169
S
chool
E
valuation
, t
EachEr
a
ppraiSal
and
F
EEdback
and
thE
i
mpact
on
S
choolS
and
t
EachErS
chapter 5
Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS – ISBN 978-92-64-05605-3
© OECD 2009
This has important policy implications for targeting specific aspects of school education. If a particular aspect 
needs to be improved, the framework of evaluation can be modified to emphasise this aspect. Given the links 
between school evaluations, teacher appraisal and feedback, and changes in teaching practices discussed here, 
a policy lever exists to address aspects of school education that may not be sufficiently targeted under general 
education policies.  
concLuSIonS And ImpLIcAtIonS For poLIcy And prActIce
The findings discussed in this Chapter have multiple implications, for teaching, for schools and for the structure 
of teachers’ careers. They include the following: 
teacher appraisal and feedback has a positive impact on teachers 
Key results:
Teachers generally report that:
 Appraisal and feedback are fair and useful to their development as teachers.
 Appraisal and feedbac. 
Discussion
For policy makers, administrators, school principals and teachers, these findings highlight a dual benefit of 
appraisal and feedback, both to teachers personally and to the development of their teaching. 
Positive impacts on job satisfaction and, to a lesser extent, job security are important, given that the introduction 
of systems of teacher appraisal can be met with criticism and potential negative reactions, especially where it 
is linked to accountability (Table 5.7a). The TALIS findings not only allay fears of teachers that such systems will 
be damaging, but show that in practice teachers find their outcomes to be positive. 
Moreover, teacher reports that appraisal and feedback has contributed to their development as teachers 
suggest that such systems contribute to school improvement (Table 5.7). Numerous initiatives developed by 
policy makers aiming to lift school improvement have had teacher development at the core (OECD, 2005). 
Strengthening the system of teacher appraisal and feedback can, according to teachers’ reports of their impact, 
develop teaching skills within schools. 
These findings are of greater importance if it is considered that the system of appraisal and feedback in schools 
could be strengthened, in a number of ways. Greater emphasis upon the framework for evaluating education 
in schools could strengthen links between school evaluations and teacher appraisal and feedback. The results 
of appraisal could be used more directly to plan professional development of individual teachers. And policy 
measures to emphasise teacher appraisal and feedback in the career structure of teachers may better instil the 
benefits of appraisal and feedback within schools. Closer links with career progression could have the added 
benefit of addressing what teachers report as a severe lack of recognition for their development, and a problem 
with teachers’ rewards not being properly linked to their effectiveness. 
School evaluation and teacher appraisal and feedback are relatively rare in a number 
of education systems, and do not always have consequences for teachers
Key results
 One in five teachers work in a school that had not conducted a self-evaluation in the last five years, and just 
under one in three in a school that has not had an external evaluation (Table 5.1). 
.Pdf to .txt converter - Convert PDF to txt files in C#.net, ASP.NET MVC, WinForms, WPF application
C# PDF to Text (TXT) Converting Library to Convert PDF to Text
convert pdf to word for editing text; convert pdf file to text document
.Pdf to .txt converter - VB.NET PDF Convert to Text SDK: Convert PDF to txt files in vb.net, ASP.NET MVC, WinForms, WPF application
VB.NET Guide and Sample Codes to Convert PDF to Text in .NET Project
convert pdf to editable text online; convert pdf to text vb
chapter 5 S
chool
E
valuation
, t
EachEr
a
ppraiSal
and
F
EEdback
and
thE
i
mpact
on
S
choolS
and
t
EachErS
Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS – ISBN 978-92-64-05605-3
170
© OECD 2009
 Thirteen per cent of teachers have received no appraisal and feedback upon their work as teachers. In Ireland 
and Portugal it is over one in four, and in Italy and Spain it is around one half (Table 5.3). 
 Teachers’ remuneration is linked to school evaluations for only one-quarter of teachers and to teacher 
appraisal and feedback to fewer than one in ten. Fewer than 4 in 10 teachers work in schools where school 
evaluations are linked to the school budget (Table 5.5). 
 For only one in six teachers is appraisal and feedback linked to their career advancement and to fewer than 
one in four to professional development (Tables 5.2 and 5.5).
 Nearly half of teachers think that their school principals do not use effective methods to determine teacher 
performance within their school (Table 5.9).
Discussion
These results show that opportunities for strengthening school evaluation and teacher appraisal and feedback 
are particularly great in some countries, while across countries there are opportunities for strengthening the 
evaluative framework of school education.
Increased frequency of evaluations and of teacher appraisal and feedback could be facilitated and encouraged 
within schools or regulations put in place to ensure they occur. The focus of the evaluative framework could be 
improved to better identify education objectives and particular policies and programmes that can be highlighted 
in school evaluations and teacher appraisal and feedback. In most education systems, there is not a clear focus 
on specific aspects of school education or teaching in these activities. Rather, the emphasis was relatively 
evenly spread over virtually all of the 17 criteria included in the TALIS analysis, the exceptions to this being 
teaching students with special learning needs and teaching in a multicultural setting (Table 5.4).
Strengthening linkages with rewards and career progression would address the fact that most teachers feel that 
effective and innovative teaching are not being recognised. Three quarters of teachers across TALIS countries 
reported that the most effective teachers in their school do not receive the greatest monetary or non-monetary 
rewards. As a consequence, they believe that they would not themselves gain such rewards were they to 
improve their teaching. They report a lack of any links between their personal development, their effectiveness, 
and the recognition they receive (Table 5.9).
Linking recognition and rewards to teacher effectiveness is not just a matter of carrying out appraisals but also 
of school leaders adopting effective methods of identifying good performance. In some cases where there are no 
methods to identify good performance, this is because there is little or no appraisal and feedback, but in others, 
it is a matter of finding ways of using the information gained. The fact that nearly four times as many teachers 
say that their principal does not identify effective teaching as say that they have not recently been appraised is 
an indicator of the need for follow through (Table 5.3 and Table 5.9). 
teachers reported that they would receive little, if any, recognition for improving their 
teaching, as teacher effectiveness is not linked to the recognition and rewards they 
receive 
Key results
 Three-quarters of teachers report that they would receive no recognition for improving the quality of their 
teaching (Table 5.9). 
 Three-quarters of teachers report that they would receive no recognition for being more innovative in their 
teaching (Table 5.9). 
Online Convert PDF to Text file. Best free online PDF txt
Online PDF to Text Converter. Download Free Trial. Convert a PDF to Text. Just upload your file by clicking on the blue button or drag
convert pdf image to text; convert scanned pdf to text word
VB.NET Create PDF from Text to convert txt files to PDF in vb.net
Sample code for text to PDF converting in VB.NET programming . ' txt convert to pdf Dim txt As BaseDocument = New RasterEdge.XDoc.Converter.Inner.TXTDocument("C
convert pdf to text file; convert pdf to txt online
171
S
chool
E
valuation
, t
EachEr
a
ppraiSal
and
F
EEdback
and
thE
i
mpact
on
S
choolS
and
t
EachErS
chapter 5
Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS – ISBN 978-92-64-05605-3
© OECD 2009
 Three-quarters of teachers report that the most effective teachers in their school do not receive the greatest 
monetary and non-monetary rewards (Table 5.9).
 Only just over one-quarter of teachers report that in their school, teachers will be dismissed because of 
sustained poor performance (Table 5.9). 
Strengthening the evaluative framework requires linkages between school evaluation and teacher appraisal and 
feedback on the one hand and teachers’ rewards and recognition on the other. In particular, there are substantial 
opportunities for strengthening – in many cases actually creating – links between teacher appraisal and feedback 
and the rewards and recognition teachers receive. These links are relatively weak, as reflected in teachers’ reports 
of the lack of incentives in their careers and the lack of rewards and recognition for teacher effectiveness.   
Teachers currently have few incentives, in terms of recognition and rewards, to improve their teaching. Yet, 
teachers’ effectiveness is central to efforts to improve schools and raise student performance. In addition, 
school improvement efforts are increasingly viewed in the context of schools as learning organisations in 
which teaching practices are adapted and improved to better meet student needs and improve the education 
they receive (O’Day, 2002; Senge, 2000). However, teachers report that they have no incentives to participate 
actively in such efforts. Three-quarters of teachers report that they would receive no recognition for increasing 
the quality of their teaching or becoming more innovative in their teaching (Table 5.9). 
Most teachers are faced with a career lacking these incentives which flows through schools so that teachers 
see colleagues whom they consider to be relatively ineffective receive greater recognition than their more 
effective colleagues. Three-quarters of teachers across TALIS countries report that the most effective teachers 
in their school do not receive the greatest monetary and non-monetary rewards (Table 5.9). Further evidence 
of the lack of sufficient links between the evaluation framework and teachers’ recognition is the fact that over 
three-quarters of teachers report that their school principal does not take steps to alter the monetary rewards of 
a persistently underperforming teacher. This inaction is magnified in career structures that reward experience 
over effectiveness and in such cases further reward persistently underperforming teachers. 
A system that better links teacher appraisal and feedback to teachers’ rewards and the recognition they receive 
should help overcome these problems. A lack of incentives that recognise effectiveness coupled with the rewarding 
of ineffectual teachers shows that the framework of evaluation and of teacher appraisal and feedback is not 
effective. It is either not properly assessing teachers’ work or effectiveness or it does not link the system of rewards 
to teachers’ effectiveness. Evidence from TALIS indicates that both should be of concern for policy makers.  
School evaluations can be structured so that they and teacher appraisal and feedback 
lead to developments in particular aspects of school education 
Key results
 Teachers report that the greater the emphasis placed on a specific aspect of their teaching in their appraisal 
and feedback, the greater the resultant changes in that aspect of their teaching (Figure 5.8 – Figure 5.13). 
 In some instances the greater the emphasis placed on aspects of a school’s evaluation, the greater the focus 
on that aspect in the appraisal and feedback received by teachers (Figure 5.8 – Figure 5.13).
Discussion
The school evaluative framework is often policy malleable so that not only can the strength of the evaluative 
framework be altered but also its focus. The criteria by which schools are evaluated and teachers are appraised 
and receive feedback should be aligned with the objectives of the system of school education. These objectives 
may relate to aspects of student performance, teacher development, specific teaching practices, the maintenance 
of specific standards and procedures, and a variety of aspects of the work of teachers and school principals. 
C# Create PDF from Text to convert txt files to PDF in C#.net, ASP
XDoc.PDF Library for .NET in C#. Best C# text to PDF converter SDK for converting adobe PDF from TXT in Visual Studio .NET project.
change pdf to txt format; convert pdf file to txt
VB.NET PDF - Convert PDF with VB.NET WPF PDF Viewer
An advanced PDF converter tool, which supports to be integrated in .NET project, and compatible with all Export PDF text content to TXT file with
convert pdf to txt file online; convert pdf to text without losing formatting
chapter 5 S
chool
E
valuation
, t
EachEr
a
ppraiSal
and
F
EEdback
and
thE
i
mpact
on
S
choolS
and
t
EachErS
Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS – ISBN 978-92-64-05605-3
172
© OECD 2009
Aligning criteria for school evaluation with those for teacher appraisal and feedback would emphasise the 
importance of policy objectives at the school level and could give teachers and school principals an incentive 
to meet such objectives. 
Teachers have reported that the greater the emphasis placed on a specific aspect of their teaching in the appraisal 
and feedback they receive, the greater the subsequent changes in their teaching. In addition, in some instances 
the greater the emphasis placed on aspects of a school’s evaluation, the stronger the focus in teachers’ appraisal 
and feedback (Figure 5.8 – Figure 5.13). The link between elements of the evaluation framework facilitates 
policy makers’ efforts to shape the framework to influence teachers’ work. For example, setting a particular 
focus on an area of teaching or student outcomes and emphasising the impact that this can have on schools can 
lead to greater emphasis on this area in teacher appraisal and feedback which, in turn, increases the changes 
in teachers’ work and teaching practices. The availability of this policy lever emphasises the importance of 
appraisal and feedback to administrators, school principals and teachers.
In what ways might such influence be wielded? Teaching students with special learning needs and teaching 
in a multicultural setting were given relatively low importance in school evaluations and teacher appraisal 
and feedback (Table 5.1a and Table 5.4). If these are considered priority areas, then there are opportunities for 
increasing their focus in the evaluative framework, particularly as teachers report they have unmet developmental 
needs in these areas. 
A growing focus in a number of countries has been the methods and policy initiatives implemented to address 
disparities in education outcomes between schools and specific groups of students (OECD, 2007). This has 
often emphasised disparities between specific migrant groups and students with specific learning requirements 
(OECD 2008b). In this context, it is important for policy makers that teachers reported the greatest need for 
professional development in the area of teaching students with special learning needs (Table 3.4). This has been 
discussed in Chapter 3, and greater emphasis on special needs in the evaluative framework for school education 
could help address the shortfalls identified in that chapter. At the same time, teachers who teach linguistically 
diverse classrooms and have professional development needs for teaching in a multicultural setting may also 
benefit from more evaluation and feedback in these areas than they now receive. 
AddItIonAL mAterIAL
The following additional material relevant to this chapter is available on line at: 
1
 2
 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/607856444110
Table 5.10 Path analysis: Country results (2007-08)
VB.NET TIFF: TIFF to Text (TXT) Converter SDK; Convert TIFF to
can not only convert TIFF to .txt file, but this VB.NET TIFF to text converter library only provide powerful & profession imaging controls, PDF document, tiff
convert pdf photo to text; convert pdf to text file online
C# PDF Converter Library SDK to convert PDF to other file formats
A best C# PDF converter control for adobe PDF document conversion in Visual Studio .NET applications. Allow users to convert PDF to Text (TXT) file.
c# pdf to txt; convert pdf to text doc
173
S
chool
E
valuation
, t
EachEr
a
ppraiSal
and
F
EEdback
and
thE
i
mpact
on
S
choolS
and
t
EachErS
chapter 5
Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS – ISBN 978-92-64-05605-3
© OECD 2009
N
otes
1. Given the time constraints for developing a workable questionnaire that was not overly burdensome for respondents, school 
principals were asked only once for information on the criteria and impact of school evaluations. Therefore, this information does not, 
in the main, distinguish between school self-evaluations compared to external evaluations.  
2. This issue is explored in further detail and with a different methodology in the forthcoming OECD report, Teacher Education for 
Diversity.
3. It is important to note that this figure only includes school principals who reported having a school evaluation at some time in 
the previous five years. It does not include the 14% who reported no school evaluation over the previous five years. For example, in 
Austria, Ireland, Italy and Portugal a large proportion of schools did not conduct or participate in such evaluations (see Table 5.1).
4. While external school evaluations are relatively uncommon in Italy, the Italian Ministry of Education has made it compulsory for 
schools that want to receive additional resources from the EU structural funds to participate in the “School Service Evaluation” survey, 
co-ordinated by the National Institute of Evaluation, which collects data on many aspects of schools.
5. It should be noted that TALIS did not seek to define innovative or effective teaching for respondents. Therefore, teachers’ reports in 
these areas represent their opinions of what is and is not innovative and effective teaching and teachers.  
C# WPF PDF Viewer SDK to convert and export PDF document to other
An advanced .NET WPF PDF converter library for converting PDF in C#.NET WPF program. Export PDF text content to TXT file with original layout.
extract text from pdf; convert pdf to plain text
VB.NET PDF - WPF PDF Viewer for VB.NET Program
XDoc.HTML5 Viewer. XDoc.Windows Viewer. XDoc.Converter. View & Process. Users can export and convert PDF to Word, Tiff, TXT and various of image file formats.
conversion of pdf image to text; .pdf to .txt converter
chapter 5 S
chool
E
valuation
, t
EachEr
a
ppraiSal
and
F
EEdback
and
thE
i
mpact
on
S
choolS
and
t
EachErS
Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS – ISBN 978-92-64-05605-3
174
© OECD 2009
Table 5.1
Frequency and type of school evaluations (2007-08)
Percentage of teachers of lower secondary education working in schools where school evaluations were conducted  
with the following frequency over the last five years
Frequency of school self-evaluations over the last five years
Never
Once
2-4 times
Once per year
More than once per year
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
Australia
6.8
(2.87)
25.3
(3.89)
14.1
(3.17)
50.0
(4.16)
3.7
(1.73)
Austria
41.7
(3.59)
28.2
(2.94)
17.7
(2.91)
11.3
(2.11)
1.1
(0.63)
Belgium (Fl.)
22.0
(3.91)
33.4
(4.04)
30.9
(4.93)
12.9
(2.59)
0.7
(0.71)
Brazil
24.4
(2.61)
10.2
(1.67)
16.5
(2.23)
33.2
(3.29)
15.7
(2.70)
Bulgaria
22.0
(3.65)
12.6
(3.16)
11.4
(3.30)
34.5
(6.15)
19.5
(3.98)
Denmark
32.4
(4.12)
15.1
(4.01)
19.8
(3.92)
25.4
(3.84)
7.3
(2.60)
Estonia
23.9
(3.50)
26.7
(3.50)
19.5
(3.41)
28.4
(3.62)
1.6
(1.13)
Hungary
4.7
(1.92)
11.7
(2.46)
23.1
(3.22)
41.2
(6.51)
19.3
(6.36)
Iceland
11.3
(0.14)
30.9
(0.15)
26.3
(0.17)
28.9
(0.12)
2.6
(0.12)
Ireland
56.5
(5.06)
25.2
(4.52)
7.6
(2.52)
8.2
(2.87)
2.5
(1.73)
Italy
21.2
(2.84)
10.2
(1.81)
19.7
(2.63)
43.9
(3.20)
5.1
(1.50)
Korea
6.5
(2.26)
10.9
(2.70)
26.7
(3.41)
26.8
(3.80)
29.2
(3.32)
Lithuania
3.7
(1.40)
7.9
(2.03)
9.4
(2.53)
67.8
(3.54)
11.2
(2.42)
Malaysia
2.1
(0.98)
2.2
(0.96)
19.9
(2.70)
50.7
(3.36)
25.1
(3.08)
Malta
10.1
(0.13)
10.2
(0.09)
30.5
(0.15)
48.6
(0.20)
0.6
(0.00)
Mexico
20.4
(4.00)
9.5
(2.47)
17.1
(2.86)
32.4
(3.93)
20.6
(3.55)
Norway
25.5
(4.08)
14.3
(3.35)
18.7
(3.32)
33.5
(4.13)
7.9
(2.36)
Poland
10.4
(2.56)
13.8
(2.95)
24.2
(3.92)
34.2
(3.80)
17.5
(2.97)
Portugal
47.9
(3.97)
19.3
(3.56)
13.3
(2.95)
13.0
(3.10)
6.4
(2.14)
Slovak Republic
1.6
(0.79)
5.4
(2.00)
8.3
(2.36)
70.5
(3.34)
14.3
(2.88)
Slovenia
19.9
(2.97)
15.9
(2.91)
12.1
(2.59)
45.2
(3.84)
6.9
(1.86)
Spain
31.1
(3.31)
18.1
(2.74)
13.7
(2.39)
32.4
(3.72)
4.7
(1.80)
Turkey
18.0
(4.43)
16.5
(4.73)
20.9
(3.74)
30.7
(4.58)
13.9
(2.90)
TALIS average
20.2
(0.65)
16.2
(0.62)
18.3
(0.63)
34.9
(0.78)
10.3
(0.55)
Frequency of external evaluations over the last five years
No evaluation 
from any source 
over the last  
five years
Never
Once
2-4 times
Once per year
More than once per year
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
Australia
21.2
(3.43)
36.2
(4.06)
29.7
(4.03)
10.7
(2.28)
2.2
(1.31)
5.0
(2.30)
Austria
58.3
(3.37)
22.9
(3.09)
9.0
(1.89)
6.4
(1.78)
3.4
(1.22)
35.2
(3.49)
Belgium (Fl.)
10.4
(2.82)
54.6
(4.38)
32.7
(3.71)
1.9
(0.96)
0.4
(0.41)
5.8
(2.19)
Brazil
24.3
(2.64)
14.2
(2.56)
21.3
(2.59)
24.9
(2.99)
15.3
(2.50)
18.9
(2.42)
Bulgaria
29.4
(4.50)
30.4
(3.86)
15.9
(3.49)
14.0
(3.17)
10.4
(5.71)
18.8
(3.43)
Denmark
53.0
(4.31)
22.4
(4.36)
10.9
(2.97)
11.5
(2.83)
2.2
(1.62)
25.4
(4.03)
Estonia
27.5
(3.94)
47.8
(4.22)
18.4
(3.43)
4.4
(1.72)
1.8
(0.84)
11.8
(2.76)
Hungary
12.4
(2.47)
20.9
(2.81)
38.2
(6.36)
23.2
(6.93)
5.2
(1.47)
1.2
(0.67)
Iceland
18.0
(0.11)
56.3
(0.20)
22.5
(0.18)
0.7
(0.00)
2.5
(0.08)
5.0
(0.09)
Ireland
56.9
(5.16)
36.5
(5.05)
5.2
(2.11)
1.4
(1.41)
0.0
(0.00)
39.1
(4.91)
Italy
60.7
(3.15)
11.3
(2.16)
14.6
(2.37)
12.3
(2.29)
1.1
(0.66)
19.8
(2.76)
Korea
3.0
(1.53)
26.3
(3.65)
41.0
(4.22)
10.6
(2.27)
19.1
(3.20)
0.9
(0.88)
Lithuania
37.1
(3.50)
25.1
(3.06)
20.6
(3.12)
8.4
(1.66)
8.9
(2.59)
3.4
(1.35)
Malaysia
7.8
(2.00)
11.4
(2.27)
25.3
(3.12)
22.9
(3.17)
32.7
(3.51)
2.1
(0.98)
Malta
53.9
(0.24)
38.8
(0.25)
6.3
(0.08)
1.0
(0.00)
0.0
(0.00)
7.4
(0.13)
Mexico
21.1
(4.05)
11.0
(2.54)
20.0
(3.41)
20.0
(3.20)
27.9
(4.09)
17.1
(3.82)
Norway
35.6
(4.44)
34.9
(4.49)
21.2
(3.78)
5.9
(2.17)
2.5
(1.44)
17.2
(3.64)
Poland
13.6
(3.07)
51.5
(4.14)
20.1
(3.53)
12.8
(2.83)
1.9
(1.33)
6.5
(2.39)
Portugal
49.1
(4.34)
29.9
(4.10)
18.2
(3.11)
2.1
(1.18)
0.6
(0.65)
32.8
(3.32)
Slovak Republic
18.1
(3.73)
56.0
(4.28)
15.7
(3.53)
6.8
(1.78)
3.3
(1.45)
1.6
(0.79)
Slovenia
40.1
(3.89)
34.2
(3.78)
16.0
(2.95)
7.8
(2.20)
1.9
(1.11)
15.5
(2.81)
Spain
38.5
(3.67)
27.2
(3.79)
19.7
(3.27)
13.8
(2.90)
0.8
(0.76)
24.5
(3.14)
Turkey
8.5
(3.53)
8.0
(3.82)
28.5
(3.88)
37.6
(5.16)
17.4
(4.50)
1.8
(1.07)
TALIS average
30.4
(0.72)
30.8
(0.74)
20.5
(0.70)
11.4
(0.58)
7.0
(0.48)
13.8
(0.56)
Source: OECD, TALISDatabase.
1
 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/607856444110
175
S
chool
E
valuation
, t
EachEr
a
ppraiSal
and
F
EEdback
and
thE
i
mpact
on
S
choolS
and
t
EachErS
chapter 5
Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS – ISBN 978-92-64-05605-3
© OECD 2009
Table 5.1a 
(1/2)
Criteria of school evaluations (2007-08)
Percentage of teachers of lower secondary education whose school principal reported that the following criteria were considered 
with high or moderate importance in school self-evaluations or external evaluations
Student test scores
Retention  
and pass rates  
of students
Other student  
learning outcomes
Student feedback  
on the teaching  
they receive
Feedback  
from parents
How well  
teachers work with  
the principal and  
their colleagues
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
Australia
86.9
(3.12)
81.9
(3.62)
94.8
(2.14)
69.0
(4.13)
88.3
(2.92)
79.5
(4.02)
Austria
57.7
(5.01)
33.3
(4.40)
60.7
(4.24)
81.2
(3.01)
83.4
(2.88)
76.3
(3.65)
Belgium (Fl.)
85.6
(3.03)
93.8
(1.82)
80.4
(3.40)
72.4
(3.97)
71.5
(4.51)
92.3
(2.48)
Brazil
85.7
(2.67)
93.7
(1.70)
90.1
(2.58)
88.0
(2.56)
83.9
(2.87)
95.5
(0.91)
Bulgaria
82.8
(3.25)
64.2
(4.78)
74.3
(7.50)
60.3
(4.74)
45.2
(5.76)
78.0
(4.05)
Denmark
55.8
(5.77)
68.4
(4.59)
78.7
(5.31)
69.6
(3.94)
58.5
(5.58)
65.6
(6.07)
Estonia
86.2
(2.94)
91.9
(2.40)
80.3
(3.58)
80.7
(2.78)
73.7
(4.12)
83.0
(3.27)
Hungary
69.7
(4.26)
73.1
(3.82)
78.3
(3.10)
68.3
(3.88)
83.5
(3.15)
79.9
(3.21)
Iceland
60.5
(0.20)
51.7
(0.23)
68.5
(0.15)
60.2
(0.19)
88.8
(0.12)
87.0
(0.18)
Ireland
80.5
(4.91)
84.2
(4.67)
80.9
(5.07)
55.8
(6.80)
76.1
(5.77)
82.3
(5.17)
Italy
76.3
(3.47)
78.8
(3.11)
78.3
(3.09)
80.0
(3.07)
93.1
(1.99)
91.2
(2.03)
Korea
57.8
(4.27)
23.7
(3.97)
62.6
(3.99)
70.8
(3.64)
80.1
(3.20)
87.3
(2.76)
Lithuania
62.1
(3.75)
74.8
(3.77)
88.2
(2.22)
88.7
(2.25)
87.9
(2.58)
85.7
(2.62)
Malaysia
97.7
(1.10)
47.7
(3.98)
82.6
(2.65)
87.1
(2.54)
86.0
(2.40)
98.7
(0.90)
Malta
84.3
(0.13)
78.4
(0.20)
84.3
(0.20)
68.0
(0.22)
89.8
(0.19)
90.2
(0.14)
Mexico
94.0
(1.80)
97.3
(1.28)
88.6
(3.10)
84.8
(3.05)
74.7
(3.97)
89.2
(2.69)
Norway
52.0
(4.95)
32.1
(4.90)
51.2
(4.99)
50.3
(4.79)
65.1
(4.55)
64.9
(4.89)
Poland
96.5
(1.40)
89.0
(2.68)
91.0
(2.33)
89.8
(2.29)
93.5
(2.02)
93.6
(2.02)
Portugal
65.9
(4.72)
94.2
(2.19)
85.2
(3.52)
73.5
(4.73)
78.3
(4.45)
79.8
(3.85)
Slovak Republic
87.2
(2.96)
50.5
(4.85)
80.1
(3.68)
65.7
(4.21)
55.6
(4.69)
81.5
(3.70)
Slovenia
74.2
(3.81)
77.8
(3.36)
84.2
(3.03)
67.5
(4.27)
82.5
(3.12)
88.6
(2.49)
Spain
74.1
(4.14)
79.2
(3.84)
73.4
(3.99)
60.4
(4.94)
67.1
(4.50)
69.8
(4.16)
Turkey
80.1
(5.50)
68.0
(6.55)
77.6
(5.45)
81.2
(4.13)
70.7
(4.25)
86.3
(4.16)
TALIS average
76.2
(0.77)
70.8
(0.77)
78.9
(0.79)
72.7
(0.79)
77.3
(0.79)
83.7
(0.70)
Direct appraisal of 
classroom teaching
Innovative  
teaching practices
Relations between  
teachers and students
Professional 
development 
undertaken by teachers
Teachers’  
classroom 
management
Teachers’ knowledge 
and understanding  
of their main  
subject field(s)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
Australia
58.8
(4.50)
78.6
(4.00)
89.7
(2.92)
87.3
(3.18)
79.6
(3.85)
76.5
(4.17)
Austria
68.5
(3.78)
76.5
(3.09)
86.4
(2.79)
53.5
(4.33)
74.9
(4.02)
68.8
(4.09)
Belgium (Fl.)
70.4
(4.09)
78.9
(4.14)
90.9
(2.53)
94.9
(1.83)
72.8
(4.37)
79.3
(3.83)
Brazil
95.4
(1.25)
92.8
(1.62)
95.6
(1.18)
90.8
(1.94)
93.5
(1.88)
93.6
(1.82)
Bulgaria
84.3
(3.75)
78.6
(4.87)
79.3
(4.13)
85.1
(3.82)
89.5
(3.22)
81.1
(4.38)
Denmark
50.8
(5.36)
37.5
(6.04)
83.1
(4.84)
73.7
(4.93)
62.5
(5.35)
67.0
(5.61)
Estonia
60.7
(4.31)
75.7
(4.14)
85.0
(3.10)
87.1
(2.86)
82.8
(2.92)
78.5
(3.58)
Hungary
66.3
(3.96)
69.7
(4.28)
81.5
(3.27)
77.0
(3.52)
71.5
(3.93)
84.3
(2.67)
Iceland
46.1
(0.21)
68.8
(0.20)
78.5
(0.12)
74.0
(0.19)
56.6
(0.22)
40.2
(0.21)
Ireland
75.7
(5.69)
90.3
(3.85)
94.5
(2.89)
93.2
(2.91)
93.1
(2.95)
90.5
(3.71)
Italy
69.5
(3.74)
76.4
(3.20)
92.3
(2.30)
75.7
(3.10)
81.0
(3.01)
82.1
(2.98)
Korea
81.9
(3.50)
82.6
(3.27)
82.5
(3.13)
86.5
(2.93)
81.6
(3.57)
76.5
(3.49)
Lithuania
71.3
(4.15)
88.0
(2.83)
93.7
(2.01)
93.0
(1.96)
84.7
(2.97)
83.5
(3.23)
Malaysia
98.6
(0.82)
96.4
(1.26)
97.3
(1.20)
96.3
(1.46)
98.5
(0.83)
97.7
(1.12)
Malta
81.7
(0.19)
83.1
(0.12)
100.0
(0.00)
83.5
(0.17)
92.0
(0.03)
86.3
(0.18)
Mexico
94.4
(2.14)
86.9
(2.85)
90.9
(2.43)
88.3
(2.27)
95.7
(1.69)
96.8
(1.45)
Norway
31.7
(4.67)
37.4
(4.95)
69.6
(4.58)
65.4
(4.49)
68.6
(4.15)
61.4
(4.53)
Poland
86.7
(2.85)
80.2
(3.36)
92.7
(2.64)
86.7
(3.33)
88.0
(3.13)
88.6
(2.85)
Portugal
40.8
(5.71)
71.8
(4.56)
88.7
(2.95)
72.7
(4.20)
72.5
(4.93)
75.4
(4.08)
Slovak Republic
80.8
(3.70)
85.7
(2.94)
82.2
(3.62)
80.4
(3.68)
70.6
(3.88)
68.0
(4.38)
Slovenia
68.7
(4.16)
74.8
(3.77)
85.3
(3.17)
86.6
(2.89)
82.3
(3.53)
78.2
(3.73)
Spain
64.4
(4.64)
66.5
(4.34)
75.8
(3.80)
57.0
(4.47)
72.3
(4.06)
55.9
(4.77)
Turkey
88.9
(4.29)
87.8
(4.02)
86.8
(4.03)
86.8
(3.70)
92.2
(3.28)
89.7
(3.64)
TALIS average
71.1
(0.81)
76.7
(0.76)
87.1
(0.63)
81.5
(0.67)
80.7
(0.71)
78.2
(0.73)
Note: Only includes those teachers working in schools that had a school evaluation sometime in the previous 5 years. 
Source: OECD, TALISDatabase.
1
 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/607856444110
chapter 5 S
chool
E
valuation
, t
EachEr
a
ppraiSal
and
F
EEdback
and
thE
i
mpact
on
S
choolS
and
t
EachErS
Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS – ISBN 978-92-64-05605-3
176
© OECD 2009
Table 5.1a 
(2/2)
Criteria of school evaluations (2007-08)
Percentage of teachers of lower secondary education whose school principal reported that the following criteria were considered 
with high or moderate importance in school self-evaluations or external evaluations
Teachers’ knowledge 
and understanding of 
instructional practices in 
their main subject field(s)
Teaching of students with 
special learning needs
Student discipline  
and behaviour
Teaching in  
a multicultural setting
Extra-curricular activities 
with students (e.g. school 
plays and performances, 
sporting activities)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
Australia
70.8
(3.98)
79.8
(3.97)
88.0
(3.01)
41.9
(5.11)
77.0
(4.04)
Austria
65.6
(4.17)
58.6
(3.74)
66.1
(3.84)
35.7
(4.62)
74.5
(3.54)
Belgium (Fl.)
79.8
(3.88)
72.9
(4.71)
66.5
(4.17)
35.3
(4.41)
62.9
(4.83)
Brazil
92.4
(1.82)
84.6
(2.73)
89.5
(2.03)
86.8
(2.33)
89.2
(2.04)
Bulgaria
83.3
(4.58)
57.3
(6.86)
82.5
(4.08)
62.2
(5.66)
82.8
(4.29)
Denmark
52.9
(6.48)
65.8
(4.39)
76.3
(4.90)
43.9
(6.12)
48.8
(6.34)
Estonia
84.3
(3.33)
94.7
(2.17)
76.3
(3.48)
39.9
(4.14)
84.8
(3.04)
Hungary
81.5
(3.25)
70.8
(5.09)
78.2
(3.52)
51.5
(5.11)
75.5
(2.94)
Iceland
48.8
(0.21)
85.8
(0.10)
83.7
(0.08)
34.7
(0.16)
39.5
(0.23)
Ireland
91.6
(3.88)
97.5
(1.99)
91.9
(3.53)
62.9
(5.69)
85.6
(3.89)
Italy
79.9
(3.17)
87.7
(2.52)
87.3
(2.52)
77.0
(3.39)
84.4
(3.09)
Korea
78.6
(3.33)
58.8
(4.21)
81.7
(3.22)
38.0
(4.19)
66.2
(3.63)
Lithuania
86.5
(3.08)
90.9
(2.45)
81.3
(3.26)
53.8
(4.37)
85.9
(3.20)
Malaysia
98.3
(0.90)
71.1
(3.36)
97.4
(1.23)
85.6
(2.65)
93.9
(1.85)
Malta
85.2
(0.21)
83.5
(0.21)
100.0
(0.00)
40.9
(0.24)
88.3
(0.09)
Mexico
92.8
(2.19)
72.5
(4.07)
92.7
(2.12)
80.4
(3.45)
84.6
(3.06)
Norway
48.0
(4.51)
65.2
(4.27)
76.3
(3.63)
27.6
(4.53)
12.3
(3.61)
Poland
86.6
(3.04)
86.8
(2.98)
96.3
(2.16)
48.5
(5.56)
94.7
(1.89)
Portugal
78.4
(3.49)
80.7
(4.49)
80.4
(3.82)
57.9
(5.11)
83.3
(3.59)
Slovak Republic
76.1
(4.10)
85.7
(2.70)
82.7
(3.72)
42.9
(4.92)
78.8
(3.70)
Slovenia
82.5
(3.45)
82.6
(3.47)
81.7
(3.30)
44.0
(4.91)
77.7
(3.57)
Spain
51.9
(4.48)
72.0
(3.91)
79.8
(3.51)
56.5
(4.99)
67.1
(4.28)
Turkey
86.0
(4.17)
70.2
(5.54)
86.0
(3.26)
68.2
(5.23)
76.7
(5.68)
TALIS average
77.5
(0.75)
77.2
(0.79)
83.6
(0.67)
52.9
(0.94)
74.5
(0.75)
Note: Only includes those teachers that work in schools that had a school evaluation sometime in the previous 5 years. 
Source: OECD, TALISDatabase.
1
 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/607856444110
Table 5.2
Impacts of school evaluations upon schools (2007-08)
Percentage of teachers of lower secondary education whose school principal reported that school evaluations  
(external or self-evaluations) had a high or moderate level of influence on the following
Level of school budget 
or its distribution 
within schools
Performance  
feedback to  
the school
Performance  
appraisal of the  
school management
Performance  
appraisal of teachers
Assistance provided to 
teachers to improve 
their teaching
Teachers’  
remuneration  
and bonuses
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
Australia
76.4
(3.85)
96.2
(1.72)
88.5
(3.01)
64.9
(4.39)
86.8
(2.97)
5.1
(2.18)
Austria
12.0
(2.81)
76.2
(3.66)
62.0
(3.95)
63.1
(3.92)
64.1
(3.89)
4.5
(2.13)
Belgium (Fl.)
37.7
(4.43)
94.3
(1.97)
79.1
(3.45)
73.8
(3.74)
78.0
(3.79)
2.6
(1.39)
Brazil
55.4
(3.66)
86.0
(2.80)
89.1
(2.33)
92.2
(1.55)
87.0
(2.18)
41.2
(3.51)
Bulgaria
23.3
(7.20)
72.5
(5.23)
73.7
(5.47)
77.5
(4.96)
58.0
(4.95)
28.5
(7.20)
Denmark
22.3
(4.54)
52.9
(5.94)
58.5
(5.42)
32.5
(5.60)
44.3
(4.64)
9.0
(3.43)
Estonia
23.1
(3.67)
80.3
(3.44)
73.1
(4.06)
63.9
(3.79)
54.9
(4.63)
28.0
(3.59)
Hungary
28.1
(5.16)
75.4
(3.61)
78.5
(3.14)
76.1
(3.46)
68.7
(4.02)
48.9
(3.78)
Iceland
18.4
(0.17)
61.1
(0.18)
52.8
(0.16)
44.9
(0.18)
43.2
(0.20)
13.1
(0.11)
Ireland
36.7
(6.99)
87.0
(4.18)
86.1
(4.16)
66.7
(6.07)
74.0
(5.16)
1.2
(0.89)
Italy
67.4
(3.54)
90.1
(2.38)
83.1
(2.79)
78.5
(3.28)
78.3
(2.95)
40.5
(3.75)
Korea
73.6
(4.09)
91.5
(2.39)
93.7
(2.10)
73.8
(3.23)
80.2
(3.12)
27.5
(3.60)
Lithuania
24.1
(3.25)
84.4
(2.99)
87.8
(2.53)
83.6
(3.11)
77.8
(3.68)
16.3
(3.13)
Malaysia
88.2
(2.49)
97.4
(1.13)
97.5
(1.25)
96.7
(1.44)
91.1
(2.01)
68.9
(3.41)
Malta
53.8
(0.24)
92.4
(0.11)
88.1
(0.10)
87.6
(0.12)
82.4
(0.14)
16.7
(0.18)
Mexico
45.1
(5.02)
81.1
(3.40)
89.3
(2.43)
91.1
(2.15)
85.2
(3.04)
50.0
(4.66)
Norway
26.8
(4.25)
78.3
(4.25)
60.8
(4.64)
43.1
(4.52)
61.2
(4.40)
7.5
(1.24)
Poland
18.7
(3.47)
75.5
(3.71)
87.9
(3.04)
88.5
(3.11)
57.9
(4.63)
40.7
(4.65)
Portugal
35.8
(5.36)
91.6
(2.92)
91.1
(3.06)
57.3
(5.28)
55.1
(5.40)
2.6
(1.54)
Slovak Republic
19.6
(3.79)
78.6
(2.99)
57.2
(3.86)
81.9
(3.38)
80.6
(3.78)
79.8
(3.33)
Slovenia
24.5
(3.71)
85.1
(3.17)
85.5
(2.92)
69.4
(3.94)
80.9
(3.45)
36.3
(4.31)
Spain
22.2
(3.51)
60.4
(4.21)
61.3
(4.61)
43.6
(4.57)
53.0
(4.04)
9.1
(2.34)
Turkey
39.8
(6.21)
81.9
(4.68)
86.0
(4.11)
85.0
(4.29)
73.5
(4.67)
22.9
(4.23)
TALIS average
38.0
(0.90)
81.3
(0.71)
78.7
(0.72)
71.1
(0.79)
70.3
(0.79)
26.1
(0.71)
Note: Only includes those teachers working in schools that had a school evaluation sometime in the previous 5 years. 
Source: OECD, TALISDatabase.
1
 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/607856444110
177
S
chool
E
valuation
, t
EachEr
a
ppraiSal
and
F
EEdback
and
thE
i
mpact
on
S
choolS
and
t
EachErS
chapter 5
Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS – ISBN 978-92-64-05605-3
© OECD 2009
Table 5.2a
Publication of school evaluations (2007-08)
Percentage of teachers of lower secondary education in schools where school evaluations were published  
or used in comparative tables
School evaluation results were published
Results used in school performance tables
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
Australia
75.7
(3.85)
23.3
(3.97)
Austria
38.9
(4.20)
12.9
(2.99)
Belgium (Fl.)
76.8
(3.15)
29.7
(4.44)
Brazil
56.6
(3.15)
61.2
(3.30)
Bulgaria
23.8
(6.94)
34.7
(5.09)
Denmark
84.5
(4.04)
54.8
(5.19)
Estonia
68.2
(4.03)
24.8
(3.29)
Hungary
72.6
(5.11)
34.0
(3.69)
Iceland
79.0
(0.15)
47.4
(0.17)
Ireland
64.9
(7.15)
8.1
(2.69)
Italy
44.2
(3.85)
19.9
(3.15)
Korea
69.0
(3.65)
26.0
(3.72)
Lithuania
33.7
(3.82)
28.6
(2.97)
Malaysia
50.7
(3.57)
40.1
(3.42)
Malta
41.6
(0.20)
0.0
(0.00)
Mexico
74.9
(3.87)
71.0
(3.99)
Norway
58.2
(4.71)
15.4
(3.69)
Poland
17.0
(3.51)
29.2
(4.46)
Portugal
63.2
(4.79)
23.5
(4.46)
Slovak Republic
75.3
(3.73)
29.7
(3.61)
Slovenia
41.7
(4.41)
6.0
(1.76)
Spain
40.9
(4.31)
32.1
(4.29)
Turkey
19.4
(4.12)
8.0
(2.29)
TALIS average
55.3
(0.88)
28.7
(0.74)
Note: Only includes those teachers that work in schools that had a school evaluation sometime in the previous 5 years. 
Source: OECD, TALISDatabase.
1
 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/607856444110
Table 5.3 
(1/2)
Frequency and source of teacher appraisal and feedback (2007-08)
Percentage of teachers of lower secondary education who reported having received appraisal and/or feedback  
on their work with the following frequency from the following sources
Appraisal and/or feedback received from the principal about the teacher’s work in the school
Never
Less than  
once every  
two years
Once every  
two years
Once  
per year
Twice  
per year
3 or  
more times  
per year
Monthly
More than  
once  
per month
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
Australia
30.1
(1.49) 14.6
(0.90)
5.4
(0.57)
19.1
(1.21)
9.0
(0.70)
13.3
(0.89)
3.8
(0.53)
4.7
(0.67)
Austria
18.0
(0.85) 19.4
(0.75)
9.6
(0.55)
19.6
(0.91)
11.2
(0.60)
15.2
(0.64)
4.0
(0.36)
2.8
(0.33)
Belgium (Fl.)
19.1
(1.05) 24.0
(0.97) 10.0
(0.67)
25.2
(1.16)
9.9
(0.68)
8.4
(0.87)
1.9
(0.27)
1.4
(0.23)
Brazil
28.4
(1.30)
5.0
(0.49)
2.0
(0.21)
18.3
(1.05)
8.5
(0.67)
17.6
(1.14) 11.5
(0.77)
8.7
(0.73)
Bulgaria
4.1
(0.38)
5.9
(0.53)
3.3
(0.57)
26.5
(2.51)
22.4
(2.50)
22.7
(1.71)
8.4
(1.87)
6.7
(1.65)
Denmark
14.2
(1.16)
9.2
(0.96)
8.9
(0.91)
37.5
(1.59)
8.5
(0.87)
16.0
(1.31)
2.7
(0.46)
3.0
(0.50)
Estonia
13.9
(0.94) 10.1
(0.79)
6.9
(0.50)
29.4
(0.91)
14.1
(0.65)
17.1
(0.76)
4.8
(0.48)
3.7
(0.45)
Hungary
9.3
(1.08)
6.5
(0.61)
3.8
(0.77)
23.9
(2.54)
20.3
(1.61)
23.3
(1.41)
6.6
(0.73)
6.3
(1.30)
Iceland
23.3
(1.30)
6.2
(0.69)
4.1
(0.57)
22.0
(1.08)
14.6
(1.16)
16.0
(0.97)
6.6
(0.61)
7.3
(0.77)
Ireland
43.3
(1.37) 11.8
(0.90)
2.6
(0.37)
15.4
(0.91)
7.8
(0.63)
12.6
(0.84)
3.5
(0.42)
2.9
(0.47)
Italy
59.7
(1.36)
4.1
(0.37)
1.4
(0.21)
10.9
(0.79)
6.9
(0.60)
9.9
(0.75)
4.4
(0.56)
2.8
(0.42)
Korea
15.0
(0.82)
7.0
(0.57)
2.6
(0.29)
36.2
(0.93)
12.2
(0.68)
13.0
(0.70)
8.3
(0.57)
5.5
(0.53)
Lithuania
11.5
(0.86)
7.3
(0.57)
4.2
(0.44)
22.5
(0.97)
14.0
(0.81)
23.7
(0.98) 10.0
(0.65)
6.9
(0.57)
Malaysia
10.9
(0.91)
4.7
(0.51)
2.3
(0.27)
21.7
(1.14)
13.3
(0.98)
25.4
(1.21)
8.0
(0.76) 13.8
(1.60)
Malta
17.1
(1.38)
8.3
(1.03)
4.6
(0.72)
26.7
(1.59)
13.0
(1.05)
19.6
(1.36)
4.5
(0.66)
6.1
(0.87)
Mexico
16.9
(1.05)
2.7
(0.33)
1.4
(0.24)
15.8
(1.06)
11.4
(0.65)
21.8
(1.18) 19.1
(1.15) 10.7
(0.76)
Norway
26.2
(1.34) 12.8
(0.80)
5.4
(0.61)
28.2
(1.30)
9.4
(0.89)
11.1
(0.74)
3.8
(0.43)
3.1
(0.47)
Poland
9.6
(0.73) 22.5
(1.11)
9.0
(0.82)
23.9
(1.03)
15.6
(0.87)
14.0
(1.05)
2.9
(0.35)
2.4
(0.43)
Portugal
38.8
(1.44)
8.4
(0.58)
2.5
(0.38)
16.8
(0.89)
6.7
(0.53)
16.8
(0.77)
4.5
(0.45)
5.4
(0.74)
Slovak Republic
7.8
(0.89)
4.0
(0.48)
2.1
(0.27)
15.3
(1.07)
17.7
(0.91)
27.5
(1.08) 16.0
(1.23)
9.5
(1.00)
Slovenia
9.0
(0.89)
7.2
(0.63)
6.7
(0.53)
30.7
(1.17)
15.3
(0.70)
22.5
(0.93)
6.5
(0.62)
2.0
(0.27)
Spain
59.8
(1.43)
5.0
(0.56)
0.8
(0.17)
11.6
(0.79)
3.4
(0.39)
13.2
(0.86)
2.8
(0.37)
3.5
(0.46)
Turkey
20.6
(1.26)
4.9
(0.71)
4.4
(0.72)
27.7
(1.16)
18.0
(1.79)
12.0
(1.65)
8.0
(1.33)
4.4
(0.63)
TALIS average
22.0
(0.24)
9.2
(0.15)
4.5
(0.11)
22.8
(0.27)
12.3
(0.21)
17.1
(0.22)
6.6
(0.16)
5.4
(0.16)
Source: OECD, T
ALISDatabase.
1
 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/607856444110
chapter 5 S
chool
E
valuation
, t
EachEr
a
ppraiSal
and
F
EEdback
and
thE
i
mpact
on
S
choolS
and
t
EachErS
Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS – ISBN 978-92-64-05605-3
178
© OECD 2009
Table 5.3 
(2/2)
Frequency and source of teacher appraisal and feedback (2007-08)
Percentage of teachers of lower secondary education who reported having received appraisal and/or feedback  
on their work with the following frequency from the following sources
Appraisal and/or feedback received from other teachers or members of the school management team about the teacher’s work in the school
Never
Less than  
once every  
two years
Once every  
two years
Once  
per year
Twice  
per year
3 or  
more times  
per year
Monthly
More than  
once  
per month
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
Australia
14.8
(0.86)
11.5
(0.76)
3.9
(0.45)
16.9
(1.05)
10.7
(0.75)
20.4
(1.18)
10.8
(0.71)
10.9
(0.87)
Austria
34.8
(0.89)
10.3
(0.48)
4.1
(0.34)
7.9
(0.45)
7.8
(0.49)
19.0
(0.69)
9.1
(0.43)
7.0
(0.52)
Belgium (Fl.)
41.9
(1.58)
10.4
(0.61)
3.1
(0.35)
11.0
(0.73)
6.7
(0.53)
14.5
(1.05)
7.0
(0.49)
5.5
(0.46)
Brazil
29.5
(1.23)
4.0
(0.45)
1.6
(0.24)
13.5
(0.89)
8.5
(0.83)
17.3
(0.86)
14.4
(0.94)
11.3
(0.69)
Bulgaria
21.5
(1.97)
9.5
(1.24)
3.5
(0.48)
21.5
(2.39)
11.3
(1.25)
15.4
(2.51)
8.5
(1.19)
8.8
(1.63)
Denmark
21.3
(1.32)
6.9
(0.63)
1.7
(0.33)
9.7
(0.85)
8.7
(0.82)
27.4
(1.25)
12.5
(0.85)
11.7
(0.93)
Estonia
9.5
(0.76)
6.6
(0.56)
3.8
(0.37)
21.6
(0.86)
12.2
(0.65)
27.1
(0.81)
10.7
(0.69)
8.6
(0.55)
Hungary
13.3
(1.21)
8.5
(0.67)
2.3
(0.35)
19.5
(2.07)
17.2
(1.03)
22.6
(1.00)
8.2
(0.67)
8.3
(1.01)
Iceland
29.2
(1.40)
7.4
(0.70)
2.6
(0.39)
6.7
(0.73)
7.2
(0.74)
18.0
(1.10)
12.6
(1.00)
16.3
(1.04)
Ireland
52.3
(1.16)
7.5
(0.67)
2.0
(0.30)
7.4
(0.63)
5.8
(0.64)
16.1
(0.80)
5.3
(0.53)
3.5
(0.42)
Italy
68.2
(1.08)
2.9
(0.32)
0.9
(0.14)
5.4
(0.36)
4.5
(0.41)
8.5
(0.55)
4.4
(0.43)
5.2
(0.69)
Korea
17.2
(0.83)
7.5
(0.53)
3.3
(0.39)
24.8
(0.96)
10.4
(0.58)
12.9
(0.68)
13.0
(0.55)
10.9
(0.66)
Lithuania
5.9
(0.54)
4.4
(0.42)
2.4
(0.33)
15.1
(0.73)
13.3
(0.70)
30.9
(0.99)
17.9
(0.84)
10.2
(0.72)
Malaysia
7.2
(0.51)
4.2
(0.39)
2.0
(0.23)
16.0
(0.93)
21.9
(1.35)
25.8
(1.08)
9.2
(0.89)
13.6
(1.19)
Malta
24.9
(1.53)
5.8
(0.78)
2.5
(0.61)
19.2
(1.45)
10.7
(1.04)
19.4
(1.34)
9.6
(0.97)
7.9
(0.82)
Mexico
34.1
(1.18)
2.5
(0.30)
1.8
(0.28)
10.4
(0.69)
10.2
(0.87)
16.4
(0.97)
15.5
(0.99)
9.1
(0.92)
Norway
28.1
(0.94)
11.1
(0.76)
2.0
(0.31)
10.2
(0.74)
6.4
(0.56)
17.3
(0.96)
12.6
(0.76)
12.4
(0.84)
Poland
30.0
(1.19)
11.7
(0.76)
5.3
(0.48)
15.4
(0.79)
9.0
(0.61)
15.8
(0.88)
7.4
(0.72)
5.5
(0.55)
Portugal
31.4
(1.31)
5.1
(0.48)
1.6
(0.23)
9.5
(0.63)
6.3
(0.45)
23.5
(1.05)
11.0
(0.76)
11.6
(0.88)
Slovak Republic
9.8
(0.77)
3.5
(0.40)
2.1
(0.34)
11.7
(0.93)
12.7
(1.01)
27.6
(1.22)
16.2
(1.03)
16.5
(1.07)
Slovenia
26.5
(1.01)
8.4
(0.55)
4.4
(0.41)
13.6
(0.71)
9.4
(0.51)
22.8
(0.93)
9.4
(0.62)
5.6
(0.44)
Spain
58.5
(1.22)
4.1
(0.41)
0.9
(0.17)
7.3
(0.66)
3.1
(0.37)
15.1
(0.83)
5.0
(0.39)
6.1
(0.48)
Turkey
47.5
(1.55)
4.5
(0.82)
2.1
(0.64)
12.2
(1.31)
10.2
(1.44)
9.9
(1.04)
7.8
(1.46)
5.9
(1.04)
TALIS average
28.6
(0.25)
6.9
(0.13)
2.6
(0.08)
13.3
(0.22)
9.7
(0.17)
19.3
(0.23)
10.4
(0.17)
9.1
(0.18)
Appraisal and/or feedback received from an external individual or body (e.g. external inspector)  
about the teacher’s work in the school
Not received 
appraisal or 
feedback from 
any source
Never
Less than  
once every 
two years
Once every  
two years
Once  
per year
Twice  
per year
3 or  
more times  
per year
Monthly
More than 
once  
per month
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
%
(S.E.)
Australia
73.8
(1.39) 12.3
(0.90)
3.0 (0.49)
5.4
(0.63)
2.1
(0.37)
2.2
(0.40) 0.6
(0.17) 0.6
(0.25) 10.4
(0.79)
Austria
42.5
(1.07) 31.5
(0.88)
8.3 (0.48)
8.5
(0.49)
3.6
(0.32)
3.9
(0.31) 0.9
(0.16) 0.8
(0.16) 10.9
(0.58)
Belgium (Fl.)
39.9
(2.02) 41.2
(1.42)
7.6 (0.77)
7.4
(0.77)
1.7
(0.26)
1.4
(0.26) 0.4
(0.13) 0.3
(0.12)
8.0
(0.67)
Brazil
57.2
(1.35)
4.9
(0.52)
2.3 (0.28) 18.6
(1.20)
4.5
(0.56)
6.6
(0.65) 3.9
(0.64) 2.1
(0.30) 18.9
(1.06)
Bulgaria
20.9
(2.20) 30.2
(1.96) 10.9 9 (1.02) 27.5
(1.66)
6.1
(1.34)
3.4
(1.19) 0.5
(0.12) 0.6
(0.23)
2.1
(0.29)
Denmark
69.7
(1.51)
9.2
(1.34)
1.9 (0.35)
5.7
(0.62)
4.8
(0.58)
5.3
(0.58) 1.5
(0.32) 2.0
(0.59)
7.4
(0.93)
Estonia
36.7
(1.22) 36.9
(1.09)
7.0 (0.54) 11.5
(0.66)
2.9
(0.32)
3.4
(0.35) 1.0
(0.19) 0.6
(0.16)
4.9
(0.61)
Hungary
51.4
(3.48) 29.4
(2.72)
4.1 (0.65) 10.0
(0.99)
1.9
(0.29)
2.2
(0.34) 0.6
(0.33) 0.4
(0.12)
6.1
(1.00)
Iceland
69.6
(1.39)
8.1
(0.90)
1.8 (0.39)
5.7
(0.64)
3.3
(0.49)
5.6
(0.62) 3.5
(0.57) 2.5
(0.43) 17.0
(1.05)
Ireland
53.0
(1.72) 32.3
(1.39)
4.9 (0.55)
6.5
(0.59)
1.0
(0.25)
1.6
(0.27) 0.4
(0.12) 0.4
(0.16) 25.7
(1.13)
Italy
90.3
(0.77)
2.3
(0.31)
0.8 (0.31)
2.7
(0.38)
0.9
(0.16)
1.7
(0.26) 0.7
(0.31) 0.5
(0.16) 54.6
(1.26)
Korea
31.0
(1.11) 12.1
(0.75)
7.3 (0.45) 29.3
(0.92) 14.6
(0.82)
4.5
(0.39) 0.8
(0.21) 0.4
(0.16)
7.1
(0.56)
Lithuania
34.1
(1.34) 21.4
(0.86)
9.2 (0.71) 18.7
(1.04)
6.4
(0.47)
6.0
(0.52) 2.7
(0.34) 1.4
(0.22)
3.5
(0.45)
Malaysia
32.9
(1.30) 15.2
(0.78)
5.4 (0.53) 22.7
(0.94) 11.6
(0.95) 10.9
(1.12) 0.9
(0.23) 0.3
(0.08)
3.2
(0.35)
Malta
44.4
(1.73) 13.8
(1.26)
7.7 (0.85) 19.3
(1.38)
7.8
(0.92)
5.7
(0.85) 0.4
(0.16) 0.9
(0.34)
7.8
(0.95)
Mexico
24.7
(1.37)
4.4
(0.40)
2.6 (0.34) 22.9
(1.18) 16.7
(1.12) 21.6
(1.29) 5.2
(0.66) 1.8
(0.29)
7.5
(0.68)
Norway
77.8
(1.08) 11.8
(0.94)
1.3 (0.26)
4.2
(0.41)
2.1
(0.37)
2.1
(0.34) 0.5
(0.14) 0.3
(0.10) 16.2
(0.89)
Poland
60.5
(1.07) 28.6
(0.92)
4.0 (0.45)
4.6
(0.52)
1.2
(0.24)
0.6
(0.15) 0.3
(0.10) 0.2
(0.07)
7.4
(0.62)
Portugal
84.0
(1.02)
7.7
(0.64)
2.0 (0.26)
4.2
(0.64)
0.9
(0.25)
0.9
(0.22) 0.2
(0.09) 0.1
(0.04) 26.3
(1.25)
Slovak Republic 33.3
(1.68) 43.6
(1.34)
8.2 (0.68)
9.3
(0.90)
2.3
(0.28)
1.9
(0.29) 0.9
(0.24) 0.4
(0.16)
3.6
(0.48)
Slovenia
57.5
(1.19) 25.6
(0.98)
3.9 (0.42)
7.5
(0.58)
2.2
(0.28)
2.6
(0.39) 0.6
(0.15) 0.2
(0.11)
6.7
(0.74)
Spain
65.7
(1.45) 10.4
(0.63)
3.7 (0.35) 13.1
(0.91)
3.5
(0.53)
2.7
(0.54) 0.5
(0.14) 0.4
(0.17) 45.5
(1.37)
Turkey
14.2
(1.29)
4.8
(0.64) 17.1 1 (1.95) 37.7
(1.85) 21.8
(1.91)
2.3
(0.85) 1.6
(1.21) 0.4
(0.16)
7.8
(0.65)
TALIS average
50.7 (0.33) ) 19.0 0 (0.24)
5.4 (0.14) 13.2
(0.20)
5.4
(0.15)
4.3 (0.13) ) 1.2
(0.08) 0.8
(0.05) 13.4 4 (0.18)
Source: OECD, T
ALISDatabase.
1
 2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/607856444110
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested