Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 21 November 2014, At: 19:20Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rere20
Appraisal: monitoring andevaluating its progressChris Embery a & Jeff Jones ba Bishop of Hereford's Bluecoat Schoolb Hereford and Worcester LEAPublished online: 09 Jul 2006.
To cite this article: Chris Embery & Jeff Jones (1996) Appraisal: monitoring and evaluatingits progress, Educational Research, 38:2, 123-133, DOI: 10.1080/0013188960380201
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013188960380201
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Educational Research Volume 38 Number 2 Summer 1996 123
Appraisal: monitoring andevaluating its progressChris Embery, Bishop of Hereford's Bluecoat School, and Jeff Jones,Hereford and Worcester LEA
Summary
It is now nearly five years since the DFE issued the School Teacher AppraisalRegulations, making appraisal a requirement for all teachers. As with manyinnovations, it was regarded by some colleagues in schools as an opportunity to beseized and by others as an imposition to be tolerated. The DFE also made clear therequirement upon LEAs and governing bodies to provide information on theprogress being made in meeting the targets for the introduction of appraisal asstipulated in the Orders. For many schools the first cycle is now over and, as theyembark upon the next, the timing is right for the monitoring and evaluation of theprogress being made to date. This article rehearses the rationale behind systematicmonitoring and evaluation and reports on the way in which one LEA high schoolapproached the task.
Keywords: appraisal, monitoring, evaluation, secondary
Why monitor the progress of appraisal?
Since 1991, schools have attempted to implement the teacher appraisal process as setout in the DES Regulations. The process is being phased in over a four-year period,which means that some schools are already embarking upon a second two-year cycle.
The DFE, in Circular 12/91, required local education authorities (LEAs) andgoverning bodies of grant-maintained schools to provide information on the progressbeing made in meeting the targets for the introduction of appraisal as stipulated inthe statutory orders. Schools and LEAs are expected to arrange for the 'monitoringand periodic evaluation of appraisal arrangements, including the extent to whichappraisal reflects the principles in relation to equal opportunities' (DES Circular12/91, para. 71).
Effective monitoring and evaluation of the appraisal process can:
• inform future decision-making;• improve efficiency;• help optimize resources;• identify strengths and weaknesses;• clarify aims, objectives and priorities;• raise the quality of training;• improve the effectiveness of teaching;• support curriculum development;
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
124 Educational Research Volume 38 Number 2 Summer 1996
MONITORING
APPRAISAL SCHOOL AIMS AND EVALUATIONSCHEME OBJECTIVES OF DATA
REVIEW AND MODIFICATIONFIGURE 1 An evaluation cycle for appraisal (Jones, 1993)
• support professional and personal development;• offer feedback to participants and organizers.
The monitoring and evaluation of the appraisal process can be seen as part of a cycle(Figure 1). Having set the aims and objectives of the process, it becomes necessary tomonitor its components and activities. The data gathered can then be used toevaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the process leading to review and anymodifications where appropriate. This cycle is a continuous process but, in practice,a systematic approach which follows a planned timetable should be adopted duringthe two-year appraisal cycle.
How might the monitoring be carried out?
Any monitoring and evaluation strategy needs to be focused on the key players in theappraisal process - the teachers. Using a variety of appropriate techniques, includingquestionnaires, structured and/or semi-structured interviews, teachers need to begiven opportunities to provide feedback to those organizing the appraisal arrange-ments on areas such as:
• the processes involved - e.g. self-appraisal, timetable, data collection;• the design of the documentation - e.g. self-appraisal proforma, agreed statement,
guidance booklets;• target setting;• the support and training provided before, during and after the implementation of
the appraisal arrangements.
Such reflection by teachers may suggest the need for:
• clarification of purposes and issues;• refinements to the process itself;• further training and support.
Appraisal is developmental, and it is important at the planning stage to build in timefor reflection and for developing strategies for improvement.
The following represents an account of the monitoring and evaluation procedurecarried out by a large high school.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Appraisal: monitoring and evaluation 125
Case study: a school asks how they are doing on appraisal
Background
As newly appointed deputy with responsibility for appraisal my first task was to gaugewhere the school was in its implementation of appraisal. A voluntary scheme had beenin operation for two years prior to the DFE requirement and staff had gainedexperience of the process, as well as valuable expertise.
A working party was set up to identify the next steps and proceed with thedevelopment of a revised scheme. The group included members of the originalworking party, colleagues who had been appraised and some who were completelynew, both to the school and appraisal.
The intention was to build on the work of the original voluntary scheme, enhancingthe aims and objectives where appropriate. The description of the process retainedmuch the same structure, although details such as the number of observations and therole of the headteacher needed revising, especially to take account of the fact that wewere now preparing for a scheme which involved everyone not just volunteers.
The revised scheme presented to the staff met with a favourable reaction and yieldeda number of volunteers who were interested in developing further aspects of thescheme. Such aspects included the area of observation schedules, self-evaluation andthe gathering of data outside the classroom observation. Reservations about thepairings (who would appraise whom?), confidentiality, the time it would take andavailability of funding to support identified INSET needs also surfaced.
The next task was the identification of appraisee and appraiser, which was done bythe headteacher ir jonsultation with both the Senior Management Team (SMT) andmyself. Attempts were made to link 'line manager' as nearly as possible to eachappraisee and take account of expressed negative preferences. This was not quite aseasy as it seemed at first sight, particularly for those in 'middle management' positions.The reality of school management is more nearly a 'matrix' than a simple 'line model'.Even standard scale teachers are responsible to both a Head of Department for theireveryday teaching and a Head of House for their work as form teachers. Heads ofHouse are responsible to a deputy for the Head of House work, but also to a Head ofDepartment for their everyday teaching. In some cases, this is even two Heads ofDepartment.
A second series of three conferences provided detailed training using the newschool-based materials and taking about a third of the staff on each occasion. Theschedule began with senior staff in July 1992. The principle that no one shouldappraise until they had first been appraised proved to be an important one and was asignificant factor in the early success of the scheme.
In summer 1993 a review of the scheme indicated that appraisals were taking place.Apart from slight slippage in the schedule, no serious problems had beenencountered.
Monitoring of the process took place at termly intervals by both the headteacher andmyself. In December 1993 two areas of concern had been identified:
1 the number of incomplete appraisals was lower than had been predicted;2 the lack of information feeding into the school development plan and the INSET
plans.
A full evaluation of the scheme, which was anticipated at the outset as being sensibleafter one full cycle, would form the basis for improvement of the school's appraisalarrangements.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
126 Educational Research Volume 38 Number 2 Summer 1996
The evaluation of the staff appraisal process
Throughout the 18 months in which the scheme had been in operation, I hadgathered information from four major sources:
1 formally via references to appraisal at senior management and other meetings;2 informally from comments made during casual conversations;3 official records of the process and appraisal statements;4 as a participant in the process, both as appraisee and appraiser.
This, in turn, had raised the following questions:
1 Was the whole process becoming very 'spread out' (between the stages) andtherefore in danger of losing its momentum?
2 Was the link with development rather tenuous?3 Were team leaders finding it difficult to pick up the development needs of the team
members, if they were not appraisers?4 Were all the appraisals being carried out effectively?5 Did appraisers need further training to strengthen the process? If so, what should
be the nature of this training?
The formal evaluation, discussed with the headteacher, involved interviews with asample of appraisers and a questionnaire to all staff who had been appraised. A copyof the questionnaire and the responses of staff are shown in Appendix 1. Appendix 2sets out the broad schedule of questions asked at interview. The questionnaire wasgiven personally to each member of staff who had been appraised, to explain itspurpose and to try to impress upon them the value of its return.
The questionnaire would seek responses in areas such as:
The logistics of the operation
• Were the appraisals actually being carried out?• How well on schedule were they?• How long were they taking to complete?• How much time was being used for each step?
The effectiveness of the appraisal
How effective were the lesson observations in providing evidence for discussion?How effectively was 'other' evidence being gathered?How effectively was performance evaluated?How well were the appraisals discussions carried out?Were realistic targets being identified?
The stimulus for professional development
• Were targets for development being followed up and reviewed?• Were professional development activities (e.g. INSET) being identified and
provided?• How regularly do 'team leaders' meet and review with their team members?• Was the appraisal fair and comprehensive?
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Appraisal: monitoring and evaluation 127
The competence of appraisers
• What are the skills of appraisers like?• What further training is needed to enhance the process?
Supporting materials
• How useful was the documentation for appraisers?• How useful was the 'self-appraisal' sheet?e How useful was the classroom observation sheet?• What other materials were developed and used?• What needs remain for supportive materials?
Problems in carrying out the stages
• How have the 'pairings' worked out in practice?• Were colleagues confident in their appraisers?
Were appraisals taking place?
Evidence about the progress of appraisal came from a number of sources andincreasingly suggested a slowing down in activity. Of the 67 staff originally targetedfor appraisal, full statements of appraisal were available on file for only 51. Furtherinquiry revealed that a larger number of appraisals had been completed but, forvarious reasons, statements had not been finally typed up and filed. Reminders toappraisers triggered off further activity resulting in another six completed state-ments, bringing the total to 57. Of the remaining appraisals, three were at some stagebetween initial discussion and final statement, two were aborted since colleagues hadleft, two had been postponed on account of illness and maternity leave, and three hadsimply not been started for diverse reasons. One of these linked to issues ofconfidence and inter-staff relationships; it seems to indicate a re-think of the pairingof appraiser—appraisee will be needed before the appraisal can take place. The othertwo were victims of low priority on a busy agenda!
The views of appraisers
Eleven of the 22 appraisers were interviewed. These included two members of theSMT, six major Heads of Department and a Head of House. This sample provided across section of staff, including those who had carried out one or two appraisals, aswell as those who had done several.
Interviews with appraisers were conducted, lasting anything from 15 minutes toover an hour (in one case), in an attempt to find out:
how many appraisals were completed;how the process went - problem issues arising, as well as strong points;how well prepared and trained they felt they had been;how the individual stages had gone;timings, start to finish - and reasons for slippage;paperwork and record-keeping - what records were kept;what other data they collected and how;what communication there had been between them and the team leader; and ifnone, what suggestions had been made for professional development, and howthis had been carried out and/or monitored with follow-up meetings.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
128 Educational Research Volume 38 Number 2 Summer 1996
The evidence which emerged from the interviews ranged from the most positivereports of successful process to the very opposite!
Nearly all appraisers had kept some record of dates of meetings and notes. In thecase of the two most positive interviews, appraisal had been followed up both withformal and informal review meetings, and INSET activity had been identified andprovided. The two appraisers stated that, in their view, the process had beeneffective in encouraging and improving performance within their teams. Appraisalhad been an opportunity for discussions which otherwise might not have takenplace.
Another six interviews provided positive reports of some aspects of the process.Lesson observation and feedback discussion had proceeded without significantproblems, although there had been significant challenges en route. In one case, thishad meant handling the classroom observation very sensitively, and in another case,renegotiating the appraisal statement several times to secure satisfactory agreement.Appraisal discussions had identified targets for development. The supportingpaperwork had been used to good effect. Only in one case was an appraiserdissatisfied with the classroom observation sheets as being 'too open-ended' and haddeveloped her own 'more judgemental' form. They were happy with the training,preparation and support they had been given.
Where information about performance outside the classroom had been needed, ithad been gained either by discussion with colleagues or by simple questionnaire.Despite some anxiety before the start of appraisal, this had not proved to be acontentious issue, apart from one occasion when questionnaires were appearing inpigeon-holes with no prior warning or introduction. Advice in a weekly general staffbriefing was sufficient to prevent further problems.
Follow-up in all six cases had been erratic, either because the actual appraisal hadbeen relatively recent or because it had not received sufficient priority. In one case,the appraiser refused to follow up until her own appraiser had done likewise! Thequestion of identifying INSET for the appraisee seemed to have been left to linemanagers or appraisees themselves; in some cases, INSET had taken place althoughit seemed to have been incidental to the process.
Two interviews provided the most disturbing news - appraisals, started monthsago, were still not complete. There seemed to be genuine reasons for the difficulty inone case with part-time staff to appraise. The agreed focus of the lesson observationhad necessitated particular conditions which had been hard to ensure (outdoor workin PE, for example). The other case seemed to be evidence of very weak managementof a line manager, both in terms of personal self-management and organization andmanagement of a process. Although both appraisers felt happy with the training andpreparation provided, their perceptions of the process left much to be desired, andwider management issues to be addressed within the school.
The biggest single challenge faced by all appraisers was finding time to carry outthe work. One colleague had kept a meticulous record indicating some three hours inschool, plus a further 1.5 to 2 hours off-site in preparation and follow-up for eachappraisal. Finding the time in school was seen as a major issue, particularly with fouror five appraisals to do.
The views of appraisees
The details of the questionnaire to appraisees and the summary of informationprovided is found in Appendix 1. Thirty returns were received (50 per centresponse), of which 16 respondents were happy to be identified.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Appraisal: monitoring and evaluation 129
The great majority seem to have been satisfied with the preparation and supportfor the process, including the self-appraisal forms, which concurs with the follow-upfrom the training sessions. In contrast, about 66 per cent of respondents felt thattheir appraiser needed more INSET to enable them to carry out the process moreeffectively. Four colleagues expressed reservations about their appraiser which mayaccount for two appraisals running into difficulty. Only one appraisee, however, hadnot felt at ease with their appraiser, or stated the desire to change appraiser nexttime.
The majority of appraisees were happy with the opportunity given to them toinfluence their appraisal, and all but one was happy with the choice of lessons forobservation. This much, at least, is consistent with the principle that each appraiseeshould be at the centre of the process of identifying their strengths and weaknesses.
Although appraisers were unanimous in stating that the lessons were typical oftheir everyday teaching, the presence of an appraiser in the room does seem to haveaffected the way either they or their pupils behaved in at least 11 of the 30 cases. Allfelt that their appraiser had observed perceptively, and all but four that theobservation had identified targets for development. The fact that INSET wasidentified in only eight out of 30 cases calls into question whether appraisal is indeed'. . . strengthening the link between needs identification and INSET', as proposedin the 'purposes' of the school scheme of appraisal. A similar number of responsesreferred to INSET actually taking place as a result of the appraisal.
The fact that, in three cases, teachers were not observed at work in the classroomon at least two separate occasions, as required by the DFE, is explained by responsesfrom deputies for whom classroom observation is not a requirement. Immediatefeedback does not appear to have been given in six cases; more worrying still is thefact that a draft of the appraisal statement was not produced within the specified twoweeks of the discussion in seven cases. Eight colleagues involved themselves inmodifying their appraisal statements in some way, perhaps indicating theirsatisfaction with the process.
The low incidence of follow-up and review, already referred to in the interviews, isshown again in the nine responses indicating follow-up activity.
More than half of all respondents felt that the process was time-consuming forthem, though slightly more stated that they found it beneficial. Ten felt negativelyabout any benefit of the process to them. About 66 per cent felt that the scheme needschanging in some way.
Fifty per cent of all respondents felt that appraisal is ' . . . strengthening the schoolas a teaching community' (an expressed aim of the scheme).
The open section of the questionnaires yielded a range of comments. On thepositive side, it was found to be a non-threatening, enjoyable experience, much lessformidable than expected. The opportunity to engage in a professional discussionand raise issues had been welcomed and found to be a 'morale-booster'. Promisesmade had since been fulfilled!
On the negative side, several comments related to the time-consuming nature ofthe activity:
'Did it justify the effort needed?'
'It didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.'
'The INSET for appraisal was so long ago I had forgotten it when my appraisalcame around.'
'Promises made had not been fulfilled!'
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
130 Educational Research Volume 38 Number 2 Summer 1996
'INSET suggested previously had not been met!'
'A wider range of lesson experiences needed than can be provided in just twolessons.'
One respondent expressed the need to be appraised by a colleague with the samesubject discipline. Another useful suggestion was for a record or 'log' for appraisersand follow-up discussions with the school Professional Development Coordinator.
Conclusions
The evaluation exercise identified the following action for improving upon theschool's appraisal practice:
• Monitoring the progress of every individual appraisal regularly.• Devising and implementing an effective system of scheduling each stage of each
appraisal.• Devising and implementing an effective system of feeding through from
appraisals information about INSET and other development needs to theProfessional Development Coordinator.
• Motivating team leaders to take on board the professional development needs ofevery member of their team.
• Developing a 'culture of professional development' in the school, so that appraisaland professional development do not 'slide off the agenda' of busy professionalcolleagues.
• Evaluating the quality of the targets being set in each appraisal.
As with all evaluation activity, the question which needs to be asked is: how reliableand valid is the evidence on which the judgements are being made, and is itappropriate to generalize about the whole process of appraisal in the school from theevidence presented?
The interviewees were remarkably frank about strengths and weaknesses, and yetit was hard to avoid the feeling that on occasions colleagues were tempted to 'tell theDeputy Head the information he wanted!' Would the information given to a thirdparty have been more reliable? Would another colleague interpret differently theinformation given?
Both appraisers and appraisees had valid comments to make. A good range ofcolleagues were consulted. One aspect which did appear to affect the validity ofresponses was the time gap between the appraisals and this evaluation. There wouldseem to be some value in each appraisee completing an evaluation immediately aftertheir appraisal. The sample of questionnaires and interviews suggests that theevidence is representative of the school as a whole.
The evaluation study reported here was carried out at the same time as theAssociation of Teachers and Lecturers was presenting its report of a preliminarysurvey of the initial effects of appraisal (ATL, 1994). The research Early Outcomes ofAppraisal (Weiner, Powney and McPake, 1994) concluded that:
• Training for all involved in the appraisal process is important. Such trainingshould draw attention to the benefits of the process and to its constructive nature.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Appraisal: monitoring and evaluation 131
• The appraisee's ability to influence the process determines the extent to whichattitudes towards the process are positive or otherwise.
• Ways must be found of not only linking teachers' individual targets to schooldevelopment plans, but also resourcing the process, so that targets are realized.
o The true purpose of appraisal must be made clear and teachers' concern about thelink between it and promotion and pay addressed.
• Teachers derive considerable benefits from appraisal, ranging from increasedconfidence and self-esteem to the development of a range of professional skills.
Clearly there are common findings in both evaluations, but whereas the researchcarried out on behalf of ATL has implications largely for policy-makers at DFElevel, many of the outcomes of the school-based evaluation are those which can betaken on board more readily at school level. Action is needed at both levels ifappraisal is to realize its true potential:
For if appraisal is to be judged by teachers and others as worthwhile it must havepositive and practical outcomes. It must be perceived as having benefits forpupils, teachers and the community at large. Investments must be made notonly in the design and implementation of appraisal in schools, but also insupport for its outcomes (Day, Whitaker and Wren, 1987).
References
ATL (1994). Commentary on Research into the Early Outcomes of Appraisal, Association ofTeachers and Lecturers.
DAY, C., WHITAKER, P. and WREN, D. (1987). Appraisal and Professional Development inPrimary Schools. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
JONES, J. L. (1993). Appraisal and Staff Development in Schools. London: David Fulton.WEINER, G., POWNEY, J. and McPAKE, J. (1994). Early Outcomes of Appraisal,
SCRE/ATL.
Appendix 1: The Bishop of Hereford's Bluecoat School Evaluation ofthe Scheme of Appraisal Staff Questionnaire
This Questionnaire is being administered to all colleagues who have been appraisedin the past two years. The information provided will be treated in the strictest confidence.
The return can be anonymous; alternatively, you may wish to give your identity.
All the questions are answered by indicating agreement or disagreement, mostly on asix-point scale. Occasionally only two possible choices 'Yes' or 'No' are given. In allother places please use 'YES', 'Yes', 'yes','no', 'No', 'NO' depending how closelyyou agree with the question.
A free response section is available for you to amplify any of your responses or to addany other comment that you wish. The information you provide will enable us toreview our scheme.
Returns by Friday, 22 July would be very much appreciated. Many thanks inanticipation.
Christopher E. EmbreyCoordinator for Appraisal
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
132 Educational Research Volume 38 Number 2 Summer 1996
Preparation
1 Did the Staff INSET prepare you well for your appraisal?
2 Were you happy with the appraiser identified for youbeforehand?
3 In your pre-appraisal meeting were you given a goodopportunity to influence the focus of your appraisal?
4 Did you find the self-appraisal forms useful (the pink A3 sheets'Looking back - Looking forward')?
The lesson observations and gathering of other data
5 Were you happy with the selection of lessons chosen forobservation?
6 Did your appraiser observe on two occasions?
7 Did you receive some immediate feedback? (within 24 hours)
8 Did you find the presence of another colleague in your classroomchanged the way you or your pupils behave?
9 Was (were) the lesson(s) observed typical of your everydayteaching?
10 Did your appraiser gather information from any other source?
The main appraisal meeting
11 Did you feel at ease with your appraiser?
12 In the discussion of your lesson observations did you feel thatyour appraiser had observed perceptively?
13 Did the observation identify target areas for you to develop orimprove upon?
14 Was any INSET or other 'professional development activity'suggested?
Follow-up
15 Did you receive a draft of the summary appraisal statementwithin two weeks of the main discussion?
16 Did you make any suggestions for significant amendment in thestatement?
17 Have you had any follow-up or review meetings?
18 Have you taken part in any INSET or 'professional developmentactivity' as results of your appraisal?
Overall feelings about the appraisal process
19 Did you find the school documentation helpful/useful?
20 Did you find the process time consuming?
21 Have you found it beneficial?
22 Is it 'strengthening the school as a teaching community?
23 Do we need more INSET for 'appraisers* to carry out their tasksmore effectively?
24 Do we need to change the scheme in any way?
25 Would you be happy with the same appraiser next time?
YES
8
23
16
6
21
24
21
3
23
20
24
15
S
8
21
3
5
5
5
8
4
3
5
5
24
Yet
12
2
7
8
5
5
4
4
7
12
3
1
1
10
7
6
5
7
7
2
V "
8
4
4
7
5
3
3
4
6
9
2
3
3
12
3
10
7
10
7
30
no
3
1
3
2
1
2
0
1
0
1
3
3
1
2
6
2
3
3
2
0
No
1
0
0
1
9
6
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
5
1
5
1
NO
0
2
1
1
9
3
6
10
0
e
0
0
1
21
7
15
17
17
2
4
7
5
3
2
0
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
Appraisal: monitoring and evaluation 133
Please use this space for any other information you want to give, either to expand on anyof the questions overleaf or to comment upon other issues.
(Ifyou want your responses to remain anonymous, it may be sensible to type yourcomments!)
Appendix 2: Interview Schedule
Name Date interviewed
• People appraised, with dates• General comments about the process• Problems/issues• Hardest and easiest appraisals to carry out, with reasons• Use of the 'pre-appraisal' sheets by appraisee and appraiser• Lesson observations problems/issues:
- Use of observation schedule- Feedback to appraisee- Other data-gathering, methods used, problems/issues
• If not the line manager/team leader, how easy was it to get a knowledge of thework?
• The Appraisal Interview:- Preparing for; setting the agenda; discussion of the issues; setting targets;
suggestions for professional development- Follow-up: suggested sessions; carried out? records made?
• Appraiser Training:- Adequacy of training provides; skills needed to be developed; further training
suggested or needed• How can a better link be made between appraisal and professional development?• What changes are needed to the overall scheme?o Any other comments:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UQ
Lib
rary
] at
19:
20 2
1 N
ovem
ber
2014
