PEN Academic Publishing-   |  ISSN: 1308 - 9501

Original article | International Journal of Educational Researchers 2022, Vol. 13(1) 1-12

Qualitative Evaluation for School Improvement: An option for School Leaders

Emmanuel Adjei-Boateng

pp. 1 - 12   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2102-03-0009

Published online: September 09, 2022  |   Number of Views: 5  |  Number of Download: 15


Abstract

Educational leaders need to be able to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of educational programs, policies, and instructional activities in their schools and school systems. The experiences and perspectives of stakeholders matter in an attempt to understand the state of affairs of teaching and learning situations, programs, policies and interventions, and other activities in the schools and educational systems. The review strongly situates qualitative research as an option in evaluation research, especially in the field of education. A qualitative evaluation has the potential of leading to a consultative understanding and review of school programs and situations and provide an authentic basis for interventions aimed at school improvement. School leaders, especially the principals/school heads and other personnel who are part of the school leaders need to understand qualitative evaluation research, its place in education and school administration, and how it can be utilized to support school improvement efforts.

Keywords: School Improvement, School Leaders, Qualitative Research, Evaluation, Qualitative Evaluation, Methods


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Adjei-Boateng, E. (2022). Qualitative Evaluation for School Improvement: An option for School Leaders . International Journal of Educational Researchers , 13(1), 1-12.

Harvard
Adjei-Boateng, E. (2022). Qualitative Evaluation for School Improvement: An option for School Leaders . International Journal of Educational Researchers , 13(1), pp. 1-12.

Chicago 16th edition
Adjei-Boateng, Emmanuel (2022). "Qualitative Evaluation for School Improvement: An option for School Leaders ". International Journal of Educational Researchers 13 (1):1-12.

References
  1. Agrawal, M. (2004). Curricular reform in schools: the importance of evaluation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(3), 361-379. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alazzi, K. F. (2012) Social studies in the back burner in Jordanian elementary school: A phenomenological examination of social studies teachers and supervisors. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 2(2), 85-93. [Google Scholar]
  3. Anastas, J. W. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: Issues and possible answers. Research on Social Work Practice, 14(1), 57-65. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bao, X. M. (1999). A Phenomenology of Teaching with Laptop Computers: A Case Study through the Eyes of a Trainer. In Hans E. Klein (Ed), Interactive Teaching & the Multi Media Revolution: Case Method and Other Techniques (pp. 43-52). Needhan (Boston), MA: The World Association for Case method Research & Case Method Application. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bordage, G. (2009). Conceptual frameworks to illuminate and magnify. Medical education, 43(4), 312-319. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. [Google Scholar]
  7. Colbert, J. A., Brown, R. S., Choi, S., & Thomas, S. (2008). An investigation of the impacts of teacher-driven professional development on pedagogy and student learning. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(2), 135-154. [Google Scholar]
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating qualitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  9. Crotty, M. (2012). The foundations of social research. Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  10. Edition, E. (2013). The School Principal as Leader: Guiding Schools to Better Teaching and Learning. [Google Scholar]
  11. Englander, M. (2012). The Interview: Data collection in descriptive phenomenological human scientific research. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 43, 13–35. [Google Scholar]
  12. Fer, S. (2004). Qualitative evaluation of emotional intelligence in-service program for secondary school teachers. The Qualitative Report, 9(4), 562-588. [Google Scholar]
  13. Flood, A. (2010). Understanding phenomenology. Anne Flood looks at the theory and methods involved in phenomenological research. Nurse Researcher, 17(2), 7-15. [Google Scholar]
  14. Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction-4/E. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc., [Google Scholar]
  15. Greene, J. C. (1994). Qualitative program evaluation. Handbook of qualitative research, 530-544. [Google Scholar]
  16. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2, 163-194. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kaplan, B., & Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research methods for evaluating computer information systems. Evaluating the Organizational Impact of Healthcare Information Systems, 30-55. [Google Scholar]
  18. Leshem, S., & Trafford, V. (2007). Overlooking the conceptual framework. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(1), 93-105. [Google Scholar]
  19. Lynch, B. K. (1996). Language program evaluation: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. Marlow, M. P., & McLain, B. (2011). Assessing the impacts of experiential learning on teacher classroom practice. Research in Higher Education Journal, 14, 1-15. [Google Scholar]
  21. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research. A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  22. Milstein, B., & Wetterhall, S. (2000). A framework featuring steps and standards for program evaluation. Health Promotion Practice, 1(3), 221-228. [Google Scholar]
  23. Muraskin, L. D. (1993). Understanding Evaluation: The Way to Better Prevention Programs. Rockville, MD: Westat Inc. [Google Scholar]
  24. Patterson, M. E., & Williams, D. R. (2002). Collecting and analyzing qualitative data: hermeneutic principles, methods, and case examples, Champaign, Illinois: Sagamore. [Google Scholar]
  25. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, inc. [Google Scholar]
  26. Russell, C. K., & Gregory, D. M. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research studies. Evidence Based Nursing, 6, 36-40. doi: 10.1136/ebn.6.2.36 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  27. Simonson, M. R. (1997). Evaluating teaching and learning at a distance. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, (71), 87-94. [Google Scholar]
  28. Tuli, F. (2011). The basis of distinction between qualitative and quantitative research in social science: reflection on ontological, epistemological and methodological perspectives. Ethiopian Journal of Education and Sciences, 6(1), 97-108. [Google Scholar]
  29. Williamson, K. (2006). Research in constructivist frameworks using ethnographic techniques. Library trends, 55(1), 83-101. [Google Scholar]
  30. Worthen, B. R., Sanders, J. R., & Fitzpatrick, J. L. (1997). Program evaluation. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. [Google Scholar]
  31. Yeigh, T., Lynch, D., Turner, D., Provost, S. C., Smith, R., & Willis, R. L. (2019). School leadership and school improvement: an examination of school readiness factors. School Leadership & Management, 39(5), 434-456. [Google Scholar]
  32. Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions: Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of Education, 48(2), 312-325. [Google Scholar]