Abstract

Developing objective standards and indicators, and establishing the transparency of the evaluation process have significant importance in reducing negative teacher opinions and ensuring healthy functioning of the performance evaluation system. The purpose of this study is to compare teacher performance indicators in Turkey and United States. This study was conducted using document review, which is one of the qualitative research methods. In the study, document review was used as the data collection method. In the first stage, the official documents of the two countries were accessed via websites. The authenticity of the obtained documents was checked. Finally, the analysis was done with the classification form developed by the researchers. In the study, the analysis of the documents was done by descriptive analysis technique. General Proficiencies of Teaching Profession consist of 233 performance indicator and Core Teaching Standards consist of 74 performance indicators. The findings of the study were examined under five themes determined by considering the General Proficiencies of Teaching Profession and Core Teaching Standards: Student and learning, content knowledge, instructional practice, assessment and professional development. General Proficiencies of Teaching Profession lists the knowledge, skills, and behaviors expected from teachers as performance indicators. In Core Teaching Standards, the performance indicators provide suggestions and explanations for the development of teaching in accordance with the requirements of today's world. the preparation of performance indicators to provide teachers' development and the realistic use of these indicators in evaluating will help improve the quality of teacher performance evaluation.

Keywords

References

• Akdemir, A. S. (2013). A history of teacher training programmes and their problems in Turkey. Turkish Studies - International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 8(12), 15-28.
• Altun, S. A., & Memişoğlu, S. P. (2008). The opinions of teachers, administrators and supervisors regarding performance assesment. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 7-24.
• Anagün, Ş. S. (2002). Performance appraisal process in education and performance appraisal methods used in human resource management (Unpublished master thesis). Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
• Archer, J. (2000) State teacher policies tied to student results, Education Week, 19 (17), 3-4.
• Atik Kara, D. (2012). Evaluation of teaching profession courses in terms of teacher candidates? competencies regarding the learning and teaching process (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
• Balkar, B. (2014). Perceptions of teachers on research-based teacher education policy comprising knowledge domains of clinically-based approach. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(4), 28-45.
• Biswas, S. (2009). Organizational culture & transformational leadership as predictors of employee performance. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(4), 611- 627.
• Bommer,W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1995). On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures or employee performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48, 587–605.
• Buyruk, H. (2014). Standardized examinations as a teacher performance indicator and performance evaluation in education . Trakya University Journal of Education, 4(2), 28-42.
• Conroy, J., Hulme, M., & Menter, I. (2013). Developing a ‘clinical’ model for teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 39(5), 557-573.
• Cooper, B.S., Ehrensal, P.A. & Bromme, M. (2005). School-level politics and Professional development: Traps in evaluating the quality of practicing teachers. Educational Policy,29(1), 112-125.
• Council of Chief State School Officers. (2013, April). Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards and Learning Progressions for Teachers 1.0: A Resource for Ongoing Teacher Development. Washington, DC: Author.
• Danielson, C.,& McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Darling-Hammond, L.,Wise, A. E., & Pease, S. R. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the organizational context: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 53, 285–328.
• DPT (2000). Eighth Five Year Development Plan, 2001-2005, Ankara.
• DPT (2006). Nineth Five Year Development Plan, 2007-2013, Ankara.
• EARGED (2006). The Performance Management Model in School. Ankara: Ministry of Education.
• Erken V. (1990). Teachers' evaluation of registry system (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gazi University, Ankara.
• Ferguson, P., & Womack, S. T. (1993). The impact of subject matter and education coursework on teaching performance. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 55-63.
• Flowers, C. P., & Hancock, D. R. (2003). An interview protocol and scoring rubric for evaluating teacher performance. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(2), 161-168.
• Forster, N. (1995). The analysis of company documentation. C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds). Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide. London: Sage Publications.
• Fritsche, L.,Weerasinghe, D.,&Babu, S. (2003, April). Making the connection: Linking the teacher evaluation results to the district accountability system. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual conference, Chicago.
• Garcia-Morales,V.J., Jimenez-Barrionuevo,M.M., & Gutierrez-Gutierrez, L. (2012). Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1040-1050.
• Garden, A. M. (1991). Relationship between burnout and performance. Psychological Reports, 68(3), 963-977.
• Gün, B. (2012). Views of teacher performance: to what extent do multiple observers converge?. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 46, 81-100.
• Harackiewicz, J. M., Abrahams, S., & Wageman, R. (1987). Performance evaluation and intrinsic motivation: The effects of evaluative focus, rewards, and achievement orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1015.
• Harwiki, W. (2013). The influence of servant leadership on organization culture, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior and employees' performance (study of outstanding cooperatives in east java province, Indonesia). Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 5(12), 876-885.
• Heck, R. H., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1996). School culture and performance: Testing the invariance of an organizational model. School effectiveness and school improvement, 7(1), 76-95.
• Heneman, R. L. (1986). The relationship between supervisory ratings and results-oriented measures of performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 811–826.
• Hollins, E. R., Luna, C., & Lopez, S. (2014). Learning to teach teachers. Teaching Education, 25(1), 99-124.
• Jung, Y., & Takeuchi, N. (2010). Performance implications for the relationships among top management leadership, organizational culture, and appraisal practice: testing two theory-based models of organizational learning theory in Japan. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(11), 1931-1950.
• Kakkos, N. & Trivellas, P. (2011). Investigating the link between motivation, work stress and job performance. Evidence from the banking industry. 8th International Conference on Enterprise Systems, Accounting and Logistics, 408-428.
• Ministry of Development (2013). Tenth Development Plan, 2014-2018, Ankara.
• Kantos, Z. E. (2013). The performance evaluation process and the 360 degrees feedback system. Journal of Educational Science and Practice, 12 (23), 59-76
• Kazmi, R., Amjad, S. & Khan, D. (2008). Occupational stress and its effect on job performance. A case study of medical house officers of Abbotabad. JAMC, 20(3), 135-139.
• Khalid, A., Murtaza, G., Zafar, A., Zafar, M. A., Saqib, L., & Mushtaq, R. (2012). Role of supportive leadership as a moderator between job stress and job performance. Information Management and Business Review, 4(9), 487.
• Koçak, R. (2006). The validity and reliability of the teachers' performance evaluation scale. Educational Science: Theory & Pracitce, 6(3), 779-808.
• Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Kotlyar, I. (2001). Leadership in decision-making groups: Improving performance by managing conflict. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Canada.
• Kozlowski, S.W.J., G.T. Chao, and R.F. Morrison. (1998). Games raters play: Politics, strategies, and impression management in performance appraisal. In Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice, J.W. Smither (ed.), 163-208. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Kunz, A. H., & Pfaff, D. (2002). Agency theory, performance evaluation, and the hypothetical construct of intrinsic motivation. Accounting, organizations and society, 27(3), 275-295.
• Küçükahmet, L. (2007). Evaluation of the undergraduate programs of teacher education introduced in 2006-2007 educational year. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 5(2), 203-218.
• Kümbetoğlu, B. (2005). Sosyolojide ve antropolojide niteliksel yöntem ve araştırma. İstanbul: Bağlam.
• Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Maslowski, R. (2001). School culture and school performance. Enschede: Twente University Press.
• Medley, D. M., & Coker, H. (1987). The accuracy of principals’ judgments of teacher performance. The Journal of Educational Research, 80, 242–247.
• Milanovsk, A. (2004). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores and student achievement: Evidence from Cincinnati. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 33-53.
• Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2008). Teacher profiencies. Ankara: Devlet Kitapları Müdürlüğü.
• Montes,F.C.L., Moreno,A.R.,& Garcia-Morales,V. (2005). Influence of support leadership and teamwork cohesion on organizational learning, innovation and performance: An empirical examination. Technovation, 25, 1159–1172.
• Neill, M. (1999). Stop misusing tests to evaluate teachers. Social Education, 63(6), 330-32.
• Nowack, K. M., & Hanson, A. L. (1983). The relationship between stress, job performance, and burnout in college student resident assistants. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 545–550.
• Ogbonna, E. & Harris, L. (2000). Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: Empirical evidence from UK companies. International Journal of Human Resources Management, 11(4), 766-788.
• Özoğlu, M. (2010). Türkiye’de öğretmen yetiştirme sisteminin sorunları. Ankara: Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Toplum Araştırmaları Vakfı.
• Palmer, M. & Winters, K. (1993). İnsan kaynakları (Çeviren: Doğan Şahiner). İstanbul: Reprosal Matbaası.
• Pecheone, R. L., & Chung, R. R. (2006). Evidence in teacher education the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT). Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 22-36.
• Peterson, K. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.
• Popham, W. J. (2000) Putting instruction on the line, The School Administrator, 57(11), 46-48.
• Remington, L.R. (2002). School internal investigations of employees, open records law, and the prying press. Journal of Law and Education, 31(4), 459-468.
• Rowlinson, M. (2004). Historical analysis of company documents. C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds). Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (s.301-312). London: Sage Pub.
• Satır, E. (2011). The assessment of performance in organizations and an application in the state economic enterprises. (Unpublished master thesis). Gazi University, Ankara.
• Soydan, T. (2012). A research based on the views of managers and teachers about the effectiveness of the performance evaluation system in the field of education. Ege Journal of Education, 13(1), 1-25.
• Stiggens, R. J., & Duke, D. (1988) The case for commitment to teacher growth: Research on teacher evaluation. Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Süzen, A. Z. (2007). Within the framework of human resource management process performance evaluation in teacher evaluation: Perceptions of primary school teachers in a private primary school (Unpublished master thesis). Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
• Swailes, S.(2002). Organizational commitment: a critique of the construct and measures. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(2), 155-178.
• Şimşek, M.Ş., & Nursoy, M. (2002). Toplam kalite yönetiminde performans ölçme. İstanbul: Hayat Yayınları.
• Taris, T. W. (2006). Is there a relationship between burnout and objective performance? A critical review of 16 studies. Work & Stress, 20(4), 316-334.
• Taylor, F. W. (1997). Bilimsel yönetimin ilkeleri (Çeviren: H. B. Akın). Konya: Çizgi.
• Tell, C. (2001). Appreciating good teaching: A conversation with Lee Shulman. Educational Leadership, 58(5), 6-11.
• Tirri, K., & Ubani, M. (2013) Education of Finnish student teachers for purposeful teaching. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 39(1), 21-29.
• Wakefield, R. L., Leidner, D. E., & Garrison, G. (2008). Research note-a model of conflict, leadership, and performance in virtual teams. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 434-455.
• Williams, S. (1999). The effects of distributive and procedural justice on performance. Journal of Psychology, 133, 183-193.
• Yariv, E. (2009). The appraisal of teachers' performance and its impact on the mutuality of principal-teacher emotions. School Leadership and Management, 29(5), 445-461.
• Yavuz, M., Özkaral, T., & Yıldız, D. (2015). The teacher competencies and teacher education in international reports. SDU International Journal of Educational Studies, 2(2), 60-71.
• Yıldırım, A. (2013). Teacher education research in Turkey: Trends, issues and priority areas. Education and Science, 38(169), 175-191.
• Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin.
• Yıldırım, İ., & Vural, Ö F. (2014). Problems related with teacher training and pedagogical formation in Turkey. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 3(1), 73-90.
• Zehir, C., Akyuz, B., Eren, M. S., & Turhan, G. (2013). The indirect effects of servant leadership behavior on organizational citizenship behavior and job performance: Organizational justice as a mediator. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 2(3), 1-13.

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.