other smaller aspects mentioned earlier fit within these four larger areas. 6.7.1 Longitudinal Study This study itself needs to be longitudinal. The period of 18 months over which this research was carried out provided the opportunity to see where it could go in the future, but did not allow the time to see if theory‐elicited ideas could be implemented in practice. Many systems and structures have been put in place but it was not possible to measure their efficacy over time. Given that the registration process is occurring every three years, it would seem pertinent that a study looked at how the changes put in place through this research impact over that period of time. A longitudinal study would also establish whether the changes had been embedded or lost in the continuous change process that is education.
6.7.2 Cross Institution
To establish whether the appraisal process developed at this school would be suitable to other schools a cross‐sector study needs to be undertaken. This would investigate processes and procedures that could be adapted to all educational institutions from ECE right through to secondary.
While I believe it is possible to adapt the systems developed during this study, confirmation through further research is required. Discussions with the owner of an ECE centre indicate that the use of the processes developed to establish shared understanding of the RTC and the development of a portfolio fit well with the philosophy of the centre and allow for on‐going professional learning for the staff. However, these outcomes are based mainly on word‐of‐mouth rather than documented evidence. Researching this across all education sectors would provide valuable information about its efficacy and transferability.
6.7.3 Portfolios
This is the third area that needs further investigation. Portfolios have the potential to be hugely beneficial (Attinello et al., 2006), or a huge waste of time (Suddaby, 1998) being yet another ‘hoop‐jumping’ activity. The development of their content, while personal to the teacher, must also showcase their practice if the document is to be effective. Tucker et al. (2003) found that there was “encouraging news” when using portfolios for “the accountability and professional growth purposes of teacher evaluation” (p. 577), but little was known about their efficacy when measuring teacher quality. This aspect of portfolio development needs to be investigated as they are potentially an untapped source of teacher learning and development.
One other aspect of the portfolio that should be further explored is the use of electronic portfolios and how these can be best utilised for teachers. While this was given as an option for teachers during this research, only one teacher took up the challenge. Many saw it as requiring too much extra time to first learn how to use the electronic portfolio, and then to integrate the changed appraisal process into the electronic version. This version of the portfolio has a great deal of potential as it provides the means for transporting data collected to external sources very quickly, and potentially, impressively. For such situations as applying for new employment, this means of data transfer could be invaluable, hence the need to research this aspect further.
6.7.4 Student Impact
The final area of further research stemming from this study is based around student learning and improvement and the impact of changes in performance management on the progress of students. An underlying assumption of performance management is that if the teacher improves his or her practice through professional learning and development, then the ‘spin‐off’ is improved learning for the students. How accurate and realistic this assumption is needs to be investigated with a focus on the performance management of teachers but with consideration to other factors affecting student learning such as socio‐economic factors including health, family structures and parental expectations. If a system
such as the one developed through this study was instigated into all schools, the impacts on student learning, whether positive or negative, needs to be established.
Day (1999) states that appraisal cannot be seen as separate from individual development planning and school development planning. He sees each of these aspects as having a “reciprocal relationship” (p. 95) as shown in Figure 6.1. However, Day does not acknowledge the impact these factors can potentially have on students. The appraisal process, to be effective, needs to not only improve
teacher quality but also student learning. In redeveloping Day’s design above, the impacts of appraisal, teacher development and school development clearly show the student as the central focus (Figure 6.2). This could be an aim of future research.
Figure 6.1: Day’s (1999) Reciprocal Relationship of Appraisal and Development
Figure 6.2: The relationship between appraisal, individual development planning and
school‐wide development planning (adapted from Day, 1999).
Appraisal Individual Development Planning School Development Planning School‐wide Development Planning: Goals, long‐term planning, Govt./MOE initiatives Appraisal: Product and process Individual Development Planning: Goals, needs, career pathways Improvement in Student Learning