Self-Evaluation

Self-evaluation was initially introduced as a standard for school improvement (Ritchie, 2007: 86) and is, at the present moment, a procedure employed in numerous institutions. Macbeath (2005b: 5) says that “it is part of a global movement in which power is being pushed down to school level while at the same time accountability […] assumes a high priority”, especially considering the importance of the quality of information offered by HEIs.

According to Borich’s (1990: 31) description of decision-oriented evaluations, self- evaluation can be categorised as such an evaluation due to the fact that it offers insight into the workings of programmes and capabilities of people, which influences the managers’ decision regarding investing resources to said programmes and people. Furthermore, decision-oriented evaluations are considered to be perspectives that establish the conditions of decision making, rather than being specific methods employed to make decisions (Borich, 1990: 31). In this regard, SE is the process pertaining to QA that allows the management of a HEI to acknowledge the positive and negative aspects within the institution, and provides feedback concerning said aspects, with the purpose of advancing the quality output of the institution. Therefore, SE is not a technique that facilitates decision making, but rather, a procedure that offers the adequate parameters to making competent decisions.

In the words of MacBeath (2005a: 56), “self-evaluation is a process of discovery rather than a tedious adherence to a well-trodden trail”, meaning that self-evaluation should be viewed as an opportunity to enhance quality, not as a repetition of previously uncovered methods of quality sustenance. Therefore, self-evaluation is closely connected with school improvement (Davies and Rudd, 2001), and its purpose is to usher in the progress of quality. For these reasons, as well as because of the particular nature of its requirements, self-evaluation is a mission-based evaluation (Liu, 2016: 202).

There is an important distinction to be made between institutional self-evaluation and teacher self-evaluation. On the one hand, institutional self-evaluation is the approach undertaken by a university in an attempt to understand whether protocols, policies and practices are efficient and whether they follow the institution’s development plan (Adelman, 2005: 202). On the other hand, teacher self-evaluation refers to the process

81

employed by teachers to verify “the adequacy and effectiveness of their own knowledge, performance, beliefs, and effects for the purpose of self-improvement” (Airasian and Gullickson, 2006: 186).

The area in higher education where SE’s impact is most prominent is in teaching and learning, as both the lecturers and the students are not only requested, but expected to invariably improve their performance and knowledge through the use of personal reflection (Pennington and O’Neil, 1994: 17). According to Ritchie (2007: 86), SE is vital in creating a self-critical mentality that challenges practices and results, with the purpose of enhancing the teaching experience for the benefit of students, so that the quality of knowledge distributed to students is perpetually increased, while lecturers are encouraged to enhance their proficiency by adhering to international standards of quality. Employing self-evaluation in teaching and learning offers the possibility of evaluating the institutional and course curriculum, as it not only targets the delivery of knowledge, but also the subjects and courses offered at an institution (Arend, 2009: 29). In this regard, evaluators can assess whether the curricula are relevant, efficient and in accordance with the stakeholder’s desires, and can adapt it according to the feedback provided, thus enhancing the quality of services offered (Cheng, 2003).

This being said, the QAA standards (2016e: 9) indicate that an essential element to creating an efficient teaching and learning process is that HEIs provide a strategic approach that aims to create a prevalent understanding of the methods employed. This goal can be achieved through the SE procedure, as SE enables the stakeholders to engage in an honest, advantageous discussion that offers feedback to all stakeholders, in the pursuit of creating optimised conditions and offering quality services. With this intention, and as SE depends on “intelligent accountability”, a HEI should be capable of providing regular information regarding its achievements and the impact of SE in the daily activities, conditions accomplished by inquiring about learning, achievement and development, involving all relevant stakeholders, providing conclusive evidence, benchmarking against the finest institutions, being indispensable to the administrative procedures and inducing progress (MacBeath, 2005b: 3).

To conclude, SE is a procedure that should be conducted regularly in order to maintain high levels of quality, in a simple, yet beneficial manner that does not interfere with other management or academic processes, not to fulfil the purpose of inspection, but rather, to

82

gather the feedback provided by stakeholders and enhance the services offered according to the needs of the community, as well as those of the individual (Ritchie, 2007: 87-88).

Challenges of Self-Evaluation

The most common challenge of self-evaluation is that the procedure lacks objectivity and that it lacks credibility. Furthermore, SE can generate unreliable information, as some of the interviewees answer untruthfully or in a biased manner to the queries, for various reasons. First, a lack of time, combined with an abundance of additional work leads to a lack of commitment to the SE process (Elassy, 2015: 253). Second, a misunderstanding of the purpose and benefits of certain SE procedures may cause respondents to overlook certain aspects crucial for the evaluation, be they intentional or not (Manyaga, 2008: 165).Third, lack of confidence in the SE procedure can also generate undesirable results, as some employees are inclined to either postpone or neglect the procedure entirely (Pennington and O’Neil, 1994: 17). Lastly, it is possible that the HEI does not prepare the personnel in the interest of creating a culture of quality self-evaluation. This can be caused by a lack of proper training prior to the procedure, by the administrative department’s scepticism towards the SE process, which directly influences the academics, and it can also be caused by the repeated inability of the institution to address the issues revealed by SE, thus generating doubt regarding the procedure’s relevance (Van der Meer, 1999, Ruben et al., 2007). This is to say, the enumerated causes that impede the process of SE are not solely attributed to academics, as they can affect students and administrators alike.

Prerequisites and Circumstances

Research suggests that there are numerous prerequisites or beneficial conditions that enhance the SE process. According to Frazer (1992: 18-19), three conditions crucial to

83

the successful implementation of SE are: external assistance from evaluation experts, employed to aid the person undertaking the procedure in becoming self-critical; SE- specific training, so that the stakeholders understand the importance, benefits and purpose of SE; and national or international standards, to indicate and provide the best practices for a comparison of quality. In addition, Ouston and Davies (1998) discovered that another favourable element to creating a positive experience during official evaluation procedures is a pre-existing, well-established SE culture within the institution, as HEIs that adopted a SE-oriented mentality prior to official evaluations were not only less intimidated by them, but also more confident in disputing the formal results and delivering a separate verdict. This being said, the introduction and adoption of a SE culture within a HEI is an ideal case, as numerous institutions struggle with QA procedures.

Rist (1994: 194-199) states that the success of SE is also influenced by the circumstances surrounding it, such as the timing of evaluation reports in regards to the phase of the process, programme or policy evaluated, while another impactful condition is the method employed to convey the obtained results to the decision makers (Rist, 1994: 200-203). Furthermore, Bubb and Earley (2008) argue that SE is successful and offers valuable feedback when it is a flexible, comprehensive and continuous process that is based on standardised criteria and is capable of celebrating differences.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Self-Evaluation

Self-evaluation offers numerous advantages to the students as well as to institutions, yet also entails some disadvantages, both of which are presented in detail below.

Advantages

In the first place, SE procedures should be established by experts, and introduced after a period of experimentation. The procedures “constitute the summary and abstraction of a variety of experiences and pedagogical knowledge suggesting sequences of occurrences and action backed up by a rationale”, suggesting that the SE process should be thoroughly reflected upon and evaluated prior to its implementation at an institution (Kremer-Hayon, 1993: 43). Therefore, they act as a guideline that enables the attainment of quality.

84

Lyndal (1994: 109) argues that “the unique benefit of self-evaluation is the close involvement of teachers in the consideration of the effectiveness of their own teaching”. Furthermore, all the participants in the evaluative process can openly communicate and work together toward improvement, due to their social and geographical proximity. This collaboration implies the establishment of trust among co-workers, as well as the restoration of lecturers’ professional status (MacBeath, 2005b: 2). Furthermore, due to the fact that both the providers of knowledge and the decision makers partake in the evaluation process, and that the process is done without intermediaries, concerns are not only addressed at a faster pace, but they are also undertaken in a more impactful manner. Le Menestrel, Walahoski and Mielke (2014: 64) argue that internal evaluations are more cost-effective than external ones, particularly when the purpose of the evaluation is to verify and improve existing programmes. Moreover, institutions can also improve the quality of their education by applying more demanding courses and techniques, if SE reveals deficiencies, as the correct application of the procedure provides immediate, long- term results (Ritchie and Dale, 2000). In addition, it is possible “to sacrifice short-term efficiencies to gain insight into and respond to novel problems along the way” (HMIe, 2008: 4). Another benefit of SE, according to MacBeath (2005b: 2), is that the evolution of the process can help uncover the location of the hidden capital in a HEI, in an attempt to redirect funds to improving competences.

To summarise, self-evaluation helps individuals and HEIs reveal both favourable and negative aspects and provides the instruments to overcoming obstacles, all the while assimilating new knowledge.

Disadvantages

On the other hand, SE procedures are created by educational experts and this can also be perilous to some people who employ them, as there is a tendency to believe that certain procedures are without flaws, and that they should not be improved upon, which can result in either the stagnation of academic quality, or exceedingly high expectations regarding the outcomes of SE (Kremer-Hayon, 1993: 43).

According to Ritchie and Dale (2000), the SE process is limited by the fact that its initial objectives are often unclear, estimated even, and that it occurs over an extended time period, thus impeding other procedures. Similarly, Marra’s (2000) research into SE

85

reveals the discrepancy between the perceptions of evaluation among stakeholders, as the procedure required a certain duration to provide a conclusive feedback report, yet the programme had already undergone several changes, which ultimately rendered most of the report redundant. As Marra (2000: 28) states, “there is a disjuncture between the benefits desired by users in the short run and those promised by the evaluators, who are inclined to talk of indirect influences on decision making, of social enlightenment and of cumulative persuasiveness”. This being said, if perceptions regarding the purpose of the SE procedure between stakeholders are not similar, the evaluation cannot be successful. Thus, there are discrepancies between the fast, accurate and relevant information desired by the decision-makers, and the slower pace of the SE process, which yields more equivocal results (Marra, 2000).

Such discrepancies can generate scepticism and perpetuate misconceptions relating to the usefulness of SE, which is another common impediment to the procedure, as stakeholders can either lack commitment, understanding or the enthusiasm to undertake SE (Ritchie and Dale, 2000). Therefore, the HE provider should aim to unify, clarify and meet the demands of all parties involved, so that the SE procedure is considered viable (Manyaga, 2008: 165).

Another disadvantage of SE is that it requires educating the students, the academics and the administrators on the purpose of the evaluation, its significance, as well as the techniques employed when performing SE. The process of training for SE is a tedious one, and implies additional funding for the procedure, and increases in the lecturers’ workload, who are required to instruct students and offer guidance throughout the entire duration of the procedure (Elassy, 2015). Indeed, certain institutions are simply not capable of providing said resources, due to a shortage of staff, funding or time. In fact, if the training phase is not adequately achieved, both students and employees will consider themselves to be inadequately prepared for the evaluative procedures, which generates further confusion and aversion towards SE (Frazer, 1992: 18).