DECLARATION...................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION.......................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................. ix
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS................................................................ x
ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction
.................................................................................................
1
1.2 Background
..................................................................................................
1
1.3 Statement of the Problem
............................................................................. 6
1.4 Purpose of the Study
....................................................................................
7
1.5 Objectives
....................................................................................................
7
1.6 Research Questions ......................................................................................
8
1.7 Significance of
the Study
............................................................................. 8
1.8 Basic Assumptions
.......................................................................................
9
1.9 Limitations
...................................................................................................
9
1.10 Delimitation
...............................................................................................
10
1.11 Theoretical Framework
..............................................................................
11
1.12 Conceptual framework
...............................................................................
14
1.13 Operational definition of terms
................................................................... 15
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE
REVIEW .................................................... 16
2.1 Introduction
...............................................................................................
16
2.1.1 Concept of Performance Appraisal
................................................. 16
2.1.2 Teacher Performance appraisal (TPA)
............................................ 17
2.2 Perceptions about teachers‟ performance
appraisal in meeting its purpose . 18
2.3 Teachers Performance Appraisal
Methods.................................................. 22
2.4 Teachers Performance Appraisers
.............................................................. 24
2.5
Teachers‟ Performance
Appraisal Feedback ............................................... 26
2.6 Empirical Studies on TPA in Kenya
........................................................... 29
2.7 Summary ...................................................................................................
32
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH
DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ........... 33
3.1 Introduction
...............................................................................................
33
3.2 Research Design
........................................................................................
33
3.3 Locale of the Study
....................................................................................
33
3.4 Target Population
.......................................................................................
34
3.4.1 Districts
..........................................................................................
34
3.4.2 Schools
...........................................................................................
34
3.4.3 Respondents
...................................................................................
35
3.4.3.1 Principals
......................................................................... 35
3.4.3.2 Deputy
Principal .............................................................. 35
3.4.3.3
Teachers...........................................................................
36
3.5 Sample and Sampling Procedures
............................................................... 36
3.5.1 Sampling of
the Schools .................................................................
37
3.5.2 Sampling of
the respondents ........................................................... 37
3.5.2.1
Teachers...........................................................................
37
3.5.2.2 Deputy
Principals ............................................................. 38
3.5.2.3 Principals .........................................................................
38
3.6 Research Instruments
.................................................................................
39
3.6.1 Questionnaire for the Teachers
....................................................... 39
3.6.2 A
questionnaire for the Deputy Principals .......................................
39
3.6.3 A
Questionnaire for the Principals
.................................................. 40
3.7 Validity of the Instrument
.......................................................................... 40
3.7.1 Piloting
...........................................................................................
40
3.7.2 Reliability of
the Instruments .......................................................... 41
3.8 Data Collection Procedures
........................................................................ 41
3.9 Data
Analysis
.............................................................................................
42 CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION OF
FINDINGS
AND DISCUSSION
.............................................................................................
43
4.1 Introduction
...............................................................................................
43
4.2 Principals and Deputy Principals
Experience .............................................. 44
4.2.1 Principals and
Deputy Principals Background Information ............. 44
4.2.2 Teachers‟
Background Information ................................................. 46
4.3 Effectiveness
of Teachers‟ Performance Appraisal System in Meeting its
Purpose
......................................................................................................
48
4.3.1 Effectiveness of Teachers Performance
Appraisal System in Meeting
its Purpose
.....................................................................................
48
4.3.2 Effectiveness of Teachers‟ Performance
Appraisal System in Relation to
Achievement of the Specific National Desired Objective ........... 54
4.4 Effectiveness of the Teachers‟ Performance
Appraisal Methods ................. 58
4.4.1 The
Effectiveness of Teachers‟ Performance Appraisal Methods as
Reported
by Principals, Deputy Principals and Teachers ................. 61
4.5 Performance of Teachers Appraisers
.......................................................... 64
4.5.1 Effectiveness
of Performance Appraisers ........................................ 66
4.6 Usefulness of Performance Appraisal
Feedback for Teachers ..................... 71
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY,
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
.....................................................................................
76
5.1 Introduction
...............................................................................................
76
5.2 Summary of the Study
................................................................................
76
5.2.1 Teachers
Perceptions about the Effectiveness of Performance
Appraisal System in Meeting its Purpose
....................................... 77
5.2.2 Effectiveness
of the Teachers‟ Performance Appraisal Methods ..... 78
5.2.3 Performance of
Teachers Appraisers ............................................... 79
5.2.4 Provision and Usefulness of Performance
Appraisal Feedback for
Teachers
.........................................................................................
79
5.3 Conclusions ...............................................................................................
80
5.4 Recommendations of the Study
.................................................................. 81
5.5 Areas
for Further Research
......................................................................... 82 REFERENCES
....................................................................................................
83
APPENDIX I: Questionnaire
for Teachers ....................................................... 93
APPENDIX II: Questionnaire
for the Deputy Principals .................................... 99
APPENDIX III: Questionnaire
for the principals .............................................. 105
APPENDIX IV: Research
Authorization ........................................................... 111
APPENDIX V: Research
Permit ......................................................................
112
APPENDIX VI: Research
Authorization from County Director ........................ 113
APPENDIX VII: Research
Authorization from County Commissioner............... 114
|
Table 3.1:
|
Distribution of public
secondary schools in Naivasha and Gilgil
|
|
|
districts..............................................................................................
35
|
|
Table 3.2:
|
Distribution of teachers in Naivasha and Gilgil districts
..................... 36
|
|
Table 3.3:
|
Sample size table
...............................................................................
38
|
|
Table 4.1:
|
Distribution of the principals and deputy principals by
gender ........... 44
|
|
Table 4.2:
|
Principals and deputy principals‟ experience .....................................
45
|
|
Table 4.3:
|
Respondents ratings on the TPA effectiveness in meeting its
purpose 49
|
|
Table 4.4:
|
Teachers‟ perceptions on
effectiveness of appraisal system in meeting
|
|
|
its purpose .........................................................................................
52
|
|
Table 4.5:
|
Respondents responses on the effectiveness of TPA system
............... 55
|
|
Table 4.6:
|
Teachers‟ ratings on
effectiveness of performance appraisal
|
|
|
objectives
..........................................................................................
57
|
|
Table 4.7:
|
Performance appraisal methods .........................................................
58
|
Table 4.8: Approval of Performance Appraisal Methods
.................................... 60
Table 4.9: Respondents opinion on teachers‟ performance
appraisal methods .... 62
Table 4.10: Respondents‟ opinion about the most effective
appraisal methods ..... 63
Table 4.11: Person‟s who Conduct Teachers‟ Appraisal in
School ....................... 65
Table 4.12: Other Person‟s Responsible of Appraising
Teachers .......................... 66
Table 4.13: Teachers‟ ratings of effectiveness of the
performance appraisers ....... 67
Table 4.14: Principals and Deputy Principals‟
effectiveness as teachers‟
appraisers
..........................................................................................
68
Table 4.15: Teachers‟ Perception towards Effectiveness of
Performance Appraisers
.........................................................................................
70
Table 4.16: Respondents‟ opinion on the effectiveness of
teachers‟ appraisal
feedback
............................................................................................
72
Figure 1.1: Link between various aspects of the TPA and
the teachers‟ perceptions of the
effectiveness of the TPA system ..............................................
14 Figure 4.1: Categories of the sampled
schools ..................................................... 45
Figure 4.2: Teachers‟ working experience
........................................................... 47
|
DSO
|
District Staffing Officer
|
|
GOK
|
Government of Kenya
|
|
HOD
|
Head of Department
|
|
KESI
|
Kenya Education Staff
Institute
|
|
MED
|
Masters in Education
|
|
MOEST
|
Ministry of Education
Science and Technology
|
|
NACOSTI
|
National Council for
Science Technology and Innovation
|
|
OECD
|
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
|
|
PA
|
Performance Appraisal
|
|
QASO
|
Quality Assurance and
Standards Officer
|
|
SABER
|
System Approach for Better
Results
|
|
SPSS
|
Statistical Package for
Social Sciences
|
|
TPA
|
Teacher Performance
Appraisal
|
|
TSC
|
Teacher Service Commission
|
Effective performance appraisal system depends on how it
addresses itself to the views and attitudes of the teachers in the school.
Since 2012, teachers in Kenya have been appraised using a revised system of
appraisal whose effectiveness has not been verified. The purpose of this study
was to explore the teachers‟ perceptions on the effectiveness of the appraisal
system. The specific objectives of the study were to: establish teachers‟
perceptions about the effectiveness of the teachers‟ performance appraisal
system in meeting its purpose in public secondary schools in Naivasha and
Gilgil districts; determine the effectiveness of the teachers‟ performance
appraisal methods; assess the performance of teachers‟ appraisers and establish
the usefulness of performance appraisal feedback for teachers in public
secondary schools. The study was grounded on a four phase performance appraisal
model by Grote (2003). The study employed descriptive survey design targeting
50 principals, 50 deputy principals and 434 teachers from public secondary
schools in Naivasha and Gilgil districts. The researcher used stratified random
sampling method to select 15 schools to participate in the study. From the 15 public secondary schools, 15
principals and deputy principals were purposefully selected while 6 teachers were
selected from each of the sampled schools using simple random sampling method,
giving a total of 120 respondents. Questionnaires, one designed for principals,
another one for deputy principals and the third one for teachers were used as
instruments of data collection. Quantitative and qualitative data were
collected during the study. Quantitative
data was analysed using descriptive statistics; frequency counts, percentages
and means while content analysis was done on qualitative data based on identified
themes, patterns and categories of responses. The results of the analysis were
presented thematically in narrative form, frequency table, bar graphs and pie
charts. The study established that the current performance appraisal process
was not effective in achieving its desired goals in public secondary schools in
both Gilgil and Naivasha districts. The most commonly used methods of
performance appraisal in schools under study were school administrator
observation and self evaluation. However, the most effective and preferred
method of performance appraisal was combination of various methods. Most of the
teachers viewed appraisers in their schools as ineffective in performance of
their work. The major factor which made them to be ineffective was lack of
requisite skills required to conduct teachers‟ performance appraisal
process. In addition to this, the study
established that there was a problem in communication of the performance
feedback among the appraisers and appraisee and as well as from TSC, the employer.
To a large extent therefore, teachers found performance appraisal as of no
benefit. To improve on these challenges, the study recommends that; TSC needs
to in-service the principals, deputy principals, and the teachers on
performance appraisal in order to demystify its purpose in schools. Training
will also equip performance appraisers with requisite skills and knowledge and
hence improve their performance. The study also recommended use of combination
of various methods to appraise the teachers and improvement in communication of
the feedback between the TSC, schools and the teachers for them to benefit.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the background
of the study, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the
objectives, and research questions, significance of the study, limitation,
delimitation, conceptual framework and definition on the central terms.
1.2 Background
Performance appraisal (P.A) can be
defined as a process of measuring how well any organization staff performs
their duties in relation to the set standards and then communicating that
information to those employees (Ruddin, 2005). According to KEMI (2010),
performance appraisal is a systematic and a continuous review of employees‟
performance and working potential with an aim of informing and designing action
programmes that can lead to improvement on how they work. Fletcher (2001) however finds performance
appraisal just as one component of performance management process. Whereas in a
broad sense performance management involves how an organization plans,
coordinate, utilize, motivate and equip their human resource with knowledge,
skills and attitude in order for them to accomplish the desired outcomes and
objectives (Wilton 2011), performance appraisal functions as an information
processing system providing critical information for rational, effective and
efficient decision making regarding how a worker‟s performance can be improved
by identifying training needs, setting levels of rewards and guiding sanctions.
According to Larson (1984), one of
the major responsibilities of the schools administrator is to measure the
performance of their staff members. When teachers‟ performance appraisal takes
place, the process involves an assessment of their individual competencies,
performance and professional needs by either the principal, the deputy
principal or the senior teacher (Nyatera, 2011). The process may also be
conceptualized as one of those interventions that lead to professional
development through in-service training, and focused on developing the
teachers‟ knowledge, skills and confidence for the sake of better performance
to benefit both the teacher and the school (Monyatsi, et al., 2006).
Effective teachers‟ appraisal has
proved instrumental in the management of teachers‟ performance in many ways.
Literature on TPA highlights many of these far reaching results. The outcomes
of teachers‟ performance can have a significant influence on the attitudes and
behavior of teachers which in turn impacts on the performance of teachers, and
the students. Studies shows TPA information can provide the basis of making
administrative decisions related to a teacher‟s promotion, transfer and at
times dismissal (Okumbe 1989). In some cases the process may support the identification
of the teachers‟ training needs thereby resulting to the teacher professional
development. According to West and Ainsow (1991) the result of TPA can motivate a teacher by providing clear
understanding of the job in relation to what is expected of them vis-à-vis the
goals of the school. Appropriate appraisal scheme has the capacity to improve
the professionalism in teaching, the management of schools, the quality of
education provided to students, as well as providing legitimacy to the public
to the demands for accountability
(Timperly et al 1998). According to
Ling (2005), a well conducted appraisal progress is expected to improve the
well-being of teachers and performance through discussion, reflection and
collaboration among the appraisers and the appraisee.
Credible teacher performance
appraisal however requires an effective system of appraisal. According to KESI
(2010); a body responsible for the training of school managers in Kenya, among
others, an appraisal system should be reliable and consistent such that anyone
using the tool is able to come up to the same conclusion on performance of an
appraisee based on availed data. It
should be capable of differentiating individuals according to their
performance, easy to administer, comprehensive in coverage of all performance
areas; relevant to the function of the school and above all acceptable to those
whose performance is being assessed in this case the teacher.
For a long time in Kenya, there have
been many attempts to improve on the way teachers are appraised in public
schools but without much success. At
independence the Ministry of Education inherited an inspectoral approach from
the colonial government which was incorporated in the first Education Act Cap
211 (Republic of Kenya, 1969). The inspectors of schools later, the Quality
Assurance and Standards officers QASO (MOE 2004), were mandated to carry out an
external based assessment of teachers‟ performance at work, which they
sometimes do. In 1969 the Teachers
Service Commission on the other hand established a policy of confidential
reporting of the teachers‟ performance, by the headteachers, a policy which
ended in 2005, when a more participatory appraisal scheme was established
through the Code of Regulation for Teachers in Kenya (TSC, 2005). In 2012, the
TPA system was further revised by the TSC and adopted new features, (www.tsc.go.ke).
The following are its objectives;
(i)
To provide feedback on teachers performance,
(ii)
To assist in the
identification of teachers‟
training needs, clarify roles and responsibilities of teachers,
(iii)
To provide an avenue for communication between
teachers, the school and administrators and
(iv)
To determine how to allocate rewards and
institutional sanctions.
The revised scheme expects a teacher
to meet prescribed standards which includes the achievement of instructional
objectives, exhibition of predetermined work behaviour in relation to
established core values namely: professionalism, customer focus, integrity,
team spirit and innovativeness. The new schemes expect teachers to be fully
involved in the TPA process through setting of their performance target,
discussing TPA feedback, endorsing TPA report and drawing up of an improvement
plan. According to the revised system,
teachers should be appraised thrice in a year unlike once there before. The
appraisal team in schools has been
expanded to include the heads of department and the deputy headteacher‟s (www.tsc.go.ke) which
was earlier a sole responsibility of the headteacher (Datche, 2007).
The new TPA system in Kenya seems to
portray comprehensiveness and openness in approach. However, a research done
earlier in Portugal, by Flores (2010) however provides a caution. She concluded that implementation process of
a given policy is a complex process, especially where, what is at stake is a
new policy of teachers‟ appraisal. According to this study, considering the
views of the stakeholders in this case the teachers is important, since
satisfaction with performance appraisal reviews have been positively correlated
to improved working performance among the employees.
In Kenya, teachers stood only to
gain from the new system, if perceived as correctly implemented. Kinnie and
Lowe (1990) however warn that, whatever approaches or methods on performance
review challenges are inevitable.
Studies done in Kenya before the new
system concurs with these sentiments. For instance, Odhiambo (2005) carried a
study on the teachers‟ performance appraisal, the experience of the Kenya
secondary school teachers. His major
revelation was that the teachers‟ appraisal process in Kenya secondary schools
had areas which by then needed urgent review, for the TPA to influence
improvement on the quality of teachers and hence education in Kenya. Findings from other studies on the TPA in Kenya
are very consistent with above conclusions. Wanzare (2002) for example in his
study “Rethinking teacher evaluation in third world a case study of Kenya” had
earlier identified top-down bureaucratic characteristics of TPA system in
Kenya, inadequate teacher evaluation and lack of appraisal feedback as
shortcoming causing ineffectiveness of the system. These are problems which
seem to have continued even after a revision of TPA system by the TSC in 2005.
A study by Gichuhi (2008) concluded that the in-servicing of teachers taking
place in secondary schools was not based in any performance appraisal reports
even after system reviewed. This meant
TPA was not achieving one of its critical
objectives. In another recent study, Nyatera
(2011) looked at headteachers and
teachers perceptions of the staff appraisal system. In his case, he revealed that the
headteachers were not trained to conduct performance appraisal, which resulted
to a number procedural mistakes and which influenced teachers to perceive their
appraisal negatively. He suggested not only for the training of teachers‟
appraisers but an inclusion of the deputy principals, the HODs and senior
teachers as among those who should appraise the teachers to change the negative
perceptions teachers held on appraisals.
In the current study, what was not
clear was whether the recently reviewed TPA policy by TSC system had
effectively addressed the flaws raised by the previous studies in Kenya. This
was the gap which the study sought to fill by exploring the teachers‟
perceptions of the effectiveness of their performance appraisal system in
public secondary school in Naivasha and Gilgil district, Nakuru County under
the new appraisal environment.
1.3 Statement
of the Problem
Teachers‟ performance appraisal is
notably an important function of performance management process in public
secondary schools in Kenya. If and when
effectively carried out, TPA can promote a teacher productivity, accountability
and efficiency at work, thus improving the performance of the students and the
school in general. Despite these clear
benefits, previous research in Kenya indicates that teachers held negative
perceptions about their performance appraisal in public secondary schools
(Nyatera, 2011). Teachers in public
schools have consistently indicted their performance appraisal system as having
numerous flaws mainly related to the policy implementation process.
On the other hand, the Teachers
Service Commission has severally responded to these TPA shortcomings with
policy reforms, the latest being done in 2012 (www.tsc.go.ke).
Since when this system was rolled out, however, no study has been carried out
to consider the current perceptions of teachers under the new performance
review environment. This is even though
Monyatisi (2006) posit that the attitude of teachers about performance appraisal
has a significant bearing on the policy outcomes. This study sought to bridge the existing gap
by exploring the teachers‟ perceptions about the current performance appraisal
system effectiveness in public secondary schools in Naivasha and Gilgil districts.
1.4 Purpose
of the Study
The purpose of this study was to
explore the teachers‟ views regarding the effectiveness of their current
performance appraisal system. Although
the system was recently revised, an early study was necessary to monitor how it
is fairing among the teachers and provide information which could be used to
guide its successful implementation.
1.5
Objectives
i.
To establish teachers‟ perceptions about the
effectiveness of performance appraisal in meeting its purpose in public
secondary schools in Naivasha and Gilgil districts.
ii. To
determine the effectiveness of the teachers‟ performance appraisal methods
used in public secondary schools in Naivasha and
Gilgil districts.
iii. To
assess the performance of teachers appraisers in public secondary school in
Naivasha and Gilgil districts.
iv. To
establish the usefulness of performance appraisal feedback for teachers in
public secondary schools.
1.6 Research
Questions
i.
What is the teachers perceptions regarding the
effectiveness of the teachers‟ performance appraisal system in meeting its
purpose in public secondary schools in Naivasha and Gilgil districts?
ii. How
effective are the methods used for teachers performance appraisal in public
secondary schools?
iii. What
was the attitude of teachers towards the performance appraisers in pubic
secondary schools in Naivasha and Gilgil districts?
iv. How
regular were the teachers provided with appraisal feedback in public schools?
v. How
far were the teachers benefiting from the performance appraisal feedback in
public secondary schools in Naivasha and Gilgil districts?
1.7
Significance of the Study
The outcomes of the study were meant
to be useful to the various education stakeholders, including the Ministry of
Education science and Technology (MOEST), the Teacher Service Commission (TSC),
the school administration and the teachers themselves.
The findings of the study was
expected to provide the TSC with information
improve the management of the teachers‟ performance, which has a direct
influence to provision of quality education, a key target of Kenya‟s vision
2030.
(i)
The findings of the study were to provide the
Teacher Service Commission with early information on how the newly implemented
system of teachers‟ appraisal was fairing. Monitoring of a new policy is
important to identify and deal with any signs of weakness and therefore
increase chances of success.
(ii)
The school administrators were meant to learn
from this study on better ways of appraising the teachers‟ in order to achieve
teachers‟ satisfaction. A satisfying TPA
may effectively improve performance of the teachers and eventually students‟
performance.
(iii)
For the teachers, the results of the study were
to help to share their views and opinion on the weakness that needs attention
in order to make the T.P.A system more effective and hence useful to their
work.
1.8 Basic
Assumptions
Three basic assumptions were made in this study are
as follows.
(i)
The newly revised scheme of teachers‟
performance appraisal (TPA) was being implemented in public secondary schools
in Naivasha and Gilgil
districts.
(ii)
Teachers were aware and participated in the
performance appraisal process in public secondary schools and they held certain
perceptions on the effectiveness of the newly revised system of appraisal.
(iii)
The respondent selected for this study, freely
and honestly provided the information on their own perceptions about the
effectiveness of the current
TPA scheme.
1.9 Limitations
(i)
Teachers, the principals and the Deputy
Principals who were the target respondent in this study were not easily
accessible since they maintain a busy routine in the work. It is likely that this may have affected the
number of responses received back and possibly the sufficiency of the findings.
(ii)
The study took place when there were too many
legal and policy changes taking place in Kenya, following the enactment of a
new constitution in 2010. These changes had affected the education policies as
known previously including teachers‟ performance appraisal.
1.10
Delimitation
(i)
The study only focused itself on the teachers in
public secondary schools employed by the Teachers Service Commission because
they are among the ones required by the code of regulations for teachers in
Kenya to be appraised regularly. They
may be holding certain perceptions about appraisal effectiveness. Though TPA takes place in public primary
schools, primary school teachers were not included in the study because the
focus was public secondary schools.
(ii)
The study only focused on the purpose of
appraisal and how it can influence the perceived effectiveness of the TPA,
effective methods of appraisal, effectiveness of the performance appraisers and
the use of performance appraisal feedback.
Other variables relating to perceived effectiveness of the TPA can be
investigated in another study.
(iii)
The study was only confined to two of the 8
districts of the Nakuru County that is Naivasha and Gilgil; due to this the
results of the study may become insufficient to generalize to all the public
secondary school in the county and the country.
1.11 Theoretical
Framework
This study was grounded on a four
phase performance appraisal model published by Grote (2003) in the Executive
Excellence Newsletter. Grote (2003) holds that performance appraisal addresses
itself to critical functions in many organizations and instead of concentrating
on weakness; the appropriate response should be creating a system that work
effectively to attain the desired results.
In his model, Grote (2003) says an effective performance appraisal
system should begin with performance planning.
This should take place at the
beginning of the year and by the designated performance appraiser engaging on
appraisee in this case a teacher into a performance planning discussion. These should focus on behaviour and
competencies and result the institution will expect the appraisee to demonstrate
at the end of the agreed appraisal period.
The will be required either to focus on the individual professional
development road map and how performance will be measured.
Phase two involves performance
execution. The staff or a teacher in
this case will be required to work on key responsibilities of the job and
achieve the agreed objectives. Grote
(2003) suggests that, at this level, the performance appraiser should support
the worker through coaching and performance feedback; to increase the chances
of success during the appraisal period.
Meetings to review on the individual‟s performance against earlier set
targets in planning phase should be held.
This according to him may motivate the worker and assist to deal with
any performance challenges that may arose along the working period.
Phase three involve performance
evaluation or formal performance appraisal. The designated appraiser at this
level is expected to reflect on how well a worker in this case a teacher has
carried on his or her responsibilities across the appraisal period against the
set objectives in phase one. Paper work should be completed and according to
Grote (2003), content should be discussed with appraiser most immediate boss
and recommendations can then be made based on the quality of the appraisee‟s
work.
In the last phase, performance
review should be done. The appraiser and the appraisee should come together to
discuss on how well the appraisee performed over the specified working
period. Strength, weakness, success and
improvement required should put on board. This becomes the foundation of the
next performance planning meeting for a new cycle.
Grote (2003) argue that the four
phases model can help to change performance appraisal process from being an
annual activity into an ongoing cycle which may be more effective in linking
the individual workers goal, work behaviour and successes to the institutional
vision and strategic goals.
The model fitted into this study on
teachers‟ perceptions of the effectiveness of performance appraisal system, in
that it clearly demonstrates how effective teachers‟ appraisal should be
conducted. To create ownership in performance appraisal, teachers should be
involved in setting performance objectives and be aware of how performance will
be measured. During the working period, teachers should receive professional
support from their headteachers, deputy and heads of department inform of
coaching and frequent performance review meetings in order to boost their level
of success in the set objectives along the year. Teacher performance appraisal
feedback should be discussed openly between the appraisee and the appraiser in
order to appreciate the strength, identify weakness and work on improvement
plan as well as assist setting of new target in the subsequent cycle of
performance management. The proposed study aimed at finding out whether
teachers in public schools perceive the current performance appraisal system as
prescribing itself to such effective process of the four phase performance
appraisal model. The result of this study was however negative meaning an
improvement in implementation of the current TPA system required some attention
especially on selection of appropriate method of appraisal, training of the
appraisee and provision and use of feedback for the teachers to benefit from
their appraisals.
1.12 Conceptual
framework
The conceptual framework adopted for
this study was based on the assumptions that certain aspects in performance
appraisal process can influence teachers‟ perceived effectiveness of the TPA
system.
Independent variables Dependent variable
Figure 1.1: Link between various aspects of the TPA
and the teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the TPA system Source: Researchers own (2013)
The study sought to explore the
teachers‟ perceptions of the effectiveness of their appraisal system. The
dependent variable therefore is the perceived effectiveness of the TPA system
while, the independent variables are Effective TPA methods; effectiveness of
the TPA appraisers; provision and use of the TPA feedback and achievement of
TPA purpose.
1.13 Operational
definition of terms
Appraisee: A teacher who was the target of performance
evaluation for the purpose
of
identifying how he or she was performing.
Appraisal:
This refers to measuring how well a teacher has performed based on
established work targets with a
view to bring about improvement of appraisee.
Appraiser: This
refers to a designated person who is qualified by education,
training, to assess a teacher‟s
performance at work and provide feedback on the same.
Performance:
The process of comparing what a teacher has achieved against
established expectations.
Perceptions:
The personal views, reflections and interpretations made by a teacher
regarding the effectiveness of his or her TPA
system.
Performance
Appraisal: A systematic process of evaluating how well a teacher is
performing in relation to his
duties and responsibilities in order to recommend what need to be improved
on.
Method of
appraisal: Approaches applied in gathering of data relating to a teachers
performance.
Login To Comment