SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Alanyazın / 2026 / Cilt: 7

A WPR analysis of teacher performance evaluation in draft regulation within the framework of strategic management of human capital

Öğretmen performans değerlendirme taslağının stratejik insan sermayesi yönetimi bağlamında WPR analizi

Dilek Pekince Kardaş(MUŞ ALPARSLAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2932-6947
Journal
Alanyazın
Pages
1–18
Publication Date
2026-09-12
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This reflects a selective use of SMHC, where measurement is emphasized over professional learning and capacity building.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This critical review examines Turkey’s 2018 Draft Regulation on Teacher Performance Evaluation through Bacchi’s WPR framework, focusing on how teacher performance is constructed and problematized within policy discourse.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Teacher performance is predominantly framed in terms of measurement, standardization, and comparability, operationalized through multi-source and quantified evaluation.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This reflects a selective use of SMHC, where measurement is emphasized over professional learning and capacity building.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:öğretmen performans değerlendirmesi · WPR yaklaşımı · Türk eğitim sistemi

Abstract

This critical review examines Turkey’s 2018 Draft Regulation on Teacher Performance Evaluation through Bacchi’s WPR framework, focusing on how teacher performance is constructed and problematized within policy discourse. Teacher performance is predominantly framed in terms of measurement, standardization, and comparability, operationalized through multi-source and quantified evaluation. While this aligns partly with strategic human capital management (SMHC), the policy omits key elements such as student learning outcomes and continuous, feedback-based development. This reflects a selective use of SMHC, where measurement is emphasized over professional learning and capacity building.

Özet

Bu eleştirel inceleme, Türkiye’nin 2018 tarihli Öğretmen Performans Değerlendirme Taslağını Bacchi’nin “Problem Nasıl Temsil Ediliyor?” (WPR) yaklaşımıyla, metnin politika söylevi içerisinde nasıl inşa edilip problematize edildiğine odaklanarak analiz etmektedir. Öğretmen performansı, ağırlıklı olarak ölçme, standardizasyon ve karşılaştırılabilirlik çerçevesinde; çok kaynaklı ve nicelleştirilmiş değerlendirme mekanizmaları aracılığıyla ele alınmaktadır. Bu yaklaşım, stratejik insan sermayesi yönetimi (SMHC) ile kısmen örtüşmekle birlikte, öğrenci öğrenme çıktılarının entegrasyonu ve sürekli, geri bildirime dayalı mesleki gelişim gibi temel unsurları dışarıda bırakmaktadır. Bu durum, ölçmenin ön plana çıktığı; mesleki öğrenme ve kapasite geliştirme boyutlarının ise sınırlı kaldığı seçici bir SMHC kullanımına işaret etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kardaş, D. P. (2026). A WPR analysis of teacher performance evaluation in draft regulation within the framework of strategic management of human capital. Alanyazın, Cilt: 7, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.59320/alanyazin.1957826

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (43)

  1. Aslanargun, E. (2022). Eğitimde fırsat eşitsizliğinin fırsat eşitsizliğinin nedeni olarak okul/ öğretmen etkisizliği ve aile katılımı. Alanyazın, (Özel Sayı), 63-71. https://izlik.org/JA44FS54AG
  2. Bacchi, C. (2000). Policy as discourse: What does it mean? Where does it get us? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 21(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300050005493
  3. Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education.
  4. Bacchi, C., & Goodwin, S. (2016). Poststructural policy analysis: A guide to practice. NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Bacchi, C. (2012). Introducing the “What’s the problem represented to be?” approach. In A. Bletsas & C. Beasley (Eds.), Engaging with Carol Bacchi: Strategic interventions and exchanges (pp. 21–24). University of Adelaide Press.
  5. Bacchi, C. L. (2021). Introducing WPR: A work in progress. https://www.kau.se/files/2021-10/BACCHI%20KICKOFF%20PRESENTATION_1.pdf
  6. Balıkçı, A., Yılmaz, E., & Yıldırım, R. (2019). Öğretmen performansının değerlendirilmesi: okul müdürü ve öğretmenlerin bakış açısına dayalı bir durum çalışması. Eğitim ve İnsani Bilimler Dergisi: Teori ve Uygulama, 10(19), 153-176. https://izlik.org/JA68BJ99NT
  7. Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065
  8. Barg, K. (2019). Why are middle-class parents more involved in school than working-class parents? Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 59, 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2018.12.002
  9. Berry, B. (2009). The strategic management of human capital: Making the smart investments in teachers and principals. Center for Teaching Quality. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED508533.pdf
  10. Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16(6), 645–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847701600601
  11. Bozan, S. & Ekinci, A. (2018). Öğretmen performans değerlendirme sürecine ilişkin okul müdürü ve öğretmen görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi: Nitel bir çalışma. Mukaddime, 9(2), 213-239. https://doi.org/10.19059/mukaddime.415812
  12. Bülbül, M. & Tunca, M. (2018). Öğretmen performansının değerlendirilmesinde veli ve öğrenci görüşlerinin alınmasına ilişkin nitel bir çalışma. Medeniyet Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(3), 12-23. https://izlik.org/JA28JD32XS
  13. Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235. https://doi.org/10.3102/016237370832182
  14. Çelikten, M. & Özkan, H.H. (2018). Öğretmen performans değerlendirme sistemi. Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(15), 806-824. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.418565
  15. Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012). Evaluating teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171209300603
  16. DoERD (2001). Öğretmenlerin performans değerlendirme modeli ve sicil raporları. [Teachers' performance evaluation model and record reports.] http://www.hayatboyuogren.gov.tr/earged/earged/Ogretmen_performans_degerlendirme.pdf
  17. Donaldson, M.L., Firestone, W. (2021). Rethinking teacher evaluation using human, social, and material capital. Journal of Educational Change, 22(4),501–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09405-z
  18. Elmore, R. F. (2008). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Harvard Education Press.
  19. Finefter-Rosenbluh, I. (2020). “Try walking in my shoes”: Teachers’ interpretation of student perception surveys and the role of self-efficacy beliefs, perspective taking and inclusivity in teacher evaluation. Cambridge Journal of Education, 50(6), 747–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2020.1770692
  20. Fowler, F. C. (2014). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
  21. Garrett, R., & Steinberg, M. P. (2015). Examining teacher effectiveness using classroom observation scores: Evidence from the randomization of teachers to students. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(2), 224–242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714537551
  22. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
  23. Howarth, D. (2010). Power, discourse, and policy: Articulating a hegemony approach to critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies, 3(3–4), 309–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171003619725
  24. Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains (MET Project Research Paper). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED540960.pdf
  25. Konan, N. & Yılmaz, S. (2018). Öğretmen performans değerlendirmeye ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri: bir karma yöntem araştırması. Milli Eğitim, 47(219), 137-160. https://izlik.org/JA83FF62SG
  26. Kraemer, S., Milanowski, A., Scott, J., Adrien, R., Fairbairn, S., Bourn, R., & Hill, M. (2015). Designing and implementing human capital management systems in educator evaluation. Teacher Incentive Fund, US Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED566526.pdf
  27. Kraft, M. A., & Gilmour, A. F. (2016). Can principals promote teacher development as evaluators? A case study of principals’ views and experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(5), 711–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X1665344
  28. Little, O., Goe, L., & Bell, C. (2009). A practical guide to evaluating teacher effectiveness. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED543776
  29. Milanowski, A. (2011). Measuring teacher performance for strategic human capital management. In Strategic management of human capital in education (pp. 91-114). Routledge.
  30. MoNE (2015a). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı öğretmen atama ve yer değiştirme yönetmeliği. [Regulation on Ministry of National Education teacher appointment and relocation.]. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat?MevzuatNo=20694&MevzuatTur=7&MevzuatTertip=5
  31. MoNE (2015b). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı 2015-2019 stratejik planı. [Ministry of National Education 2015-2019 strategic plan] https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2015_09/10052958_10.09.2015sp17.15imzasz.pdf
  32. MoNE. (2017a). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri [General competencies of the teaching profession]. http://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_12/11115355_YYRETMENLYK_MESLEYY_GENEL_YETERLYKLERY.pdf
  33. MoNE. (2017b). Öğretmen strateji belgesi 2017–2023 [Teacher strategy document 2017–2023]. http://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_07/26174415_Strateji_Belgesi_RG-Ylan-_26.07.2017.pdf
  34. MoNE. (2018). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı öğretmen performans değerlendirme ve aday öğretmenlik iş ve işlemleri yönetmeliği (taslak) [Draft regulation on teacher performance evaluation and candidate teacher work and procedures]. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Kurumsal/egitim_ogretim_dairesi/Meslek- Yuksekokullar%C4%B1/Ogretmen_Performans_Degerlendirme_ve_Aday_Ogretmenlik.pdf
  35. Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2013). Leading via teacher evaluation: The case of the missing clothes? Educational Researcher, 42(6), 349–354. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X134996
  36. Odden, A. R. (2011). Strategic management of human capital in education: A framework. In Strategic Management of Human Capital in Education (pp. 25-44). Routledge
  37. Özbek, Ö. Y. & Taneri, P.O. (2019). Teacher performance appraisal in Turkey: an alternative model. European Journal of Education Studies, 5(11), 222-250. https://oapub.org/edu/index.php/ejes/article/view/2325/4964
  38. Riemann, M. (2023). Studying problematizations: The value of Carol Bacchi’s ‘What’s the problem represented to be?’(WPR) methodology for IR. Alternatives, 48(2), 151-169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375423115576
  39. Rönnblom, M., & Edwards, R. (2025). A critical explanation of uses of Carol Bacchi’s WPR approach. Critical Policy Studies, 19(3), 518–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2025.2555388
  40. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2014) Cross-national policy borrowing: understanding reception and translation. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(2), 153-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2013.875649
  41. SPO (2000). Uzun vadeli strateji ve sekizinci beş yıllık kalkınma planı. 2001-2005. [Long-term strategy and eighth five- year development plan. 2001-2005] https://fka.gov.tr/sharepoint/userfiles/Icerik_Dosya_Ekleri/Kalkinma_Planlari/VIII.%20Be%C5%9F%20Y%C4%B1ll% C4%B1k%20Kalk%C4%B1nma%20Plan%C4%B1%202001-2005.pdf
  42. Tawell, A., & McCluskey, G. (2022). Utilising Bacchi's what's the problem represented to be? (WPR) approach to analyse national school exclusion policy in England and Scotland: a worked example. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 45(2), 137-149, https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2021.1976750
  43. Withers, G. (1995). Getting value from teacher self-evaluation. In A. J. Shinkfield & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Teacher evaluation: Guide to effective practice (pp. 261–271). Kluwer Academic Publishers.