Документация для оценки школьной системы и профессионального развития учителей: Совместное исследование университета и школы в Италии

Непрерывное профессиональное развитие учителей (НПР) давно считается необходимым условием успешной карьеры и экономического прогресса. НПР должно быть сопоставлено со стандартами, на которых основаны системы проверки навыков учителей. Вопрос профессионализма учителей обсуждается в Италии на законодательном уровне. В настоящей статье представлены результаты исследования «Непрерывное профессиональное развитие учителей: от плана совершенствования до оценивания», проведенного в 33 школах на юге Италии, совместно с университетом Бари и итальянским Союзом учителей (UCIIM). Исследовательский проект был направлен на изучение документации, связанной с самооценкой школы, процедурами оценки и аттестации учителей. Такая работа необходима для повышения качества преподавания и профессионального роста учителей. Исследовательская работа проходила в три этапа. На первом этапе был проведен анализ документов Rav и PdM (Отчет о самооценке и План совершенствования). Эти документы были представлены преподавательскому составу и послужили основными материалами для самооценки и принятия решений. На втором этапе – «Профессиональное развитие» – были разработаны совместно с преподавателями стандарты и процедура проверки (аудита) навыков. Эти документы легли в основу программы профессионального развития учителей. Третий этап состоял из оценки достижений. Он был посвящен отбору и анализу лучших аттестационных листов, которые являются основными документами для оценки заслуг и продвижения учителей. В исследовании приняли участие более 300 человек, включая учителей и директоров школ. Результаты исследования показали влияние практики документирования, введенной в систему школьного оценивания, на профессиональное развитие; важность сотрудничества университета и школы в поддержке школьного оценивания и профессионального развития учителей; методико-педагогический выбор директоров школ в качестве наставников учителей.

1. Absolum, M., Flockton, L., Hattie, J., Hipkins, J., Reid, I. 2009). Directions for Assessment in New Zealand (DANZ) Report: Developing Students’ Assessment Capabilities. Ministry of Education, Wellington. Available at: http://assessment.tki.org.nz/Media/Files/Directions-for-Assessmentin-New-Zealand

2. Aksit, F. (2016), “Implementing portfolios in teacher training: Why we use them and why we should use them”, Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 62/62, 97–114, http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.62.7

3. Altet, M., & Vinatier, I. (2008). Analyser et comprendre la pratique enseignante [To analyze and understand teaching practice]. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.

4. Angelle, P. S. (2002). T.O.S.S. it to the new teacher: the principals’ role in the induction process. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Austin, TX, 14–16.

5. Astolfi, J. P. (1992). L'école pour apprendre. L'élève face aux savoirs [School for learning. The student facing knowledge]. Paris: ESF.

6. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) (2011). Professional Standards for Teachers. Melbourne.

7. Avalos, B. (2004). Teacher regulatory forces and accountability policies in Chile: from public servants to accountable professionals. Research Papers in Education, 19(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267152032000179981

8. Avalos, B., & Assael, J. (2006). Moving from resistance to agreement: the case of the Chilean teacher performance evaluation. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 254–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2007.02.004

9. Beerens, D. R. (2000). Evaluating teachers for professional growth. Creating a culture of motivation and learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press Inc.

10. Bickmore, D. L., & Bickmore, S. T. (2010). A multifaceted approach to teacher induction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1006–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.043

11. Bochicchio, F., & Rivoltella, P.C. (2017). L'agire organizzativo. Manuale per i professionisti della formazione [Organizational Action. A Manual for Training Professionals]. Brescia: ELS La Scuola-Morcelliana.

12. Boster, J. (2016). Learning Assessment: A Report on Teaching Assessment in Initial Teacher Education in NSW.

13. Bottani, N. (2012). Perché valutare? Valutare o perire? [Why assess? Assess or perish?] In N. Bottani, & D. Checci (Eds.), La sfida della valutazione (pp. 13-37). Bologna: il Mulino.

14. Brock, B. L. (1999). The principals’ role in mentor programs. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 12(4), 18–21.

15. Carlson, C. L. (2012). The profession that eats its young: the effect of principal leadership on the survival rate of teachers. Journal of Arts & Humanities, 1(3), 48–53. https://doi.org/10.18533/journal.v1i3.33

16. Castoldi, M. (2010). Didattica generale [General Didactics]. Milano: Mondadori Università.

17. Cherubini, L. (2009). New teachers’ perceptions of induction: insights into principled practices. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 55(2), 185–198.

18. Chevallard, Y. (1995). La transposition didactique [Didactic transposition]. Paris: La Pensé Sauvage.

19. Chow, A. P. Y., Wong, E. K. P., Yeung, A. S., & Mo, K. W. (2002). Teachers’ perceptions of appraiserappraisee relationships. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16(2), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020096127713

20. Clarke, M., Moore, A. (2013). Professional standards, teacher identities and an ethics of singularity, Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 487–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.819070

21. Conway, P. F., & Murphy, R. (2013). A rising tide meets a perfect storm: new accountabilities in teaching and teacher education in Ireland, Irish Educational Studies, 32(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2013.773227

22. Danielson, C., & McGreal, T.L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.

23. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The quiet revolution: rethinking teacher development, Educational Leadership, 53(6), 4–10.

24. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Reconhecer e potenciar a eficácia docente: guia para decisores políticos. [Recognizing and Enhancing Teaching Effectiveness: A Guide for Policy Makers]. In M.A. Flores (Ed.). A Avaliação de Professores numa Perspectiva Internacional: Sentidos e Implicações (pp. 197–235). Porto: Areal Editores.

25. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional Development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.

26. Day, C., Flores, M. A., & Viana, I. (2007). Effects of national policies on teachers’ sense of professionalism: findings from an empirical study in Portugal and in England. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30(3), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760701486092

27. Dedering, K., & Muller, S. (2011). School Improvement through Inspections? First Empirical Insights from Germany. Journal of Educational Change, 12(3), 301–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-010-9151-9

28. Delaney, A. (2012). Teacher evaluation and its context - a six country study. Trento: Iprase. Delvaux, E., Vanhoof, J., Tuytens, M., Vekeman, E., Devos, G., & Petegem, P. V. (2013). How may teacher evaluation have an impact on professional development? A multilevel analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.06.011

29. Department of Education – UK Government (2018). Initial teacher training: self-evaluation and improvement planning guidance for providers - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/initial-teacher-training-self-evaluation-and-improvement-planning-advice-for-providers.

30. Develay, M. (1995). Savoir scolaires et didactique des disciplines. [School Knowledge and Didactics of Disciplines]. Paris : ESF.

31. Dordit, L. (2011). Modelli di reclutamento formazione, sviluppo e valutazione degli insegnanti. Breve rassegna Internazionale. Trento: Iprase.

32. Ehren, M. C. M. & Visscher, A. J. (2008). The Relationships between School Inspections, School Characteristics and School Improvement. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(2), 205–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2008.00400.x

33. European Commission, Eurydice (2015). The Teaching Profession in Europe: Practices, Perceptions, and Policies. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.

34. Fantilli, R. D., & McDougall, D. E. (2009). A study of novice teachers: challenges and supports in the first years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(6), 814–825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.021

35. Ferraris, M. (2010). Documentalità. Perché è necessario lasciar tracce [Documentality: Why It Is Necessary to Leave Traces]. Roma-Bari: Laterza.

36. Fiore, B. et alii (2017). Il feedback di INVALSI nei Piani di Miglioramento [The INVALSI Feedback in Improvement Plans]. Scuola Democratica, 1, 141–163.

37. Fletcher, C. (2001). Performance appraisal and management: the developing research agenda. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317901167488

38. Flores, M. A. (2005). Teachers’ views on recent curriculum changes: tensions and challenges. The Curriculum Journal, 16(3), 401–413. https://doi.org/:10.1080/09585170500256479

39. Flores, M.A. (2010). Teacher Performance Appraisal in Portugal: the (im)possibilities of a contested model. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Studies, 15(1), 41–60.

40. Flores, M.A. (2012). The implementation of a new policy on teacher appraisal in Portugal: how do teachers experience it at school? Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24(4), 351–368.

41. Frisch, M. (2010). Didactique de l’information-documentation [Didactics of Information and Documentation]. In M.L., Elalouf, A., Robert, A., Belhadjin, & M.F., Bishop (Eds.), Les didactiques en question(s). État des lieux et perspectives pour la recherche et la formation (pp. 240–250). Bruxelles: De Boeck.

42. Frisch, M. (2014). Les méthodes de regards croisés en formation: l’exemple d’un dispositif intégrant de l’information-documentation et construction collective de savoirs en recherche-action-formation [Cross-Looking Methods in Training: The Example of a Device Integrating InformationDocumentation and Collective Knowledge Construction in Action-Research-Training]. Recherches en Didactiques, 18, 57–77.

43. General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland (GTCNI) (2007). Professional Competences. Belfast.

44. General Teaching Council for Scotland (2012). The Standard for Career-Long Professional Learning: supporting the development of teacher professional learning. Edinburgh: Author.

45. Kleinhenz, E., & Ingvarson, L. (2007). Standards for Teaching: Theoretical Underpinnings and Applications. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

46. Klerks, M. (2013). The Effect of School Inspections: a Systematic Review, paper presented at the ORD, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 20–22 June 2012. Retrieved from http://schoolinspections.eu/impact/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/12/ORD-paper-2012-Review-Effect-SchoolInspections-MKLERKS.pdf.

47. Law 13 July 2015, n. 107. Riforma del sistema nazionale di istruzione e formazione e delega per il riordino delle disposizioni legislative vigenti. Retrieved from http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2015/07/15/15G00122/sg.

48. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven String Claims about Successful School leadership, School Leadership Management, 28(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701800060

49. Magnoler, P. (2012). Ricerca e formazione. La professionalizzazione degli insegnanti [Research and Education: Teacher Professionalization]. Lecce: Pensa Multimedia.

50. Maubant, P. (2011). Enjeux de la place des savoirs dans les pratiques éducatives en contexte scolaire. Compréhension de l'acte d'enseignement et défis pour la formation professionnelle des enseignants [Challenges of the Role of Knowledge in Educational Practices in a School Context: Understanding the Act of Teaching and Challenges for Teacher Professional Development]. Québec, Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.

51. Margolis, J., & Strom, K. (2020). Assessing the success of teacher leadership: the case for asking new questions. Professional Development in Education, 46(4), 607–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1787200

52. Middlewood, D., & Cardno, C. (Eds.) (2001). Managing Teacher Appraisal and Performance: A Comparative Approach. London: Routledge Falmer.

53. MIUR 18 September 2014, Direttiva n. 11, Priorità strategiche del Sistema Nazionale di Valutazione per gli anni scolastici 2014/15, 2015/16 e 2016/17. Retrieved from http://www.istruzione.it/valutazione/allegati/DIRETTIVA_11.pdf.

54. MoNE (2017). Son 5 yılda düzenlenen (2012-2016) Hizmetiçi Eğitim Faaliyetlerinin Konularına Göre [The Topics of In-service Training Activities in the Last Five Years, 2012-2016], Ministry of National Education, Ankara.

55. Moretti, G., & Alessandrini, G. (2015). Community of practice and teacher’s professional development. Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies, 6, 253–273. https://doi.org/10.7358/ecps-2015-011-more

56. OECD (2009). Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments. First Results from TALIS. Paris: OECD Publications http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/51/43023606.pdf

57. Paletta, A. (2014). Leadership for learning: è possible in Italia? (Leadership for Learning: Is It Possible in Italy?), Rivista dell'istruzione, 3, 33–38.

58. Pellerey, M. (2006). Dirigere il proprio apprendimento [Managing Your Own Learning]. Brescia: La Scuola.

59. Perla, L. (2010). Didattica dell’implicito. Ciò che l’insegnante non sa [Implicit Teaching: What the Teacher Doesn't Know]. Brescia: La Scuola.

60. Perla, L. (2011). L'eccellenza in cattedra. Dal saper insegnare alla conoscenza dell'insegnamento [Excellence in the Classroom: From Knowing to Teach to Understanding Teaching]. Brescia: La Scuola.

61. Perla, L. (2015). Il rapporto Università-Scuola: una quaestio "semplessa” [The University-School Relationship: A 'Semplessa' Quaestio (Complicated Matter]. In G., Elia (ED.), La complessità del sapere pedagogico fra tradizione e innovazione (pp. 247–257). Milano: FrancoAngeli.

62. Perla, L. (2017). L'agire partecipativo [Participatory Action]. In F., Bochicchio & P.C., Rivoltella (Eds.). L'agire organizzativo. Manuale per i professionisti della formazione (pp. 125–145). Brescia: ELS La Scuola – Morcelliana.

63. Perla, L. (2019). (Ed.). Valutare per valorizzare. La documentazione per il miglioramento di scuola, insegnanti, studenti [Evaluate to Enhance. Documentation for School, Teachers, and Students Improvement]. Brescia: Scholé-Morcelliana.

64. Perla, L. (Ed.) (2012). Scritture professionali. Metodi per la formazione [Professional Writings: Methods for Training]. Bari: Progedit.

65. Perla, L. (Ed.) (2014). I nuovi Licei alla prova delle competenze. Guida alla progettazione nel primo biennio [The New Lyceums Facing Competencies: A Guide to Designing in the First Two Years]. Lecce: Pensa Multimedia.

66. Perla, L. (Ed.) (2020). Testimoni di sapere didattico. Vent’anni di formazione di scuola secondaria [Witnesses of Didactic Knowledge: Twenty Years of Secondary School Education]. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

67. Perla, L., Agrati, L.S., & Vinci, V. (2021). Valutare o valorizzare lo sviluppo professionale dell’insegnante: evidenze di ricerca per un dibattito [Evaluating or Enhancing Teacher Professional Development: Research Evidence for a Debate]. Mizar. Costellazione di pensieri, 15, 236–243.

68. Perla, L., & Schiavone, N. (2014). Quels dispositifs de documentation de l’implicite dans la formation des enseignants? [What Documentation Systems for the Implicit in Teacher Training?]. In M. Frisch (ed.), Le réseau IDEKI. Objets de recherche d’é- ducation et de formation émergents, problématisés, mis en tension, réélaborés (pp. 23–42). Paris: L’Harmattan.

69. Perla, L., & Vinci, V. (2016). Rapporti di Autovalutazione e Piani di Miglioramento: analisi e mappatura dei bisogni di formazione della Scuola pugliese. Primi step di una ricerca documentativa [SelfEvaluation Reports and Improvement Plans: Analysis and Mapping of Training Needs in the Apulian School System. Initial Steps of a Documentary Research]. Italian Journal of Educational Research, 17(9), 191–218.

70. Perla, L., Vinci, V., & Agrati, L. (2017). The DidaSco Project: a training program for the teachers’ professional development (921-930). In J., Mena, A., García Valcarcel Muñoz Repiso, F.J., García Peñalvo, M., & Martín del Pozo (Eds.), Search and research: teacher education for contemporary contexts (pp. 921–930). Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.

71. Quinn, R.J., & D’Amato Andrews, B. (2004). The struggles of first-year teachers investigating support mechanism. The Clearing House. A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 77(4), 164–169. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.77.4.164-168

72. Ribolzi, L. (2009). Valutazione degli insegnanti: da dove cominciare [Teacher Evaluation: Where to Begin]. Rivista dell'Istruzione, 2, 29–32.

73. Rosa, A. (2016). Il ruolo dei dirigenti scolastici nella formazione e nel supporto dei docenti neoassunti [The Role of School Principals in the Training and Support of Newly Hired Teachers]. Giornale Italiano della Ricerca Educativa, 9(17), 67–86.

74. Sachs, J. (2003). Teacher Professional Standards: controlling or developing teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory into Practice, 9(2), 175-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600309373

75. Sadler, D.R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems, Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.

76. Scherff, L. (2008). Disavowed: the stories of two novice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1317–1332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.06.002

77. Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starrat, R. J. (2002). Supervision: A redefinition. New York: McGraw Hill.

78. Sharples, J., R. Webster and P. Blatchford (2014), Making Best Use of Teaching Assistants: Guidance Report, Education Endowment Foundation, https://v1.educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/uploads/pdf/TA_Guidance_Report_Interactive.pdf.

79. Shinkfield, A. J., & Stufflebeam, D. L. (2012). Teacher Evaluation: Guide to Effective Practice. Springer Science & Business Media.

80. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and Research Programs in the Study of Teaching: A contemporary Perspective. In M.C., Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 3–36). New York: MacMillan.

81. Stronge, J. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2003). Handbook on teacher evaluation: Assessing and improving performance. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

82. Teaching Council (2012). Code of Professional Conduct for Teachers. Maynooth/Dublin, Ireland.

83. Teaching Council (2017). Initial Teacher Education: Criteria and Guidelines for Programme Providers, http://www.teachingcouncil.ie/en/Publications/Teacher-Education/Initial-TeacherEducation-Criteria-and-Guidelines-for-Programme-Providers.pdf.

84. Townsend, T., & Bates, R. (Eds.) (2007). Teacher Education in a New Millennium: Pressures and Possibilities. Dordrecht: Springer.

85. Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2011). Stimulating professional learning through teacher evaluation: An impossible task for the school leader? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 891–899.

86. Watkins, P. (2005). The principal’s role in attracting, retaining, and developing new teachers: three strategies for collaboration and support. The Clearing House. A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 79(2), 83–87. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.79.2.83-87.

87. Winstead Fry, S. (2007). First-year teachers and induction support: ups, downs, and in-betweens. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 216–237. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2007.1635

88. Wood, A. (2005). The importance of principals: site administrators’ roles in novice teacher induction. American Secondary Education, 33(2), 39–62.

89. Wyatt-Smith, C. M., & Looney, A. (2016). Professional Standards and the Assessment Work of Teachers. In D., Wyse, L., Hatward, J., & Pandya (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment (pp. 805–820). SAGE.