Keywords
head of the institution
assessment
objectivity
distinction
development of the education institution
general secondary education
How to Cite
Abstract
The article presents the results of a comparative empirical study on the identification of differences and features of the perception by the heads of general secondary education institutions of how difficult it is for them to carry out an objective assessment of various characteristics and results of educational and managerial processes as a prerequisite for the successful implementation of an internal system of ensuring the education quality in the activities of an educational institution. The study was conducted by the method of questioning. The internal consistency of the questionnaire questions was determined using the Cronbach α-test and amounted to 0,848. The answers of 199 managers were analyzed depending on their official status (school principal or vice-principal). The results of the statistical analysis confirmed, at a significance level of r = 0,05, the existence of differences between different categories of heads of educational institutions (school principal or vice-principal) in the perception of the difficulty in maintaining objectivity in their assessment. It was revealed that school principals in the ranking process tend to give generally higher marks to their own feelings of difficulty in maintaining objectivity in the assessment than vice-principals. The magnitude of the difference effect was d = 0,49 in general, which corresponds to approximately the average value of the difference in the results of the ranking of ratings. The highest effect value (d = 1,13007) was found in the perception of the heads of educational institutions of the degree of difficulty in an objective assessment of the parameters of analytical and evaluation activities, the lowest d = 0,06748) – in the parameters of self-assessment by the heads of their own competence and the effectiveness of professional activities. It is substantiated and with the help of factor analysis it is confirmed that the differences in the assessments by the heads of general secondary education institutions of the perception of the difficulty in maintaining objectivity in assessing the components and characteristics of educational and managerial processes at school may be due to the specifics of professional activity and differences in the duties of these categories of leaders.
References
Лукіна, Т.О. (2004a). Державна політика забезпечення якості загальної середньої освіти. Економіка України. 6, 64–71.
Лукіна, Т.О. (2004b). Реалізація державної освітньої політики щодо розвитку особистісно-орієнтованої освіти. Педагогіка і психологія. 3, 85 – 97.
Arieli, S., Sagiv, L., Roccas, S. (2020). Values at work: The impact of personal values in organisations. Applied Psychology, 69(2), 230–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12181
Skimina, E., Cieciuch, J., Schwartz, S. H., Davidov, E., Algesheimer, R. (2019). Behavioral signatures of values in everyday behavior in retrospective and real-time self-reports. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 281. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00281
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Oppenheim, S., Elster, A., Gal A. (2014). Integrating content and structure aspects of the self: Traits, values, and self-improvement. Journal of Personality, 82(2), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12041
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 25, 1–65. Academic Press. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid =rep1&type=pdf&doi=dc49e27d0ed890cd3ed2e80ca0b0107207f12a64
Amit A., Sagiv, L. (2013). The role of epistemic motivation in individuals’ response to decision complexity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(1), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.01.003
Sagiv, L., & Roccas, S. (2021). How Do Values Affect Behavior? Let Me Count the Ways. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(4), 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683211015975
Якість освіти. У Енциклопедія освіти. (2008a). В.Г. Кремень (Ред.). (с. 1017 – 1018). Київ: Юрінком Інтер.
Управління якістю освіти. У Енциклопедія освіти. (2008b). В.Г. Кремень (Ред.). (с. 945 – 947). Київ: Юрінком Інтер.
Лукіна, Т.О. (2020). Управління якістю загальної середньої освіти: навчально-методичний посібник. Київ: Педагогічна думка. https://lib.iitta.gov.ua/723465/
Лукіна, Т.О. (2022). Зарубіжні підходи до розроблення моделей самооцінювання закладів загальної середньої освіти. Український педагогічний журнал. 2, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.32405/2411-1317-2022-2-19-30
Лукіна, Т.О. (2005). Моніторинг в освіті. Створення та функціонування систем моніторингу якості освіти. Управління освітою. 4 (100), 1–15.
Моніторинг в освіті. У Енциклопедія освіти. (2008с). В.Г. Кремень (Ред.). (с. 519 – 521). Київ: Юрінком Інтер.
Лукіна, Т.О. (2007). Вимірювання та управління якістю освіти: навчально-методичні матеріали. Київ: Експрес-об’ява.
Міністерство економіки України. (2021). Про затвердження професійного стандарту «Керівник (директор) закладу загальної середньої освіти». Отримано з https://mon.gov.ua/storage/app/media/news/2021/09/22/Nakaz-568-zatverdzh.standartu.keriv.22.09.pdf
Orphanos, S. (2014). What matters to principals when they evaluate teachers? Evidence from Cyprus. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213499262
Shaked, Haim. (2018). Why principals often give overly high ratings on teacher evaluations. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 150–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.07.007.
Medley, D, Coker, H. (1987). The accuracy of principals' judgments of teacher performance. Journal of Educational Research ,80, 242–247.
Frase, L, Streshly, W. (1994). Lack of accuracy, feedback, and commitment in teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education,18, 47–57.
Haefele, D. (1992). Evaluating teachers: An alternative model. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16, 335–345.
Scriven, M. (1981). Summative teacher evaluation. In: Millman, J. (ed.) Handbook of Teacher Evaluation. Beverly Hills: SAGE, 14–22.
Ostrander, L. (1996). Multiple judges of teacher effectiveness: Comparing teacher self-assessments with the perceptions of principals, students and parents. Paper presented at 1996 AERA convention.
Jacob, B., Lefgren, L. (2008). Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on subjective performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics, 26, 101−136
Rinehart, J., Young, P. (1996). Effects of teacher gender and principal gender on ratings of teacher performance. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10, 313–323.
Cangelosi, J. (1991). Evaluating Classroom Instruction. New York: Longman.
VanSciver, J. (1990). Teacher dismissals. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 318–319.
Choi, Yeseul, Lee, Sanghun, & Oh, Hunseok. From the best practices of successful school leaders: Developing and validating the principal competencies inventory in South Korea. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. First published online March 23, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221082914
Лукіна, Т.О. (2012). Технологія розробки анкет для моніторингових досліджень освітніх проблем. Методичний посібник. Миколаїв: ОІППО. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/32304920.pdf
Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. Vol. 16, iss. 3, 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02310555
Bland, J. M., Altman, D. G. (1997). Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ, 314, 572. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2126061/pdf/9055718.pdf
Таблиці функцій та критичних точок розподілів. Розділи: Теорія ймовірностей. Математична статистика. Математичні методи в психології. (2009). Харків: УЦЗУ.
Milenovic, Z. M. (2011). Application of Mann-Whitney u test in research of professional training of primary school teachers. Metodički obzori, 6(1), 73–79. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/106020
Лукіна, Т.О. (2022). Об’єктивність оцінювання освітніх та управлінських процесів: відмінності у поглядах адміністраторів закладів загальної середньої освіти. Педагогічна компаративістика і міжнародна освіта – 2022: виклики і перспективи в умовах турбулентності світу. Матеріали VІ Міжнародної наукової конференції, 4 листопада, 2022, Київ –Тернопіль, 148–151. https://doi.org/10.32405/978-617-692-729-7-2022-296/
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. https://www.utstat.toronto.edu/~brunner/oldclass/378f16/readings/CohenPower.pdf
Lukina, T.O. (2004a). Derzhavna polityka zabezpechennia yakosti zahalnoi serednoi osvity. Ekonomika Ukrainy. 6, 64–71. (in Ukrainian).
Lukina, T.O. (2004b). Realizatsiia derzhavnoi osvitnoi polityky shchodo rozvytku osobystisno-oriientovanoi osvity. Pedahohika i psykholohiia. 3, 85 – 97. (in Ukrainian).
Arieli, S., Sagiv, L., Roccas, S. (2020). Values at work: The impact of personal values in organisations. Applied Psychology, 69(2), 230–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12181 (in English).
Skimina, E., Cieciuch, J., Schwartz, S. H., Davidov, E., Algesheimer, R. (2019). Behavioral signatures of values in everyday behavior in retrospective and real-time self-reports. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 281. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00281 (in English).
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Oppenheim, S., Elster, A., Gal A. (2014). Integrating content and structure aspects of the self: Traits, values, and self-improvement. Journal of Personality, 82(2), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12041 (in English).
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 25, 1–65. Academic Press. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid =rep1&type=pdf&doi=dc49e27d0ed890cd3ed2e80ca0b0107207f12a64 (in English).
Amit A., Sagiv, L. (2013). The role of epistemic motivation in individual’s response to decision complexity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(1), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.01.003 (in English).
Sagiv, L., & Roccas, S. (2021). How Do Values Affect Behavior? Let Me Count the Ways. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(4), 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683211015975 (in English).
Yakist osvity. U Entsyklopediia osvity. (2008a). V.H. Kremen (Red.). (s. 1017 – 1018). Kyiv: Yurinkom Inter. (in Ukrainian).
Upravlinnia yakistiu osvity. U Entsyklopediia osvity. (2008b). V.H. Kremen (Red.). (s. 945 – 947). Kyiv: Yurinkom Inter. (in Ukrainian).
Lukina, T.O. (2020). Upravlinnia yakistiu zahalnoi serednoi osvity: navchalno-metodychnyi posibnyk. Kyiv: Pedahohichna dumka. https://lib.iitta.gov.ua/723465/ (in Ukrainian).
Lukina, T.O. (2022). Zarubizhni pidkhody do rozroblennia modelei samootsiniuvannia zakladiv zahalnoi serednoi osvity. Ukrainskyi pedahohichnyi zhurnal. 2, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.32405/2411-1317-2022-2-19-30 (in Ukrainian).
Lukina, T.O. (2005). Monitorynh v osviti. Stvorennia ta funktsionuvannia system monitorynhu yakosti osvity. Upravlinnia osvitoiu. 4 (100), 1–15. (in Ukrainian).
Monitorynh v osviti. U Entsyklopediia osvity. (2008s). V.H. Kremen (Red.). (s. 519 – 521). Kyiv: Yurinkom Inter. (in Ukrainian).
Lukina, T.O. (2007). Vymiriuvannia ta upravlinnia yakistiu osvity: navchalno-metodychni materialy. Kyiv: Ekspres-obiava. (in Ukrainian).
Ministerstvo ekonomiky Ukrainy. (2021). Pro zatverdzhennia profesiinoho standartu «Kerivnyk (dyrektor) zakladu zahalnoi serednoi osvity». Otrymano z https://mon.gov.ua/storage/app/media/news/2021/09/22/Nakaz-568-zatverdzh.standartu.keriv.22.09.pdf (in Ukrainian).
Orphanos, S. (2014). What matters to principals when they evaluate teachers? Evidence from Cyprus. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213499262 (in English).
Shaked, Haim. (2018). Why principals often give overly high ratings on teacher evaluations. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 150–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.07.007. (in English).
Medley, D, Coker, H. (1987). The accuracy of principal’s judgments of teacher performance. Journal of Educational Research ,80, 242–247. (in English).
Frase, L, Streshly, W. (1994). Lack of accuracy, feedback, and commitment in teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education,18, 47–57. (in English).
Haefele, D. (1992). Evaluating teachers: An alternative model. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16, 335–345. (in English).
Scriven, M. (1981). Summative teacher evaluation. In: Millman, J. (ed.) Handbook of Teacher Evaluation. Beverly Hills: SAGE, 14–22. (in English).
Ostrander, L. (1996). Multiple judges of teacher effectiveness: Comparing teacher self-assessments with the perceptions of principals, students and parents. Paper presented at 1996 AERA convention. (in English).
Jacob, B., Lefgren, L. (2008). Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on subjective performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics, 26, 101−136. (in English).
Rinehart, J., Young, P. (1996). Effects of teacher gender and principal gender on ratings of teacher performance. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10, 313–323. (in English).
Cangelosi, J. (1991). Evaluating Classroom Instruction. New York: Longman. (in English).
VanSciver, J. (1990). Teacher dismissals. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 318–319. (in English).
Choi, Yeseul, Lee, Sanghun, & Oh, Hunseok. From the best practices of successful school leaders: Developing and validating the principal competencies inventory in South Korea. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. First published online March 23, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221082914 (in English).
Lukina, T.O. (2012). Tekhnolohiia rozrobky anket dlia monitorynhovykh doslidzhen osvitnikh problem. Metodychnyi posibnyk. Mykolaiv: OIPPO. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/32304920.pdf (in Ukrainian).
Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. Vol. 16, iss. 3, 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02310555 (in English).
Bland, J. M., Altman, D. G. (1997). Statistics notes: Cronbachs alpha. BMJ, 314, 572. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2126061/pdf/9055718.pdf (in English).
Tablytsi funktsii ta krytychnykh tochok rozpodiliv. Rozdily: Teoriia ymovirnostei. Matematychna statystyka. Matematychni metody v psykholohii. (2009). Kharkiv: UTsZU. (in Ukrainian).
Milenovic, Z. M. (2011). Application of Mann-Whitney u test in research of professional training of primary school teachers. Metodički obzori, 6(1), 73–79. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/106020 (in English).
Lukina, T.O. (2022). Obiektyvnist otsiniuvannia osvitnikh ta upravlinskykh protsesiv: vidminnosti u pohliadakh administratoriv zakladiv zahalnoi serednoi osvity. Pedahohichna komparatyvistyka i mizhnarodna osvita – 2022: vyklyky i perspektyvy v umovakh turbulentnosti svitu. Materialy VI Mizhnarodnoi naukovoi konferentsii, 4 lystopada, 2022, Kyiv –Ternopil, 148–151. https://doi.org/10.32405/978-617-692-729-7-2022-296/ (in Ukrainian).
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. https://www.utstat.toronto.edu/~brunner/oldclass/378f16/readings/CohenPower.pdf (in English).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.