) School
elsewhere challenge our own thinking)
Improvement
(Alba, 2015) 3. Looking forwards (exploring what the future
might hold for today’s learners and planning how
to get there)
1. Plan
5. Canada (Ontario) 2. Identify the focus
Self-Evaluation
(Ministry of Model based on 3. Measure the indicators
Education, 2013; School 4. Collect data
MacBeath, 2006) Effectiveness 5. Analyse data
Framework
6. Report
7. Develop an action plan
Table 1 Continue
1. Leadership
2. Personnel
3. Strategic Planning
4. Resources
6. Singapore School Excellence
5. Students focused Process
(Tee, 2003) Model (SEM)
6. Staff Results
7. Administrative and Operational Results
8. Partnership and Society Results
9. Key Performance Results
1. Consider about school
7. New Zealand Five staged Self- 2. Planning
(Nusche, Laveault, Evaluation Cycle 3. Implementing
MacBeath & Santiago, for School
Improvement 4. Monitoring
2012)
5. Informing
School Self- 1. Determining the current situation of the school
Evaluation 2. Planning
8. Hong Kong
Mechanism
(Education Bureau, 3. Implementation and Monitoring
(School
2013) Improvement 4. Evaluation
Cycle) 5. Writing school report
As can be seen in Table 1, the school self-evaluation process is carried out in

different and in minimum three and maximum nine stages in the countries that may
be considered top-level according to OECD education data: Europe, New Zealand,
Hong Kong, and Singapore. When we consider these stages, the school self-evaluation
process starts with collecting evidence from different data sources about the current
state of the school. Afterwards, these evidences are analyzed, the current state of the
school is evaluated and a school self-evaluation report is prepared. The school
improvement plan is prepared, implemented and observed based on this report. These
evaluation models generally represent a cyclical process. We may suggest that action
is being taken to improve the developmental areas in this process, while the strengths
are maintained.
The self-evaluation models in Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, Canada, Scotland
and Hong Kong are developed within the context of educational organizations. Only
Singapore directly adapted the EFQM stages to education in the perfection model (Tee,
2003). Therefore, we may assert that the model stages in these countries draw a more
concrete road map for the education practitioners. In particular the six-stage school
self-evaluation model of Ireland is a countrywide education policy; therefore, it is
conducted with the support of guides issued by DES (2016b) and consultants.
There are different self-evaluation models that are developed to improve quality
assurance and quality in education. Although some of these models (EFQM) have been
developed directly in business organizations, they have been adapted to schools as a

result of the emergence of the concepts of accountability, transparency, quality
assurance, performance evaluation in education through neoliberal policies (Tolofari,
2005).
We may suggest that self-evaluation models are developed by affecting each other
despite certain differences. Even though the names of the stages in the current models
differ, they seem to serve similar purposes (Taubman, 2015). In this respect, we may
assert that these models serve the logic of presenting the current evidence-based state
of schools and taking action for improvement.
Self-Evaluation Practices in Turkey

Practices in the world such as accountability in education, school development and
improvement, and effective schools also affect the Turkish Education System. In the
light of these developments, school self-evaluation in Turkey is practiced in the
elementary, vocational secondary and higher education levels. At the primary school
level, MoNE General Directorate of Basic Education has published the “Standards of
the Primary Education Institutions (SPEI)” with the circular numbered 2009/83 and
dated 05.11.2009 (MoNE, 2010). School self-evaluation in Turkey is a mandatory
process carried out from the central office within the context of SPEI. The school
principals have duties and responsibilities in this process, such as informing the
teachers, students and parents in this respect and having the perception scales filled
out, determining the school needs, and preparing the school development plan.
Teachers, on the other hand, are responsible for assisting students in entering data into
the SPEI system and discussing this issue at board meetings (MoNE, 2015a).
Turkey is at the beginning of the process of school self-evaluation. This is because
self-evaluation in Turkey may also be regarded as a top-down practice from the central
office to keep pace with the developments in the world through the development of
institutional standards, increasing accountability in education, delegating certain
authorities to schools such as class inspections. We may also assert that the importance
of school self-evaluation studies will gradually increase within the scope of “School
Development Model” of 2023 Education Vision (MoNE, 2018b). In this context, various
researches have been conducted on the functioning of the SPEI process and the
difficulties encountered in practice. In his research on self-evaluation based on SPEI,
Zingil (2012) stated that the expressions in the perception scales are not clear and
understandable enough and that students and parents disregard this practice.
On the other hand, the study of Sahin and Ceper (2013) conducted with school
administrators and teachers indicated the parents’ illiteracy and lack of knowledge of
how to use computers, the unclear evaluation questions and the unreliable evaluation
results as obstacles on the effectiveness of SPEI. Similarly, Tanriogen and Ergun (2018)
stated in their study conducted with teachers and administrators that stakeholders
need support in the implementation of SPEI. This is because sufficient and objective
results cannot be achieved within the scope of SPEI for the reason that parents do not
know how to use computers and students enter data under the supervision of teachers.
Moreover, SPEI results are not shared with the schools or stakeholders are not
informed in any way. Therefore, we may suggest that the questionnaires completed
within the scope of SPEI do not serve the school self-evaluation at the desired level.
All these developments indicate a transition to self-evaluation in Turkey.
Accordingly, there is a need for a school self-evaluation model that is easy to
implement in schools, has valid and reliable tools, explains the participation of
stakeholders with specific roles and tasks and provides flexibility to practitioners. In
this context, the problem of the research is how a school self-evaluation model
supporting school development should be, who should take part in this process, what
the scope is and how the data collection process should be.
The overall objective of this research is to develop “a school self-evaluation model
supporting school development” for public secondary schools. For this purpose,
answers to the following questions are sought:
1. In regards to a school self-evaluation model supporting school development
according to the views of academic members and current literature:
a. Which stakeholders should it consist of?
b. Which areas should it cover?
c. Which stages should it consist of?
d. From whom and by means of which data collection tools should data within
the content determined in this process be collected?
Method
Research Design
The overall objective of this research is to develop a “school self-evaluation” model
supporting school development and the study is conducted with a mixed research
method (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2010, 11), where both quantitative and qualitative
research methods are used together. The multi-stage mixed pattern is used in this
study, in which sequential or simultaneous stages of qualitative and quantitative
approaches are combined to meet the overall program target, in order to provide
support for the development, adaptation and evaluation of special programs (Creswell
and Plano Clark, 2015, 108). The multi-stage mixed pattern is structured in accordance
with the stages in Research and Development (R&D) methodology. In line with the
purpose of this study, four-stage R&D model cycle consisting of “(1) research and
comprehending, (2) design and development, (3) reflection and review, (4)
implementation and evaluation” stages, formulated by Borg (1987) and Gall, Gall and
Borg (2003), is used. However, since this study is limited to model development, the
implementation and evaluation stage is removed from the cycle. Accordingly, the
R&D methodology stages used in this study are summarized in Figure 1.
The overall aim of this

study is to develop a Research and
school self-evaluation Design and Reflection and
Comprehending Development Review
model that supports
school development
Document
Questionn Experts’
Analysis
aire Study View
çalışması
Questionnaire Study
Document Analysis Asking for Expert s’
According to the Views
What are the stages, experts' views, what
participants, should be the stages, Based on document
content, data participants, content review and expert
sources of the and data sources of a opinion, expert
school self- “school self- opinion on a school
evaluation models evaluation” model self-assessment
in the literature? that supports school model that supports
development? school development
was developed.
Figure 1. Stages of R&D Methodology
As can be seen in Figure 1, the multi-stage mixed model is organized within the
framework of R&D methodology. This methodology has been conceptualized by Borg
(1987) and then developed by Gall, Gall and Borg (2003). R&D methodology is an
enterprise-based development model. Research results are used in order to design new
products and principles. However, educators have later adapted this methodology in
order to develop useful guides, models or documents for teachers and other
practitioners (Saban, 2006). The four-stage R&D cycle used in the model development
phase of the research is described as follows:
Research and Comprehending. At this stage, the literature and implementation
examples related to self-evaluation and school self-evaluation (international and national
dissertations, articles, papers and official web sites, etc.) are examined and an
understanding of the school self-evaluation process supporting school development was
tried to be developed. School self-evaluation models in the literature are screened and
general characteristics, dimensions, elements, stages, scopes, stakeholders involved in
school self-evaluation process, time period of these models, information-data sources on

which the school self-evaluation process is based, their intended use, from whom the
data should be collected are analyzed. Moreover, the researcher also traveled to Ireland,
where school self-evaluation has been officially implemented and applied, and gained
experience in the self-evaluation process through observation and school visits.
Design and Development. Common characteristics of a “School Self-Evaluation
Model Supporting School Development” are determined based on the information
obtained from the self-evaluation models examined in the literature. These common
points are considered according to “stakeholders, time frequency, objective,
information-data sources providing evidence, differences/similarities according to
school type/level, stages, self-evaluation areas/content, and from whom the data
based on this content should be collected, and the model frame is formed. The opinions
of experts on this subject are obtained through two questionnaires prepared within
this frame. A draft “School Self-Evaluation Model Supporting School Development ”is
developed in line with the information obtained.
Reflection and Review. The model is presented to experts for review. Accordingly,
the model is finalized. Afterwards, data collection tools are prepared for the
implementation of the model that is developed.
Study Group
The study group of this research comprises nine academic members serving in the
universities in Turkey. “Criterion sampling”, which is one of the purposeful sampling
methods, is used in the model development process (Patton, 2014, 230-235). The
criterion in this research is the faculty members to be experts in the areas of school
development and evaluation, performance evaluation, teacher competencies and
primary school institution standards. Within the scope of these criteria, 30 academic
members, who have worked in the field of performance evaluation/conducted a
thesis, took part in the process of determining teacher competencies, worked in school
development and participated in the process of setting primary school institution
standards, are determined. Afterwards, the studies of these academic members on
related subjects are reviewed again and 17 faculty members are selected for the model
development stage of this research.
The School Self-Evaluation Model Questionnaire (S-SEMQ) I form is sent to 17 selected
academic members on 05.01.2018 by e-mail. However, only five professors, three
associate professors and one academic member with doctorate degree from these
academic members responded. One of the nine academic members stated that the
questionnaire served its purpose, rather than responding the questionnaire. The areas of
activity of the experts are school development, performance evaluation, teacher
competencies and primary school institution standards. Obtaining expert knowledge
from people who are experienced in the subject area in the relevant model development
process also lies at the logic of R&D methodology (Gall, Gall and Borg, 1983).
In the process of developing a “School Self-Evaluation Model Supporting School

Development Model”, S-SEMQ II is formed in line with the answers obtained from S-
SEMQ I. S-SEMQ II is sent to nine academic members who answered the first
questionnaire by e-mail. Six of these participants responded to S-SEMQ II.
Data Collection
In this study, qualitative and quantitative data are collected in line with the first
three stages of R&D methodology. The qualitative data is collected using the document
review method. This method is the reviewing of all kinds of technical, official and
private documents (such as records, stamps, memorials, pictures, record books and
scientific studies) (Sonmez and Alacapinar, 2017, 186). It is also used in the verification
of information and findings from other sources (Bowen, 2009, 30). Document analysis
method is used also in this study in order to identify school self-evaluation practices
in various countries. Certain criteria have been established in this context for the
studies included in the document review. These criteria are as follows:
1st Criterion: Documents to be related to self-evaluation/school self-evaluation,
2nd Criterion: Documents to be official reports, guides, brochures, dissertations or
articles published in peer-reviewed journals with full text in Turkish/English.
In order to identify the studies that meet these criteria, keywords such as “self-
evaluation, school self-evaluation, quality standards in education” are used to screen
Google Academia, EBSCO databases, official website addresses of the Ministries of
Education of the countries considered as developed in school self-evaluation and the
websites of international organizations such as OECD, UNICEF, World Bank. As a result
of this screening, quality standard areas from nine models, two of which are developed
in business organizations (EFQM) and adapted to education, and seven of which are
developed for schools (Ireland, Scotland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore,
ESSE), 15 guides, 13 reports and brochures, and 11 studies are included in the study.
While selecting the countries, we tried to take samples from different continents that are
developed in school self-evaluation and that apply self-evaluation systematically within
the framework of a certain model. In this context, we selected Ireland and Scotland in
Europe, Hong Kong and Singapore in Asia, Canada in America and New Zealand in
Australia, all of which have pioneered in school self-evaluation.
Besides, in order to collect quantitative data, S-SEMQ I and II, which are developed
by the researcher, are used in order to obtain the opinions of experts, who are experts
on school development and evaluation, performance evaluation and teacher
competencies, about the components of a school self-evaluation model supporting
school development (such as participants, stages, areas to be evaluated). The
“participants, areas, evaluation stages, evaluation content” variables of the first sample
of the model are determined based on expert opinions and information in the
literature.
Data Analysis
Nine expert opinions are obtained through S-SEMQ-I and S-SEMQ-II. Data are
collected from experts online. Descriptive statistics are used to analyze the data
obtained from questionnaires. Data obtained from questionnaires applied to the
experts are shown individually in tables and described as frequencies. In this context,
the researcher calculated the frequencies of the data from experts in MS Excel program.
The findings of the expert group are tabulated individually as U1, U2, U3... in line with
each sub-objective and discussed with the literature support.
Descriptive content analysis is conducted within the scope of literature review in
analyzing the documents related to the school self-evaluation models used in various
countries in order to realize the sub-objectives of the study. The implementation of
models in various countries is identified in line with the main parameters determined
in particular (stakeholders, stages, content, etc.).
Results
Findings about the Development of a School Self-Evaluation Model Supporting
School Development
The findings are discussed for the purposes of the research and presented in line
with the research questions. In this context, the themes are determined as a result of
document review. Themes covering the characteristics used in forming the developed
model are shown in Figure 2.
THEMES
SSE Content of SSE Stages of SSE Data Collection

Participants Model Model Process of SSE
Model
Figure 2. Themes in the Research
As can be seen in Figure 2, the findings of a school self-evaluation model supporting

school development are presented under the following themes: stakeholders
participating in the process, the content and stages of the model and the methods of
data collection. In line with the stakeholder theme involved in the school self-
evaluation process , two working groups as consultation unit and school self-
evaluation team are designed. In this context, expert opinions are obtained during the
school self-evaluation process as to which stakeholders should be in the consultation
unit and which should be in the school self-evaluation team. The opinions of experts
on this matter are shown in Table 2.
Table 2.
According to Experts’ Views Participants that should be in the Advisory Unit and School Self-
Evaluation Team
School Self-Evaluation
Stakeholders f Advisory Unit f
Team
U2, U3, U5, U6,

Principals and deputy principals U2, U4, U6, U7, U9 5 6
U7, U9
U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, U7,

Head of teachers 7 U2, U6, U7, U9 4
U9
Subject Teachers U1, U2, U3, U4, U5,U9 6 U2, U7,U9 3
Support staff U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, U6 6 -
Parents/parent-teacher association U1, U2, U4, U6, U9 5 U3, U5 2
Head/representative of the school-

U1, U2, U4, U6, U7 5 U2, U3, U5 3
teacher association
U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, U6,

Students/students representative 7 U6 1
U9
External experts (researchers or U1, U2, U4, U5,

U1, U3, U6, U7, U9 5 7
academicians on SSE) U6, U7, U9
U1, U2, U3, U4,

Supervisors (specialists on SSE) U1 1 7
U5, U6, U9
U1, U2, U3, U4,

External evaluators/inspectors U1, U2, U6 3 6
U5, U9
Representatives of non- U1, U2, U3, U4,

U1 1 6
governmental organizations U5, U6
As can be seen in Table 2, experts believe that the consultation team should consist
of school administrators, teachers, students, parents, support staff, representatives of
parent-teacher association, external experts and evaluators. On the other hand, the
experts stated that the school self-evaluation team should consist of school
administrators, teachers, counselors, external experts, external evaluators and
representatives of non-governmental organizations. At this point, one expert stated
that “it is not necessary for NGO representatives and students to be in the self-evaluation team
(U7)”. The same expert expressed that “external experts and consultants may be combined
and take part in both units as “Expert” (U7)”.
There are different stakeholders, which vary according to the structure of each
country's education system, in the school self-evaluation models of the countries taken
into consideration in this study. Therefore, the common stakeholders of various
countries based on the literature are shown in Table 3.
Table 3.
Stakeholders at SSE Process in Various Countries
Countries/Institutions
Ireland Scotland Hong Singapore ESSE Canada New Turkey

(DES, (HMIE, Kong (Tee, (SICI, Zealand (MoNE,
(Ministry
Stakeholders 2016b) 2007) 2003) 2003) (Educatio 2015b)
(Educati of
n Review
on Educatio
Office,
Bureau, n, 2013)
2016)
2013).
School X X X X X X X X
administrators
Teachers X X X X X X X X
Students X X X X X X X X
School board X X
Parents X X X X X X
Experts/ X X
Consultants
External X X X X
evaluators/
inspectors
Support staff X
District X X
managers
Representatives X X
of society
As shown in Table 3, the school self-evaluation process in various countries is

generally carried out with the participation of school administrators, teachers,
students and parents. In addition, external evaluators/inspectors also participate in
the self-evaluation process in Ireland, Singapore, the ESSE model and Canada. On the
other hand, administrators in the regional level are included in the self-evaluation
process in Turkey and Canada. In addition, experts/consultants, support staff and

community representatives participate in the self-evaluation.
In the light of the research results and the findings of the literature review, a
consultation unit within the Provincial/District Directorate of National Education
(DNE) and a school self-evaluation team within the school is designed. The
consultation unit consists of the school administrator, heads of departments, advisor
(expert in the field of school evaluation or specialist with postgraduate diploma) and
the education inspector as the external evaluator. On the other hand, the school self-
evaluation team consists of the school administrator, heads of departments, student
representative, parent representative and expert.
The content of the school self-evaluation models generally consists of quality
standards/areas identified by the Ministry of Education or the relevant department.
In Turkey, areas of administration, teaching-learning process and support services are
identified within the context of SPEI. However, in this study, the existing inspection
areas are examined in the literature in order to create a more general and
comprehensive content. The opinions of experts on these areas are obtained in order
to determine the content of the school self-evaluation model that is developed. The
opinions of experts on school self-evaluation areas are shown in Table 4.
Table 4.
Experts' Views on the Domains of the School Self-Evaluation Model
SSE Domains Experts f
Administration services U1 U2, U3, U4, U5, U6, U7, U9 8
Financial affairs U2, U3, U4, U5, U6 5
Educational Environment U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, U6, U7, U9 8
School environment U1, U2, U3, U4, U6, U7, U9 7
Education and training programs U1, U2, U3, U4, U6, U9 6
Student services U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, U6, U7, U9 8
Teacher Services U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, U6, U7, U9 8
Support Services U1, U2, U3, U4, U6, U7, U9 7
As can be seen in Table 4, experts believe that school self-evaluation should be in

the following areas: “administration services, financial affairs, educational
environments, school environment, education and training programs, student
services, teacher services and support services”. However, one expert stated that
“financial affairs should be within the scope of administration services (U1)”, while another
expert suggested that “family participation and communication may be included in these
areas (U4)”. Another expert stated that “the education and training program should not be
included in this model since it is carried out by MoNE (U7)”. However, there are also
different quality or improvement areas identified in various countries. These areas
provide information about the activities that schools should carry out. The quality
standards and areas of the countries and studies examined within the scope of this
research are shown in Table 5.
Table 5.
Educational Quality Domains According to Countries and Studies
Countries/Studies Educational Quality Domains
 Learning-teaching
Ireland (DES, 2016a)
 Leadership management
 External Support
 Vision and Strategy
ESSE (SICI, 2003)  Key inputs for evaluation and improvement
 Basic processes of evaluation and improvement
 Impact on evaluation and outcomes
 Leadership and Management
Scotland (HMIE, 2007)  Learning process
 Success and Acquisition
 Assessment of Learning
 School and Class Leadership
Canada (Ministry of  Student Participation
Education, 2013)  Curriculum, Teaching and Learning
 Planning and Programming
 Home, School and Community Cooperation
 Outputs to be achieved at the end of basic education
Singapore (Ministry of
 Outputs at the end of secondary education
Education, 2015)
 Outputs to be achieved after secondary education
 Management
 Leadership for Equality and Excellence
 Educational Power Connections and Relations
New Zealand (Education  Sensitive Education Program, Effective Teaching and
Review Office, 2016). Learning Opportunity
 Professional competence and collective capacity
 Evaluating, questioning and generating information for
improvement and innovation
 Organization and Management
Hong Kong (Education  Learning and Teaching
Bureau, 2013).  Student support and school partnerships
 Student Performance
Turkey (SPEI) (MoNE,  Education Management (SPEI)
2015b) and Performance  Learning-Teaching Processes (SPEI)
Management System  Support Services (SPEI)
(PMS) (MoNE, 2015b)  Education and training process (PMS)
 School-family-environment cooperation (PMS)
 School resources health and safety (PMS)
 Student Support (PMS)
 Management and leadership (PMS)
 Personal and professional development (PMS)
Table 5 Continue
 Effective leadership and management

Common Inspection
 Quality of teaching, learning and assessment
Framework (Ofsted,
 Personal development, behavior and welfare
2015)
 Student outcomes
Characteristics of  Shared vision and goals
Effective School  High expectations of students' academic achievement levels
(Sammons, Hillman &  Professional leadership
Mortimore, 1995)  Observation of development
 Purposeful teaching
 Focus on learning and teaching
 Learning organization
 Learning environment
 School-family-community cooperation
 Positive support and
 Student Rights and responsibilities
Maldives (Ministry of  Inclusiveness
Education, 2010)  Learner-centered teaching-learning
 Health and safety
 School, family and community cooperation
 Leadership and management
As can be seen in Table 5, 11 studies are examined in addition to expert opinions

when identifying the content of this model. In each country and study, there are
specific quality areas that form the basis of the school self-evaluation process. These
areas and the relevant standards and sub-standards vary according to the educational
objectives in the relevant country. However, it is possible to say that the content of all
these models and studies is gathered in the following areas: “school administration,
leadership, education and training affairs, school-family cooperation, community support,
school safety, healthy school, communication at school and the professional development of
teachers”. In this respect, the content of “A School Self-Evaluation Model Supporting
School Development” is designed based on the quality areas and standards in
education in the countries and studies given in Table 5. The findings and explanations
in relation to the content of the model that is developed are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6
The Content of School Self-Evaluation Model Supporting School Development
Domains and Standards Explanation
In the field of Management and
Leadership, the school management
Management and Leadership
focuses on leadership and engaging
 School management (Ofsted, 2015; Sammons,
stakeholders in the management
Hillman & Mortimore, 1995; Alba, 2015-
process. The school administrator is
Scotland; Education Bureau2016-Hong Kong;
expected to demonstrate
DES, 2016-Ireland; National Agency For
transformational, instructional,
School Evaluatıon, 2017)
distributive and sustainable leadership
 Leadership at School (Ofsted, 2015; Education
in line with the school context in order
Review Office, 2016-New Zealand; Sammons,
to act together with stakeholders
Hillman & Mortimore, 1995; Alba, 2015-
towards the goal of improving
Scotland; Education Bureau2016-Hong Kong;
education and training. It is the act of
DES, 2016-Ireland; Ministry of Education,
the school administration in
Canada)
consultation with the opinions of
 Participation in school management process (SPEI,
teachers, students and parents who are
2015; Sammons, Hillman & Mortimore, 1995;
affected by this process in decisions to
Ministry of Education, 2013-Canada)
be made with a participatory
management approach.
Education Process
 Planning regularly educational process
(Sammons, Hillman & Mortimore, 1995;
Education Review Office, 2016-New Zealand;
SPEI, 2015)
In the field of Education Process,
 Identifying and meeting students' learning needs
focusing on the roles and
(SPEI, 2015; Ministry of Education, 2013-
responsibilities of school management,
Canada)
teachers, students in order to improve
 Measurement-Evaluation-Monitoring-
the education offered at school within
Supporting of Education (Ministry of Education,
the scope of funding, educational
2013-Canada; Alba, 2015-Scotland; Sammons,
environment, educational program,
Hillman & Mortimore, 1995)
learning support and measurement,
 Making the physical conditions of the school
evaluation and monitoring.
suitable for education (MacBeath, 1999; SPEI,
2015; Sammons, Hillman & Mortimore, 1995)
 Distributing and using resources/equipment
appropriate for the education process (SPEI S,
2015; Sammons, Hillman & Mortimore, 1995)
School-Family- Community Cooperation In the field of School-Family-
 Making arrangements for school-family Community Cooperation, the school
cooperation (MacBeath, 1999; Sammons, management and teachers focus on
Hillman & Mortimore, 1995; Alba, 2015- providing and informing the
Scotland) participation of family and community
 Cooperating for taking community support (SPEI, in order to carry out the educational
2015; Education Bureau, 2016-Hong Kong; process with the cooperation of family
Ministery of Education, 2013-Canada) and society.
Table 6 Continue
Domains and Standards Explanation
School Health and Safety In the field of School Health and Safety, the
 Providing students with a safe school administration focuses on providing
educational environment at school students with a safe and healthy school
(Alba, 2015-Scotland) environment.
 Providing students with a healthy
educational environment at school
(MoNE, 2015b,PMS)
Relations and Communication at School In the field of Relations and Communication at
 Developing relations among School, the school management and teachers
stakeholders at school (Education focus on healthy relationships and effective
Review Office, 2016-New Zealand; communication with students and families, and
SPEI, 2015) welcome families.
 Developing communication among
stakeholders at school (MacBeath,
1999; National Agency For School
Evaluatıon, 2017-Lithuania)
Professional Development In the field of Professional Development, the
 Supporting teachers to develop the field school management focuses on the roles and
and professional knowledge (SPEI, responsibilities of teachers to improve their
2015; Sammons, Hillman & professional knowledge and support their
Mortimore, 1995 professional development by conducting
 Evaluating and contributing to the monitoring and evaluation studies.
professional development of teachers
(Education Review Office, 2016-
New Zealand)
Content of the model that is developed is summarized in Table 6. As can be seen,

the content of the model consists of the following areas: “administration, leadership,
education-training process, school-family-community cooperation, school health and
safety, relations and communication at school, professional development”. The
underlying reason for establishing the model's content based on world practices rather
than taking from the existing SPEI practice in Turkey (MoNE, 2015b) directly is to
develop a more comprehensive and general model content. This is because practices
in Turkey, as also expressed by Simsek (2016), are not in the form of a stable
educational policy, but are maintained until the bureaucrat who implemented the
practice leaves his/her position. Therefore, we tried to determine a content that
includes the practices in the world. The experts were asked, “which of the six areas and
standards should be included in the content of the model,” in order to clarify the content of
the model. Expert opinions about the areas and standards that should be included in
the model are summarized in Table 7.
Table 7.
Experts' Views on Six Domains Containing the Content of School Self-Evaluation
May not
Domains/Standards Absolutely Must f
be
1. Administration and Leadership
1.1. Administrating a school organization U2, U4, U5, U6, U7, U9 6
1.2. Leading school organization U2, U3, U4, U5, U6, U7, U9 7
2. Education Training Process
2.1. Planning educational process U2, U3, U4, U5, U6, U7, U9 7
2.2. Measurement-evaluation and U2, U3, U4, U5, U6, U7, U9 7
monitoring
2.3. Arranging educational environments U2, U3, U4, U5, U6, U7, U9 7
2.4. Supporting education U2, U3, U4, U6, U7 5 U5
2.5. Students’ outputs/experiences U2, U3, U4, U5, U6, U7, U9 7
3. School-Family-Community Cooperation
3.1. School-family relations U2, U3, U4, U5, U6, U7, U9 7
3.2. School-community relations U2, U3, U4, U5, U6, U7, U9 7
4. School health and safety
4.1. Providing school health U2, U3, U4, U5, U6, U7, U9 7
4.2. Providing school safety U2, U3, U4, U5, U6, U7, U9 7
5. Relations and Communication at School
5.1. Arranging relations among educational U2, U3, U4, U5, U6, U7, U9 7
stakeholders(management-teachers-students-
parents) at school
5.2. Effective communication at school U2, U3, U4, U5, U6, U7, U9 7
6. Professional Development
6.1. Supporting the professional U2, U3, U4, U5, U6, U7, U9 7
development of school staff
6.2. Monitoring and contributing to the U2, U3, U4, U5, U6, U7, U9 7
professional development of school staff
As can be seen in Table 7, the experts stated that six areas and sub-areas that are
identified should definitely be in the content of school self-evaluation. Only one expert
expressed that “it may not be related to the sub-area of supporting education within the
Education-Training Process (U5)”. However, the researcher expressed the supporting of
teaching in order to provide social-cultural-educational activities and guidance
services to the students and to provide special education when necessary. In addition,
there is no feedback from the experts regarding the content of the model. In the light
of these findings, the following six areas included in the school self-evaluation process
are identified: “Administration and Leadership, Education-Training Process, School-
Family-Community Cooperation, School Health and Safety, Relations and
Communication at School, Professional Development”. The data collection tools
necessary for the implementation of the study are also prepared in line with this
content.
School self-evaluation models consist of specific stages. In this study, the stages of
school self-evaluation and EFQM self-evaluation model of Ireland, Scotland, ESSE,
Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong and New Zealand are observed. Possible stages are
determined for the model in this research based on the stages in the models mentioned
above and expert opinions are obtained. The opinions of experts in relation to the
stages of the model are shown in Table 8.
Table 8.
Experts' Views on School Self-Evaluation Stages
Stages Experts’ Views f
1. Preparation U2, U4, U3, U5, U6, U7, U9 7
2. Planning U1, U2, U4, U3, U5, U6, U7, U9 8
3. Implementation U1, U2, U4, U3, U5, U6, U7, U9 8
4. Evaluation U1, U2, U4, U3, U5, U6, U7, U9 8
5. Taking action U2, U4, U3, U5, U6, U7, U9 7
6. Monitoring and Reviewing U2, U4, U3, U5, U6, U7, U9 7
As can be seen in Table 8, the experts expressed that the school self-evaluation
model should consist of the following six stages: “preparation, planning,
implementation, evaluation, taking action, monitoring and reviewing”. Only one
expert suggested that “the preparation and planning stage should be combined and the action
taking stage should be brought forward (U1)”.
A school self-evaluation model supporting school development in this study as a
result of the research findings and literature review is structured in the following six
stages: “preparation, planning, implementation, evaluation, taking action, monitoring
and reviewing”. The first four stages of this model aim at school self-evaluation, and
the last two stages at school development. In this context, the preparation, planning,
implementation and evaluation stages and the current state of the school are
demonstrated. Afterwards, improvement plan is prepared based on these results and
evidence and action is taken. In the development phase of the model, external
evaluators (education inspectors) are included in order to overcome organizational
blindness. Finally, the sub-stages are shown in Figure 3 in order to provide a more
detailed understanding of the model that is developed.
The sub-stages of “A School Self-Evaluation Model Supporting School
Development” that is developed in the light of literature review and expert opinions
within the scope of this study are shown in Figure 3. In addition, the process for how
the model that is developed will be carried out in six stages in a school term (10
months) is shown in Figure 4.
1. Preparation
a. Giving general b. Creating a school c. Determining duties

information about self-evaluation team and responsibilities of
school self- the school self-
evaluation evaluation team
2. Planning
a. Determining time b. Determining time c. Determining time d. Determining time

interval, responsible interval, responsible interval, responsible interval, responsible
persons and persons and persons and persons and
meeting date for meeting date for meeting date for meeting date for
implementation evaluation taking action monitoring and
reviewing
3. Implementation
a. School self-evaluation b. Collecting and c. Collecting and

team completes the analyzing analyzing
general information quantitative data qualitative data
form of the school from stakeholders from stakeholders
4. Evaluation
a. School self-evaluation b. Writing school c Inviting the

team to make judgments self-evaluation Advisory Unit to
about the school report and sharing it school visit
with stakeholders
5. Taking Action
a. Advisory d.Implementat
unit visits b. Advisory c. Preparing ion of
the school unit gives improvemen improvement
feedback t plan plan
6. Monitoring and
Reviewing Aşaması
a. Monitoring of b. Reviewing the impact of actions
improvement plan by carried out under the
advisory unit and responsible improvement plan
person (s)
Figure 3. Sub-Stages of a School Self-Evaluation Model Supporting School Development
Preparation First Taking Monitoring Last
Implemen Evaluation Implemen
&Planning Action &Reviewing
tation tation
September October November December January February March April May June
First report Second report Monthly report Monthly report Monthly report Last report
 School self-  Scales are  School self-  Improvement  The level of achievement of the targets  In order to
evaluation administered to evaluation team plan based on determined within the scope of the evaluate
team is created stakeholders fills the the results of improvement plan is monitored through the impact
 Duties and  Data is analysed evaluation form the school self- monthly reports and of the
responsibilitie  Interviewing with  School self- evaluation  It is evaluated according to the evidence improvem
s are stakeholders evaluation report is presented and ent scales/
distributed  Data is analysed report is written prepared  Intervention programs are applied interviews
 Planning is  Key findings are  School self-  The are
done reported evaluation improvement administer
report is plan is ed and
submitted to implemented then the
school results are
management reported
 External
evaluators are
invited to the
school
Figure 4. Progress of School Self-Evaluation Model

As can be seen in Figure 4, “A School Self-Evaluation Model Supporting School
Development” is conducted once a year based on the findings. However, how the
practitioners plan this one-year process is shown on a monthly basis for the period
when the schools are open (September-June). At the beginning of this process, the
school self-evaluation team is established in September within the scope of the
preparation and planning stage, and planning is made by distributing the duties and
responsibilities. Data is collected and analyzed according to this planning in October
and November within the scope of the implementation phase and the results are
written as the first report. In December, the school self-evaluation team completes the
evaluation form based on the results and the evidence/documents presented at the
school as a requirement of the evaluation phase of the model and makes a judgment
about the school. Afterwards, a school self-evaluation report is prepared based on the
existing results and evidence. External evaluators are invited to the school. The school
self-evaluation part of the model is completed up to this stage.
The school development part of the model starts in January and February. The
improvement plan is prepared and implemented in this part based on the results of
the school self-evaluation report. In March, April and May, monthly reports on what
has been done at school to achieve the improvement targets are prepared and the
responsible persons determined observe the improvement process. In June,
scales/interviews are reapplied and reported to evaluate the effect of improvement
studies.
School self-evaluation is a process based on evidence that requires collaboration
with the stakeholders. Data is collected in this process in six areas from school
administrators, teachers, students and parents as the main stakeholders. However, it
is not possible for all the identified stakeholders to have knowledge in these six areas.
In this respect, expert opinions are sought to find out which data from which
stakeholders should be collected. The frequency distribution of expert opinions on this
matter is shown in Table 9.
Table 9.
Frequency Distribution of Experts’ Views on Data Collection Process in SSE
To whom data is
Data Collection Methods
collected
Practices in various areas
School administrators
Documents (meeting)
Questionnaire/Scale
General Information
Domains
Observation
Product File
Test Results
Legislation
Interview
Teachers
Students
Parents
f f f f f f f f f f f f f
1. Management and
21 4 23 35 30 2 19 32 36 33 27
Leadership
2. Educational Process 1 30 7 44 69 52 6 16 24 52 70 65 40
3. School-Family-
Community 11 3 12 20 16 1 6 19 20 7 20
Cooperation
4. School Health and
4 7 4 6 15 11 1 3 15 15 11 11
Safety
5. Relations and
Communication at 9 2 11 20 16 4 8 20 20 19 17
school
6. Professional
11 8 20 16 6 20 20 3 2
Development
As can be seen in Table 9, “A School Self-Evaluation Model Supporting School

Development” focuses on the following six areas: “Administration and Leadership,
Education-Teaching Process, School-Family-Community Cooperation, School Health
and Safety, Relations and Communication at School, Professional Development”. In this
context, expert opinions are sought to find out through which methods and from whom
the data related to each field should be collected. The highest number of expert opinions
is determined to be the collection of data from school administrators, teachers, students
and parents through questionnaire/scale and interview form.
Besides, data should be collected from school administrators, teachers and parents in
the field of “School-Family-Community Cooperation”. This is because experts in this
field think that students should only be involved in the fields that concern them. For this
reason, students are accepted to be indirectly involved in school-family-community
cooperation. In addition, implementation examples, minutes of meetings, records, legal
documents and product files are requested as evidence during the evaluation phase.
Discussion Conclusion and Recommendations

Self-evaluation is a cooperative process. In this context, school self-evaluation is
carried out with stakeholders. In the light of expert opinions and document review, we
may suggest that school self-evaluation is generally conducted with the participation of
teachers, students and parents under the leadership of school administrators. However,
in Portugal (Figueiredo, Ramalho and Rocha, 2017), Belgium (Faddar and Vanhoof, 2017)
and Ireland (Brown, McNamara, O'Hara, O'Brien and Skerritt, 2017), studies evaluating
student and parent participation in the school self-evaluation process reveal that this
participation remains unilateral, passive, and in the form of gathering information or
obtaining opinions (Kurum, Cinkir, Brown, Faddar and Figueiredo, 2018). Therefore, a
consultation unit within the Provincial/District DNE and a school self-evaluation team
within the school are designed in this study and the role of each participant in the team
is defined.
Some countries also have different participants. The self-evaluation process in
Ireland is conducted with the participation of school administrators, teachers, parents
and students under the leadership of school board (DES, 2016b). In addition, schools in
Ireland get consultation about carrying out the model from academic members who are
experts in self-evaluation or from experts in units such as PDST, when needed. In
Scotland, on the other hand, this process is carried out with school administration,
teachers, support staff, students, parents, community leaders (HMIE, 2007).
In Canada, self-evaluation is carried out by students, teachers, school administrators,
parent-teacher associations, parents, local community, school board, district
administrators and ministries (Ministry of Education, 2013) within the scope of school
improvement. In Hong Kong, the stakeholders of the school self-evaluation process are
not identified directly. However, it is stated that the process is carried out by school
administrators and teachers to provide more qualified education to the students
(Education Bureau, 2013). In New Zealand, the school board as well as the school
principal and educational staff are responsible for the school self-evaluation process
(Nusche, Laveault, MacBeath and Santiago, 2012).
In Singapore, school administrators have great responsibility in carrying out the self-
evaluation process in the context of school excellence. In addition, external evaluators
are responsible for verifying these results (Tee, 2003). In the ESSE model, the role of
external evaluation in ensuring the effectiveness of self-evaluation is explained.
Therefore, school administrators, teachers, students, parents, staff and external
evaluators are identified as stakeholders (SICI, 2003) Data in the self-evaluation process
that is tried to be implemented in Turkey in the context of ICS is gathered from school
administrators, teachers, students and parents. Besides, Provincial/District DNE have
specific responsibilities in carrying out the process (MoNE, 2015b).
In line with the second objective of the study, the content of school self-evaluation
process consists of the following six areas: “Administration and Leadership, Education-
Training Process, School-Family-Community Cooperation, School Health and Safety,
Relations and Communication at School, Professional Development”. On the other hand,
it is observed in the self-evaluation models examined that the process is carried out in
cycles and that there are no sharp stages. The six-stage model of Ireland (DES, 2016a)
begins with the identification of the focal point. After the focal point is identified
according to the quality areas of education, evidence is collected; then, the process
continues with the stages of analysis-making judgment, preparation of report-writing of
improvement plan, taking action, monitoring and reviewing. In ESSE (SICI, 2003), the
self-evaluation process, which starts with input, is carried out with the cycle of process,
output and external support.
In Scotland (Alba, 2015), the process structured within the framework of school
improvement also begins with self-evaluation. However, information about
developments in the environment are obtained by looking outwards and planning is
made in order to reach the target determined by looking at the future. Similarly, in
Canada (Ministry of Education, 2013), the framework of school effectiveness is
structured as the school self-evaluation and district process. The school self-evaluation
process starts with the students’ achievement of the learning and success goals. The
process continues with the stages of evidence collection and taking action for
improvement.
In Singapore (Tee, 2003), where the model of business excellence is adapted to
education, the model is structured in the following variety of areas: leadership, personnel
management, strategic planning, resources, student-oriented processes, staff results,
managerial and functional outcomes, partnership and community outcomes. In New
Zealand (Nusche, Laveault, MacBeath and Santiago, 2012), the five-stage self-evaluation
model for school improvement is carried out in the cycle of thinking, planning,
implementing, observing, informing about the current state of the school. Finally, in
Hong Kong (Education Bureau, 2013), the process described as the school improvement
cycle begins with demonstrating the current state of the school. The process continues
with the planning, implementing, monitoring, evaluation, and reporting stages. The
school self-evaluation model in this research is structured in the following six stages:
“preparation, planning, implementation, evaluation, taking action, monitoring and
reviewing”.
In the self-evaluation models examined within the scope of this research, it is seen
that data or evidence is collected mostly from school administrators, teachers, students
and parents through observation, reflection, interview, questionnaire, peer observation,
exam result analysis or other legal documents that provide evidence. The Ireland model
uses observation, teacher reflection report, learning toolkit, checklists, interview, peer
observation, documentation and questionnaires as evidence collection tools. Data are
also collected from school administration, teachers, students and parents (DES, 2016a).
EFQM (2013) excellence model used for enterprises uses simple self-evaluation
questionnaires, EFQM checklists, EFQM business excellence model matrix and
simulations. On the other hand, evidence is collected in Singapore, which adapted the
EFQM excellence model to education, in the form of ongoing activities in the school self-
evaluation process, analysis of the results obtained, and community, stakeholder and
personnel satisfaction that contribute to school excellence and success (Tee, 2003).
ESSE (SICI, 2003) determines the effectiveness of the school self-evaluation process
based on available evidence. However, there is no direct information on which data
collection method is taken to obtain evidence from school administration, teachers,
students, parents and the society. In Scotland, qualitative, quantitative and observational
data are obtained from school staff, students, partners and other stakeholders in the self-
evaluation conducted within the scope of school improvement (HMIE, 2007).
In Canada, self-evaluation based on evidence obtained within the framework of
quality standards in education to improve school effectiveness is carried out with the
participation of the whole school and all school personnel (Ministry of Education, 2013).
In New Zealand, the school self-evaluation process is carried out by presenting data on
student achievement and school performance with the participation of all stakeholders
in the school (Nusche, Laveault, MacBeath and Santiago, 2012). In Hong Kong, evidence
is collected in the school self-evaluation cycle from school administrators, teachers,
students and parents through interviews, surveys and screening, observations, analysis
of student studies, document review (Education Bureau, 2013).
In order to implement the model developed in accordance with the fourth objective
of the study, scales are developed and questionnaire and interview forms are prepared
for school administrators, teachers, students and parents. In addition, “General School
Information Form” is prepared in order to obtain general information about the school
within the scope of these six areas.
In conclusion, the school self-evaluation is an extensive process. For the effective
implementation of the developed model, schools need consultation. Therefore, MoNE
should assign a certain number of schools to experts who have postgraduate diploma on
topics such as education administration, inspection/evaluation, and school self-
evaluation, and this process should be carried out with the help of expert support. On
the other hand, data collection and analysis and reporting stages are challenging for
practitioners. Therefore, basic statistics, research and report writing training should be
provided to the individuals in the school self-evaluation team. In addition, a handbook
about these analyzes should be prepared for schools and expert support should be
provided, when necessary.
The content of this model is determined as six areas. However, according to the needs
of the school, the stakeholder scales in these areas may be used independently or
different areas (such as accommodation-food/nutrition for vocational high schools)
according to school district, type and level may be added. Valid and reliable data
collection tools should be developed within this context and school self-evaluation
should be conducted.
The researchers may seek the opinions of school inspectors, school administrators
and academic members regarding the applicability and adoptability of this model in
Turkey. School administrators or researchers in secondary schools within the context of
MoNE 2023 Vision Certificate school development target may apply the model that is
developed. In addition, researchers may adapt this school self-evaluation model to
different teaching levels and school types.
References
Alba, F. (2015). How good is our school?. Report on Education scotland. Livingston.
Retrieved from
https://education.gov.scot/improvement/Documents/Frameworks_SelfEval
uation/FRWK2_NIHeditHGIOS/FRWK2_HGIOS4.pdf
Aydın, İ. ve Toptaş, B. (2017). Cumhuriyet Döneminde Eğitim Denetimine İlişkin
Paradigmalar ve Uygulanan Politikalar [Paradigms and Policies Related to
Educational Supervision in the Republican Era]. F. Bıkmaz (Edt.).
Cumhuriyetimizin Kültür ve Eğitim Politikaları içinde (ss.145-172). Ankara: Ankara
Üniversitesi Basımevi.
Borg, W. R. (1987). The educational R&D process: some insights. Journal of Experimental
Education, 55(4), 181-188. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20151696.
Bowen, G. A. (2009) Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative
research journal, 9 (2), 27- 40. Retrieved from
http://ngsuniversity.com/pluginfile.php/134/mod_resource/content/1/Do
cumentAnalysis.pdf.
Brown, M., McNamara, G., O'Hara, J., O'Brien, S., & Skerritt, C. (2017). Country
background report Ireland on distributed evaluation and planning in schools. Dublin
City University. Dublin, Republic of Ireland. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325145164_Distributed_Evaluati
on_and_Planning_in_Irish_Schools/comments.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2015). Karma Yöntem Araştırmaları: Tasarımı ve
Yürütülmesi. (2. Baskı). (Y. Dede ve S. B. Demir, Çev. Edt.). Ankara: Anı
Yayıncılık.
Department for Education and Skills. (2016a). School self-evaluation guidelines 2016-2020:
Post-primary. Dublin: Department of Education and Skills. Retrieved from
https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Inspection-Reports-
Publications/Evaluation-Reports-Guidelines/School-Self-Evaluation-
Guidelines-2016-2020-Post-Primary.pdf
Department for Education and Skills. (2016b). Looking at our schools: A quality framework
for post-primary schools. Dublin: The Inspectorate Department of Education and
Skills. Retrieved from
https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Inspection-Reports-
Publications/Evaluation-Reports-Guidelines/Looking-at-Our-School-2016-A-
Quality-Framework-for-Post-Primary-schools.pdf.
Education Bureau. (2013). School self-evaluation manual. Hong Kong Quality Assurance &
School Based Support Division Education Bureau Publication.
Education Bureau. (2016). Performance indicators for Hong Kong schools. Hong Kong
Education Bureau Publication.
Education Review Office. (2016). School evaluation indicators. New Zealand: Crown
Publication.
Excellence Framework for Quality Management. (2013). Assessing for excellence: A
practical guide. European Commission Publication.
Faddar, J., & Vanhoof, J. (2017). Country background report Belgium (Flemish community) on
distributed evaluation and planning in schools. University of Antwerp, Antwerp,
Belgium. Retrieved from https://www.deaps.net/deapsbl.
Figueiredo, M., Ramalho, H., & Rocha, J. (2017). Country background report on distributed
evaluation and planning in Portuguese schools. Instituto Politecnico De Viseu.
Viseu, Portugal. Retrieved from https://www.deaps.net/deapsbl.
Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P., & Borg, W.R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
HMIE. (2007). How good is our school? The journey to excellence. Scotland: HMIE
publication.
Kurum, G., Çınkır, Ş., Brown, M., Faddar J. ve Figueiredo, M. (2018, 06-08 Aralık).
Okullarda dağıtımcı değerlendirme ve planlama kapsamında veli/öğrenci katılımı: dört
avrupa ülkesi çapında karşılaştırmalı bir çalışma [Parent / student participation in the
distributed evaluation and planning at school: A comparative study across four
European countries]. X. Uluslararası Eğitim Denetimi Kongresi Tam Metin Bildiri
Kitabı. Antalya.
Ladden, B. (2015). School evaluation: an exploration of the impact of evaluation processes on the
staff ın an Irish post-primary school. (The unpublished dissertation). Dublin City
University, Ireland.
MacBeath, J. (1999). Schools must speak for themselves: The case for school-self evaluation.
London: Routledge.
MacBeath, J., Schratz, M., Jakobsen, L. & Meuret, D. (2000). Self evaluation in European
schools. NewYork: Routledge.
MacBeath, J. (2006).School inspection and self-evaluation: Working with the new relationship.
London: Routledge.
MoNE. (2010). İlköğretim Kurumları Standartları Eğitim Dokümanı. Ankara: MEB
İlköğretim Genel Müdürlüğü.
MoNE. (2015a). İlköğretim Kurum Standartları Kılavuzu [Guideline for Standards of the
Primary Education Institutions]. Ankara: MEB Yayını.
MoNE. (2015b). Performans Yönetim Sistemi Kılavuz Taslağ [Guideline Draft for Perfomance
Management System]ı. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları
MoNE. (2018a). Millî Eğitim İstatistikleri Örgün Eğitim 2017-2018 [National Education
Statistics]. MEB Resmi İstatistik Yayını. 20 September 2018 retrieved from
http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_09/06123056_meb_istatistikl
eri_orgun_egitim_2017_2018.pdf.
MoNE. (2018b). 2023 Eğitim Vizyonu[2023 Educational Vision]. Ankara: MEB Yayını
Ministry of Education. (2010). Quality indicators. Maldives: UNICEF Publication.
Ministery of Education. (2013). School effectiveness framework. Toronto: Ministery of
Education Publication. Retrieved from
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/framework.html
Nusche, D., Laveault, D., MacBeath, J. & Santiago, P. (2012). OECD Reviews of evaluation
and assessment in education: New Zealand 2011. OECD Publishing.
Ofsted. (2015). School inspection handbook. Retrieved from

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_d
ata/file/391531/School_inspection_handbook.pdf.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). School evaluation,
teacher appraisal and feedback and the ımpact on schools and teachers. In Creating
Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS (137-
189). Paris: OECD Publishing.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). Synergies for better
learning: an international perspective on evaluation and assessment. OECD Reviews
of Evaluation and Assessment in Education. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel Araştırma Ve Değerlendirme Yöntemleri. (M. Bütün ve S. B.
Demir, Çev. Edt.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Resmi Gazete. 9 Aralık 2016. Sayı 6764 sayılı Millî Eğitim Bakanlığının Teşkilat Ve
Görevleri Hakkında Kanun Hükmünde Kararname İle Bazı Kanun Ve Kanun
Hükmünde Kararnamelerde Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun. 20 April 2017
retrieved from http://resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2016/12/20161209-5.htm.
Resmi Gazete. 20 Ağustos 2017. Sayı 30160 sayılı Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Teftiş Kurulu
Yönetmeliği. 20 November 2018 retrieved from
http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2017/08/20170820-1.htm.
Saban, A. (2006). Okul Teknoloji Planlaması: İlköğretim Okulları İçin Uygulamalı Bir Model
Önerisi Ve Öğretmen Yetiştirme Sistemi Açısından Sonuçları [School Technology
Planning: A Proposed Model for Primary Schools and Results in terms of
Teacher Training System]. (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Selçuk Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Konya, Türkiye.
Sammons, P., Hillman, J. & Mortimore, P. (1995). Key characteristics of effective chools: A
review of school effectiveness research. London: Ofsted.
SICI. (2003). Effective school self-evaluation. Effective School Self Evaluation Project Report.
European Commission: Directorate-General for Education and Culture
Publication.
Simons, H. (2013). Enhancing the quality of education through school self-evaluation. In
A developmental and negotiated approach to school self-evaluation .(ss. 1-18). (Edt. M.
Lai ve S. Kushner). United Kingdom: Emerald.
Sönmez, V. ve Alacapınar, F. G. (2017). Örneklendirilmiş bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri
[Sampled scientific research methods] (5. Baskı). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Şahin, S. ve Çeper B. A. (2013). İlköğretim Kurumları Standartları (İKS) Etkililiği
Üzerine[Primary Education Institutions Standards Effectiveness]. Elektronik
Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(46), 84-111. 17 October 2018 retrieved from
http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/esosder/article/view/5000068611
Şimşek, M. (2016). Afyonkarahisar İli İlköğretim Okullarının 1930-1940 Ve 2000-2010
Yıllarına Ait Teftiş Raporlarına Göre Eğitim Öğretim Sorunları [According to 1930-
1940&200-2010 Afyonkarahisar Primary Schools’ inspection reports educational
problems] . (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim
Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, Türkiye.
Taubman, D. (2015). An overview of school evaluation (self and central) and school development
plans in the EU countries. Education and Training 2020 Working Group Paper
for School Policy
Tanrıöğen, Z. ve Ergun, F. (2018). İlköğretim Kurum Standartlarına İlişkin Yönetici Ve
Öğretmen Görüşleri: Denizli Serinhisar İlçe Örneği[Principals’ and Teachers’ views on
Primary Education Institutions Standards: Denizli Sample]. X. Uluslararası Eğitim
Denetimi Kongresi. 6-8 Aralık Antalya, Türkiye.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2010). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods
research. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.). Handbook of mixed methods in
social & behavioral research (pp 1-41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tee, N. P. (2003). The Singapore school and the school excellence model. Educational
Research for Policy and Practice, 2, 27–39. doi: 10.1023/A:102446530.
Tolofari, S. (2005). New public management and education. Policy Futures in Education,
3, (1), 75-89. doi: 10.2304/pfie.2005.3.1.11.
Zıngıl, G. (2012). İlköğretim Kurumları Standartlarına Dayalı Öz-Değerlendirme Faaliyetinin
Tasarımına İlişkin Okul Yöneticilerinin Görüşleri[Opinions of School Administrators
on the Design of Self-Evaluation Activity Based on the Standards of Primary Education
Institutions]. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Eskişehir Osman Gazi
Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir, Türkiye.
Eğitimde Değerlendirmeye Özgün Bir Bakış: Okul Gelişimini Destekleyen

Bir Okul Öz-Değerlendirme Modeli
Atıf:
Kurum, G. & Cinkir, S. (2019). An authentic look at evaluation in education: A school
self-evaluation model supporting school development. Eurasian Journal of
Educational Research, 83, 253-286, DOI: 10.14689/ejer.2019.83.12
Özet
Problem Durumu: Eğitimin niteliği, amaçlara ulaşma düzeyi ile belirlenmektedir. Bu
amaçlara ulaşmak için eğitime ciddi kaynaklar ayrılmaktadır. Kaynakların etkili şekilde
kullanılıp kullanılmadığı eğitim çıktılarının nitelik düzeyiyle belirlenebilir. Bu durumun
ise okullarda sunulan eğitim-öğretim etkinliklerinin denetlenip değerlendirilmesi ile
mümkün olduğu söylenebilir. Ancak eğitimde dış değerlendirmenin yetersiz kalması
farklı denetim ve değerlendirme modellerinin geliştirilmesini sağlamıştır. Bu bağlamda
okul öz-değerlendirme de bu arayışın bir ürünü olarak okulların paydaşlarıyla birlikte
kendilerini tanımasını ve bilmesini sağlayıp dış değerlendirmeyi tamamlayan bir iç
değerlendirme uygulaması olarak ele alınabilir.
Öz-değerlendirme kapsamlı bir süreçtir. Bu süreçte MacBeath (2006, 62-65-111) öz-
değerlendirme için amaç, hitap edilen kitle, çerçeve, ölçüt, süreç, araçlar ve ürün olmak
üzere yedi faktör belirlemiştir. Öz-değerlendirme, okulların kendi hikâyelerini yazma
süreci olduğu için okullar sadece ulusal ya da uluslararası test sonuçları gibi kolaylıkla
erişilebilen standartları ölçüt olarak almak yerine okul paydaşları tarafından anlamlı
bulunan ve değer verilen ölçütler geliştirip, onları temel alabilir.
Dünyada eğitimde hesapverebilirlik, okul geliştirme ve iyileştirme, etkili okul gibi
uygulamalar Türk Eğitim Sistemini de etkilemektedir. Bu gelişmeler ışığında Türkiye’de
öz-değerlendirme ilköğretim, mesleki ortaöğretim ve yükseköğretim düzeyinde
uygulanmaya başlanmıştır. İlköğretim düzeyinde MEB Temel Eğitim Genel Müdürlüğü,
05.11.2009 tarihli 2009/83 sayılı genelge ile “İlköğretim Kurumları Standartlarını (İKS)”
yayınlamıştır (MEB, 2010). Türkiye’de okul öz-değerlendirme İKS bağlamında
merkezden yürütülen zorunlu bir süreçtir.
Türkiye’de öz-değerlendirmeye bir geçiş olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu doğrultuda
okullarda kullanımı kolay, geçerli ve güvenilir araçlara sahip, paydaş katılımının
belirgin rol ve görevlerle açıklandığı ve uygulamacılara esneklik tanıyan bir okul öz-
değerlendirme modeline ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Bu bağlamda araştırmanın problemini,
okul gelişimini destekleyen bir okul öz-değerlendirme modelinin nasıl olması, bu
süreçte kimlerin yer alması, kapsamının neler olması ve veri toplama sürecinin nasıl
olması gerektiği oluşturmaktadır.
Amaç: Bu araştırmanın genel amacı kamu ortaokulları için okul gelişimini
destekleyen bir okul öz-değerlendirme modeli geliştirmektir. Çalışmada öğretim
üyelerinin görüşlerine ve mevcut alan yazına göre okul gelişimini destekleyen bir okul
öz-değerlendirme modelinin paydaşları, alanları, aşamaları ve veri toplama süreci
belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır.
Yöntem: Bu araştırma hem nicel hem de nitel araştırma yöntemlerinin birlikte
kullanıldığı karma araştırma yöntemi (Teddlie ve Tashakkori, 2010, 11) ile
gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ayrıca bu araştırmada özel programların geliştirilmesi, uyumlu hale
getirilmesi ve değerlendirilmesine destek sağlamak amacıyla (Creswell ve Plano Clark,
2015, 108) nitel ve nicel yaklaşımların sıralı ya da eş zamanlı aşamalarının genel program
hedefini karşılayacak şekilde birleştirildiği çok aşamalı karma desen kullanılmıştır. Çok
aşamalı karma desen Araştırma ve Geliştirme (AR-GE) yöntembilimindeki aşamalar
doğrultusunda yapılandırılmıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı doğrultusunda Borg (1987) ve
Gall, Gall ve Borg (2003) tarafından formülleştirilen “(1)araştırma ve kavrama,
(2)tasarlama ve geliştirme, (3)yansıma ve gözden geçirme, (4)uygulama ve
değerlendirme aşamalarından oluşan dört basamaklı AR-GE modeli döngüsü
kullanılmıştır. Ancak bu çalışma model geliştirme ile sınırlı tutulduğu için uygulama ve
değerlendirme aşaması döngüden çıkarılmıştır.
Bu araştırmanın çalışma grubu için Türkiye’de bulunan üniversitelerde görev yapan
performans değerlendirme alanında çalışma yapmış/tez yürütmüş, öğretmen
yeterlikleri belirlenmesi sürecinde yer almış, okul geliştirme üzerine çalışma yapmış ve
ilköğretim kurum standartları belirleme sürecinde yer almış 30 öğretim üyesi
belirlenmiştir. Sonrasında bu öğretim üyelerinin ilgili konularda yaptığı çalışmalar
tekrar gözden geçirilerek bu araştırmanın model geliştirme aşaması için 17 öğretim üyesi
seçilmiştir. Sonuç olarak bu çalışma katılmayı kabul eden dokuz öğretim üyesi ile
yürütülmüştür. Veriler dokuman analizi ve Okul Öz-Değerlendirme Modeli Anketi
aracılığıyla toplanmış, betimsel olarak analiz edilmiştir.
Bulgular: Araştırmanın genel amacı doğrultusunda yıllık olarak uygulanması

planlanan okul gelişimini destekleyen bir öz-değerlendirme modeli geliştirilmiştir. Bu
model hazırlık, planlama, uygulama, değerlendirme, eyleme geçme, izleme ve
değerlendirme olmak üzere altı aşamadan oluşmaktadır. İlk dört aşama öz-
değerlendirme, son iki aşama geliştirme amacıyla kullanılmaktadır. Bu modelin içeriği
“yönetim ve liderlik, eğitim-öğretim süreci, okul-aile-toplum işbirliği, okul sağlığı ve
güvenliği, okulda ilişkiler ve iletişim, mesleki gelişim” olmak üzere altı alandan
oluşmaktadır. Model okul öz-değerlendirme ekibi tarafından uygulanmaktadır. Ayrıca
bu sürece kılavuzluk etmesi amacıyla danışma birimi de oluşturulmuştur. Danışma
birimi okul yöneticisi, zümre başkanları, danışman (okul değerlendirme alanında
uzman öğretim üyesi ya da lisansüstü eğitim almış uzman) ve dış değerlendirici olarak
maarif müfettişinden oluşmaktadır. Diğer taraftan okul öz-değerlendirme ekibi; okul
yöneticisi, zümre başkanları, öğrenci temsilcisi, veli temsilcisi ve uzmandan
oluşmaktadır. Uzmanların görüşlerine göre nitel ve nicel veriler okul yöneticisi,
öğretmen, öğrenci ve veliden anket/ölçek ve görüşme formu aracılığıyla toplanmalıdır.
Diğer taraftan “Okul-Aile-Toplum İşbirliği” alanında okul yöneticisi, öğretmen ve
veliden veri toplanmalıdır. Çünkü bu alanda uzmanlar öğrencilerin sadece kendilerini
ilgilendiren alanlarda sürece dâhil olmaları gerektiğini düşünmektedir. Bu sebeple
öğrencilerin okul-aile-toplum işbirliğine dolaylı olarak dâhil edildiği kabul edilmektedir.
Bu kapsamda geçerli ve güvenilir paydaş ölçekleri, görüşme/anket ve okul genel bilgiler
formu hazırlanmıştır. Ayrıca değerlendirme aşamasında kanıt olarak uygulama
örnekleri, toplantı tutanakları, kayıtlar, yasal belgeler ve ürün dosyaları istenmiştir.
Sonuç ve Öneriler: Bu çalışmada ortaokullar için altı aşamalı bir okul öz-
değerlendirme modeli geliştirilmiştir. Okul öz-değerlendirme işbirlikli bir süreçtir.
Ancak okul öz-değerlendirmenin genel olarak okul yöneticileri liderliğinde daha çok
öğretmen, öğrenci ve veli katılımıyla gerçekleştiğini söylemek mümkündür. Bu sebeple
bu araştırmada İl/İlçe MEM bünyesinde danışma birimi, okul bünyesinde okul öz-
değerlendirme ekibi tasarlanmıştır ve her katılımcının ekip içindeki rolü tanımlanmıştır.
Okul öz-değerlendirme modelinin içeriği “Yönetim ve Liderlik, Eğitim-Öğretim Süreci,
Okul-Aile-Toplum İşbirliği, Okul Sağlığı ve Güvenliği, Okulda İlişkiler ve İletişim,
Mesleki Gelişim” olmak üzere altı alandan oluşmaktadır. Ancak okulun ihtiyaçlarına
göre bu alanlardaki paydaş ölçekleri bağımsız şekilde kullanılabilir ya da okul bölgesi,
türü ve kademesine göre farklı alanlar (meslek liseleri için konaklama-gıda/beslenme
gibi) eklenebilir.
Diğer taraftan bu modelin uygulaması sürecinde okul yöneticileri ve öğretmenler
temel istatistik, araştırma ve rapor yazma konusunda eğitime ihtiyaç duymaktadır. Bu
doğrultuda eğitim yönetimi, denetimi/değerlendirmesi gibi alanlarda lisansüstü eğitim
almış uzmanlardan destek sağlanmalıdır. Ayrıca geliştirilen modelin uygulanabilirliği
ve benimsenebilirliğine ilişkin alan uzmanı öğretim üyelerinin, maarif müfettişlerinin,
okul yöneticilerinin ve öğretmenlerin görüşleri alınarak çeşitli araştırmalar
yürütülmelidir.
Anahtar Sözcükler: Okul öz-değerlendirme, okul geliştirme, okul iyileştirme, model
geliştirme, araştırma-geliştirme yöntembilimi.

2019 Kurum&Cinkir An Authentic Look at Evaluation in Education PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019 Kurum&Cinkir An Authentic Look at Evaluation in Education PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019 Kurum&Cinkir An Authentic Look at Evaluation in Education PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 83 (2019) 253-286

Eurasian Journal of Educational Research

An Authentic Look at Evaluation in Education: A School Self-

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article History: Purpose: Inspection and evaluation in education

© 2019 Ani Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved

Educational Administration Division, Edirne-Turkey. e-mail: [email protected], [email protected],

School Self-Evaluation in Various Countries

As can be seen in Table 1, the school self-evaluation process is carried out in

developed directly in business organizations, they have been adapted to schools as a

Self-Evaluation Practices in Turkey

The overall aim of this

Figure 1. Stages of R&D Methodology

school self-evaluation process, time period of these models, information-data sources on

In the process of developing a “School Self-Evaluation Model Supporting School

SSE Content of SSE Stages of SSE Data Collection

Figure 2. Themes in the Research

As can be seen in Figure 2, the findings of a school self-evaluation model supporting

U2, U3, U5, U6,

U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, U7,

Subject Teachers U1, U2, U3, U4, U5,U9 6 U2, U7,U9 3

Support staff U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, U6 6 -

Parents/parent-teacher association U1, U2, U4, U6, U9 5 U3, U5 2

Head/representative of the school-

U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, U6,

External experts (researchers or U1, U2, U4, U5,

U1, U2, U3, U4,

U1, U2, U3, U4,

Representatives of non- U1, U2, U3, U4,

Ireland Scotland Hong Singapore ESSE Canada New Turkey

As shown in Table 3, the school self-evaluation process in various countries is

process in Turkey and Canada. In addition, experts/consultants, support staff and

As can be seen in Table 4, experts believe that school self-evaluation should be in

 Effective leadership and management

As can be seen in Table 5, 11 studies are examined in addition to expert opinions

Content of the model that is developed is summarized in Table 6. As can be seen,

a. Giving general b. Creating a school c. Determining duties

a. Determining time b. Determining time c. Determining time d. Determining time

a. School self-evaluation b. Collecting and c. Collecting and

a. School self-evaluation b. Writing school c Inviting the

Figure 4. Progress of School Self-Evaluation Model

Practices in various areas

As can be seen in Table 9, “A School Self-Evaluation Model Supporting School

Discussion Conclusion and Recommendations

Ofsted. (2015). School inspection handbook. Retrieved from

Eğitimde Değerlendirmeye Özgün Bir Bakış: Okul Gelişimini Destekleyen

Bulgular: Araştırmanın genel amacı doğrultusunda yıllık olarak uygulanması

You might also like