QUALITY ASSURANCE: AN INTEGRATED RESEARCH REPORT

1
QUALITY ASSURANCE AN INTEGRATED RESEARCH REPORT
It is best to learn as we go not as we have
learned
2
QUALITY ASSURANCE
Appraise individual educators Determine strengths
and weaknesses Draw up programmes for
individuals personal growth
DAS
WSE
PM
IQMS Integrated Quality Management System
Evaluate individual educators Purpose
salary/grade progression Reward and incentives
Evaluate overall effectiveness of school
Determine quality of teaching and learning
3
QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Report on perceptions of educators, principals,
  parents and districts on quality assurance
• DAS and PM only applicable to educators but WSE
  on all of above.
• EDUCATOR AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
• 1120 educators from Gauteng were respondents
  using structured questionnaire to probe
  perceptions re teacher evaluation.

4
QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Analysis of data revealed two factors namely
• Design criteria
• Implementation criteria
• THE DESIGN CRITERIA
• Q1. Teacher performance-is it appraised,
  evaluated or measured?
• Whether on appraises, measures or evaluates human
  performance one has to decide whether it is good,
  average or poor and hence we will refer to
  performance evaluation.

5
QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Q2. What steps are involved in teacher
  evaluation?
• Set performance criteria
• Observe work performance and collect data
• Evaluate work performance using process of
  decision-making and judgment
• Feedback
• Q3 What is teacher evaluation?
• See research paper
• Q4 What are the purposes of teacher evaluation?
  

6
Quality assurance

• Formative function-develop professional teaching
  skills
• Summative function-for selection and for grading
  and promotion
• Socio-political function-motivation, to improve
  teaching effectiveness or promote preferred
  teaching actions
• Administrative function-exercise of authority

7
(No Transcript)
8
QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Model shows design and implementation are seen as
  two separate things heaven where design occurs
  and earth where implementation occurs!
• Q5 Where is information needed to judge teacher
  performance found?
• Teacher evaluation should occur within a
  community culture or combined paradigm as each
  evaluation community has an own evaluation
  framework. These paradigms are

9
QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Process-product paradigm-processes in teacher
  mainly responsible for learner achievement-persona
  lity, direct teaching behaviours, management
  techniques, better use of time.
• Process-product mediation paradigm-learner is
  personally responsible and insight is result
  social activities in classroom or cognitive
  assimilation by learner him-or herself.

10
QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Classroom ecological paradigm-it is impossible to
  measure teacher performance outside the context
  of the school, family, community and culture as
  they all influence what is observed. In-depth
  description of learners thoughts, attitudes and
  feelings are important.
• Teacher decision-making paradigm-learner
  achievement is also result of teachers thought
  processes and reflective thinking plays important
  role.

11
QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Excellent teacher paradigm- learner achievement
  result of teachers particular knowledge of
  subject, education and different teaching
  strategies.
• Q6 What variables are involved in determining
  teacher performance?
• Above paradigms can be grouped into categories
  to make them amenable to measurement namely
• Preoperational (aspects of personality, teachers
  knowledge of subject and of education, teachers
  educational framework)
• Contextual (classroom ecology and learners role)

12
QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Process (direct teaching actions, classroom
  management actions, teacher decision-making,
  teacher interactive thinking, exceptional teacher
  actions)
• Product (process-product paradigm-levels of
  learner achievement)
• Most teacher evaluation instruments have
  overload of observable teaching activities and
  discourage teaching activities aimed at the
  higher cognitive abilities.

13
QUALITY ASSURANCE

• The PM instrument in the IQMS divides teaching
  into observation of educators in practice (4
  performance standards) and aspects that fall
  outside the classroom ( 8 performance standards).
• There is an over-representation of
  administrative aspects as the role of the learner
  seems minimal. For further points of criticism
  see the paper.

14
QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Q7 What criteria must be used to judge quality of
  work performance?
• Criteria can be subjective or objective. So the
  diving judges at the Olympic Games may all be
  experts and have certain diving behaviours
  described and points allocated (1-10) but they
  still differ in their judgment of scores
  allocated. Objective criteria are ones that does
  not involve another persons evaluation like a
  score of 72 on a par 72 golf course-it is the
  same for everyone.
• Q8 Who must evaluate teacher performance?

15
QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Immediate superiors (HOD, Principal).
• Colleagues
• Learners
• Him-or herself.
• Evaluation experts.
• THE IMPLEMENTATION CRITERIA
• Q1 How should an evaluation system be advocated?

16
QUALITY ASSURANCE

• People responsible for advocating evaluation
  system selectively use data that confirms their
  position. Advocacy must be balanced with enquiry
  i.e people must be allowed to enquire into
  expressed view.
• Senge speaks of genuine enquiry which consists
  of an integration of participative openness
  (freedom to speak your mind) and reflective
  openness (willingness to challenge own thinking
  I may be wrong and other person correct).

17
QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Q2 What should the function of performance
  measurement be?
• The real character or being of something lies in
  its potential use (the hydrogen bomb)
• Main aim should always be the professional
  development of teaching effectiveness.
• Q3 What competences does an evaluator need?
• Good interpersonal relationship skills.
• Being a positive role model

18
QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Credibility as an evaluator
• Personal integrity
• Objectivity
• Patience and flexibility
• Knowledge and understanding of evaluation as a
  process.
• Avoid stereotyping and initial impressions
• Q4 How should the feedback process occur?

19
QUALITY ASSURANCE

• Develop flexible relationship of trust-encourages
  dialogue.
• Careful attention to listening skills
• Give feedback on positive aspects first
• Questions encourage teacher to speak about own
  weaknesses.
• Set combined improvement goals and give training
  to overcome weaknesses.
• Give attention to conceptual skills needed for
  promotion posts

20
QUALITY ASSURANCE

• THE PRINCIPAL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
• Research done in Gauteng, North-West and
  Mpumalanga
• According to legislation principal is responsible
  that IQMS is advocated, implemented, documented
  and moderated in fair and consistent manner
  together with SMT.
• Contextual factors also need to be considered
  (educator/learner ratio, classroom conditions,
  level of learner

21

• discipline, nutrition of learners, nature of
  workload, complexity level of subject, personal
  health).
• THE PARENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
• SASA stipulates schools must have an SGB.
• SGB responsible for Governance whilst principal
  responsible for Professional management.
  Conflict as roles not clearly defined.
• Role of SGB emphasized but little recognition to
  parental involvement by OFSTED. Example of
  criteria is

22

• SGB should develop systems for monitoring and
  evaluating the quality of education provided by
  school. Without training is this possible?
• THE ROLE OF THE DISTRICT IN QUALITY ASSURANCE
• Mixed methods research was conducted in Gauteng,
  Limpopo and Mpumalanga on perceptions of teachers
  regarding districts role.
• Most educators became aware of quality assurance
  via electronic and paper media and not from
  district office.
• Any training workshops compulsory for school
  staff without funding from district.

23

• Facilitators who were district officials were not
  competent trainers and provided contradictory
  information.
• UNIONS and districts were not in agreement with
  some of the aspects of the IQMS.
• District officials must be held accountable for
  performance of schools under their jurisdiction.
  
• Competent facilitators and sufficient time for
  advocacy of the quality assurance are vital.