Advertisement

On the Utilization of a New Class of School Information Systems

School Performance Feedback Systems
  • Adrie J. Visscher
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP – The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 292)

Abstract

Given the internationally increasing trend to feed back information to schools and teachers on their performance to improve their quality, the characteristics of so-called school performance feedback systems (SPFS) will be analysed here along with the factors which have contributed to their international growth. A theoretical framework is presented which includes the factors assumed to influence the utilisation of SPFS-information. The findings of a longitudinal study into the use of a Dutch SPFS called ZEBO are summarized here, and finally, some reflections are presented on the complexity of SPFS use and on how SPFS utilization may be promoted further.

Keywords

School self-evaluation school improvement school performance feedback evaluation utilization 

References

  1. Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1974). Teacher-pupil relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  2. Dalin, P. (1998). Developing the twenty-first century school, a challenge to reformers. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Change (vol. 5, pp. 1059–1073). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Ehren, M.C.M. (2007). Toezicht en schoolverbetering. [Supervision and school improvement]. Doctoral dissertation. Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
  4. Fitz-Gibbon, C.T. (2002). A typology of Indicators. In A.J. Visscher. & R. Coe (Eds.). School improvement through performance feedback. Lisse/Abingdon/Exton/Tokyo: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  5. Glass, G.V. (1979). Policy for the Unpredictable (Uncertainty Research and Policy). Educational Researcher, 8(9), 12–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Huberman, M. (1987). Steps towards an integrated model of research utilization. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8(4), 586–611.Google Scholar
  7. Kluger, A.N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of Feedback Interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a perliminary Feedback Intervention Theory.Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Maslowski, R., & Visscher, A.J. (1999a). The potential of formative evaluation in program design models. In J. van den Akker, R.M. Branch, K. Gustafson N. Nieveen, & Tj. Plomp (Eds.), Design Methodology and Development Research in Education and Training. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. McLaughlin, M.W. (1998). Listening and learning from the field: tales of policy implementation and situated practice. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Change (vol. 5, pp. 70–84). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. McLaughlin, M.W. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited; macro perspectives and micro realities,Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McPherson, R.B., Crowson, R., & Pitner, N.J. (1986). Managing Uncertainty: administrative theory and practice in education. Columbus: C.E. Merril Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  12. Miles, M.B. (1998). Finding Keys to School Change: A 40-year Odyssey. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Change (vol. 5, pp. 37–39). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Murdoch, K., & Coe, R. (1997). Working with ALIS: a study of how schools and colleges are using a value added and attitude indicator system. Durham: School of Education, University of Durham, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  14. Rossi, P.H., & Freeman, H.E. (1993). Evaluation; a systematic approach. Newbury Park/London/New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R.J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
  16. Schildkamp, K. (2007). The utilisation of a self-evaluation instrument for primary education. Doctoral dissertation. Enschede: Print Partners Ipskamp.Google Scholar
  17. Smith, P. (1995). On the Unintended Consequences of Publishing Performance Data in the Public Sector.International Journal of Public Administration, 18(2&3), 277–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Smith, L.M. (1998). A kind of educational idealism: integrating realism and reform. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Change (vol. 5, pp. 100–120). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Van Vilsteren, C.A., & Visscher, A.J. (1987). Schoolwerkplanning: mogelijk in schoolorganisaties? [School work planning: possible in school organisations?] In B. Creemers, J. Giesbers, C. van Vilsteren & C. van der Perre (Eds.), Handboek Schoolorganisatie en onderwijsmanagement (pp. 6120–6124). Alphen aan den Rijn: Samson.Google Scholar
  20. Visscher, A.J. (2001). Public School Performance Indicators: problems and recommendations.Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27(3), 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Visscher, A.J. (2002). A framework for studying school performance feedback systems. In A.J. Visscher & R. Coe (Eds.). School improvement through performance feedback. Lisse/Abingdon/Exton/Tokyo: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  22. Visscher, A.J. & Coe, R. (2002). Drawing up the balance sheet for school performance feedback systems. In A.J. Visscher & R. Coe (Eds.). School improvement through performance feedback. Lisse/Abingdon/Exton/Tokyo: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  23. Visscher, A.J., Wild, P., & Fung, A. (Eds.) (2001). Information Technology in Educational Management; synthesis of experience, research and future perspectives on computer-assisted school information systems. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Weiss, C.H. (1998). Improving the use of evaluations: whose job is it anyway? In A.J. Reynolds & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Advances in Educational Productivity, volume 7, pp. 263–276. Greenwich/London: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  25. Whitford, B.L., & Jones, K. (1998). Assessment and accountability in Kentucky: how high stakes affects teaching and learning. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Change (vol. 5, pp. 1163–1178). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrie J. Visscher
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TwenteEnschedethe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations