Monitoring and evaluation of teacher competencies at the international level: A comparative study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29329/pedper.2025.132Keywords:
Teacher Competencies, Monitoring and Evaluation, International Comparison, Professional Development, Education SystemsAbstract
Teachers’ professional competencies are a fundamental factor that directly affects the quality of education systems and student achievement. This study comparatively examines the approaches of Germany, Australia, Finland, South Korea, Hong Kong, Canada, and Singapore to monitoring and evaluating teacher competencies. Designed as a qualitative review, the research analysed 58 studies selected from articles, reports, and official documents published between 2020 and 2025. The findings reveal that while all countries associate teacher competencies with entry into the profession, professional development, and career progression, their evaluation methods differ significantly. Standardized and development-oriented systems are emphasized in Australia and Singapore; autonomy and trust are prioritized in Finland; performance-based accountability is highlighted in South Korea; self-evaluation is advanced in Canada; legal inspection frameworks prevail in Germany; and career-ladder evaluations are applied in Hong Kong. The results provide important insights for Turkey, suggesting that competency-monitoring processes should be integrated with professional development, digital competencies, and cultural inclusivity.
References
Adoniou, M., & Gallagher, M. (2017). Professional standards for teachers—what are they good for?. Oxford Review of Education, 43(1), 109-126.
AGDE. (2025). Australian government department of education. https://www.education.gov.au
AITSL. (2011). Australian professional standards for teachers. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards
AITSL. (2022). Australian professional standards for teachers. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards
AITSL. (2022, January 10). Teacher support—With you in 2022. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/campaign/teacher-support
AITSL. (2024a). Australian professional standards for teachers. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards
AITSL. (2024b). Australian charter for the professional learning of teachers and school leaders. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/tools-resources/resource/australian-charter-for-the-professional-learning-of-teachers-and-school-leaders
AITSL. (2024c). Australian professional standards for teachers (PDF). Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-policy-framework/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers.pdf
AITSL. (2024d). Domains of teaching. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/standards/understand-the-teacher-standards/domains-of-teaching
AITSL. (2024e). Australian Teacher Performance and Development Framework. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/tools-resources/resource/australian-teacher-performance-and-development-framework
Amemasor, S. K., Oppong, S. O., Ghansah, B., Benuwa, B., B., & Essel, D. D. (2025). A systematic review on the impact of teacher professional development on digital instructional integration and teaching practices. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1541031. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1541031
ACARA. (2025). Australian curriculum, assessment and reporting authority. https://www.vit.vic.edu.au/maintain/teacher-resources#guides-news
ACER. (2025). Australian council for educational research. https://www.acer.org
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2011). Australian professional standards for teachers. Melbourne: AITSL. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards
Bautista, A., Wong, J., & Gopinathan, S. (2015). Teacher professional development in Singapore: Depicting the landscape.
Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Unterricht und Kultus. (2022). Das bayerische Schulsystem: Viele Wege führen zum Ziel [The Bavarian school system: Many paths lead to the goal]. Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Unterricht und Kultus. https://schulamt.schulen.regensburg.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/STMUK_Das_bayerische_Schulsystem_2022_Digitaler_Versand_Kopie.pdf
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Caena, F. (2014). Teacher competence frameworks in Europe: Policy-as-discourse and policy-as-practice. European Journal of Education, 49(3), 311–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12088
Canadian Teachers’ Federation. (2023). Annual report 2022–2023. https://www.ctf-fce.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2022-23_Annual-Report_EN_v8_FINAL_web.pdf
Canadian Teachers’ Federation. (2023). Teacher professional learning and development programs. https://www.ctf-fce.ca
CCSSO. (2024, September 10). Council of chief state school officers. https://ccsso.org
Committee on Professional Development of Teachers and Principals (COTAP). (2020). T-standard+: Towards a learning profession. Education Bureau, Hong Kong SAR Government. https://www.cotap.hk/
Committee on Professional Development of Teachers and Principals (COTAP). (2021). Educational Research Award Scheme (2021/22): Information note. https://www.cotap.hk
Cooper, H. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
COTAP. (2021). Progress report on teacher and principal professional development. Committee on Professional Development of Teachers and Principals. https://www.cotap.hk
Çolak, İ., Yorulmaz, Y. İ., & Altınkurt, Y. (2022). Öğretmenlerin örgütsel güç mesafesi algıları ile özerklik davranışları arasındaki ilişkide eleştirel düşünme eğilimlerinin aracı rolü [The mediating role of teachers’ critical thinking dispositions in the relationship between their organisational power distance perceptions and autonomy behaviors]. e-International Journal of Educational Research, 13(2), 90–107.
Danielson, C. (2013). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2016). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/122.311
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2017). Professional learning in the learning profession: Status report. National Staff Development Council.
Day, C. (2002). School reform and transitions in teacher professionalism and identity. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(8), 677–692.
Demir, E. (2016). Evaluation of professional personality competence of physical education teachers working in secondary schools by students. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(6), 60–66.
Department for Education. (2024, September 9). Teachers’ standards information. UK Government. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications
Department for Education. (2024, September 10). Teachers’ standards: How should they be used? UK Government. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications
Education Bureau. (2023). Education Bureau Circular No. 14/2023: Measures for strengthening teachers’ professional training. https://applications.edb.gov.hk/circular/upload/EDBC/EDBC23014E.pdf
Eurydice. (2021). Avrupa’daki öğretmenler: Kariyer, gelişim ve refah [Teachers in Europe: Career, development and wellbeing]. https://eurydice.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2023_11/16142836_avrupadaki_ogretmenler.pdf
Eurydice. (2024). Finland: Quality assurance. https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/finland/quality-assurance
Eurydice. (2024). Teachers’ and school heads’ salaries and allowances in Europe (2022/23). Publications Office of the European Union. https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu
Finnish National Agency for Education. (2016). National core curriculum for basic education 2014. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education. https://www.oph.fi/en/statistics-and-publications/publications/national-core-curriculum-basic-education-2014
Goe, L., Bell, C., & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness: A research synthesis. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational change. Corwin.
Ingvarson, L. (2011). Recognising accomplished teachers in Australia: Where have we been? Where are we heading? Australian Journal of Education, 55(1), 46–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494411105500106
Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945–980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800
Kim, E. G., & Han, Y. K. (2021). Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers: Background report for Korea (Rev. ed.). Korean Educational Development Institute/OECD.
Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268
Kraft, N. P. (2001). Standards in teacher education: A critical analysis of NCATE, INTASC, and NBPTS. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK). (2019). Standards for teacher education: Educational sciences. Bonn: Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. https://www.kmk.org/
Measuring the quality of teacher professional development. (2024). Teaching and Teacher Education, 133, 104349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104349
MEB. (2017). Öğretmenlik Mesleği Genel Yeterlikleri [General competencies for the teaching profession]. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_12/13161921_genel_yeterlikler.pdf
Ministère de l’Éducation et de l’Enseignement Supérieur (MEES). (2020). La compétence professionnelle des enseignants du Québec: Cadre de référence [The professional competence of Québec teachers: Reference framework]. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec. https://www.quebec.ca/education
Ministry of Education Korea. (2022). Teacher competency development and evaluation framework. Seoul: Ministry of Education. https://english.moe.go.kr/
Ministry of Education Singapore. (2015). The enhanced performance management system (EPMS) and the V³SK model. Singapore: Ministry of Education. https://www.moe.gov.sg/
Mockler, N. (2013). Teacher professional learning in a neoliberal age: Audit, professionalism and identity. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(10). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n10.8
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. U.S. Department of Education.
NBPTS. (2024, October 17). Standards: National board for teaching standards. National Board for Teaching Standards. https://www.nbpts.org/certification/standards/
NCEE. (2016). Not so elementary: Primary teacher preparation in top performing systems (Teacher Quality Series). National Center on Education and the Economy. https://archive.ncee.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/169726_Not_So_Elementary_Report_041317.pdf
NCEE. (2025). NCEE blueprint: Designing systems that work [White paper]. National Center on Education and the Economy. https://ncee.org/designing-systems-that-work/
OECD. (2018). Teaching and learning international survey (TALIS). OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/education/talis
OECD. (2020). Teaching and learning international survey (TALIS). OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2023). Education at a glance 2023: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en
OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education. OECD Publishing.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2022). Learning for all K–12 (Updated ed.). Queen’s Printer for Ontario. https://files.ontario.ca/edu-learning-for-all-2013-en-2022-01-28.pdf
Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311413609
Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C. M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., & Soares, C. B. (2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050
Quinlivan, T. B., Oakley, G., & Shand, J. K. (2022). Australian professional standards for teachers: Perspectives of western australian primary school teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 47(12), 76-92.
Resmî Gazete. (2024, October 18). Öğretmenlik meslek kanunu [Teaching profession law]. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2024/10/20241018-1.htm
Sahlberg, P. (2015). Finnish lessons 2.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? Teachers College Press.
Seferoğlu, S. S. (2004). Öğretmen yeterlilikleri ve mesleki gelişim [Teacher competencies and professional development]. Bilim ve Aklın Aydınlığında Eğitim, 58(1), 40–45.
Sims, S., Fletcher-Wood, H., O’Mara-Eves, A., Cottingham, S., Stansfield, C., Goodrich, J., Van Herwegen, J., & Anders, J. (2025). Effective teacher professional development: New theory and a meta-analytic test. Review of Educational Research, 95(2), 213–254. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231217480
Steiner, L. (2010). Using competency-based evaluation to drive teacher excellence: Lessons from Singapore. Public Impact. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED539994.pdf
Sumaryanta, N., Mardapi, D., Sugiman, N., & Herawan, T. (2018). Assessing teacher competence and its follow-up to support professional development sustainability. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 20(1), 106–123. https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2018-0007
TED. (2009). Öğretmen yeterlikleri [Teacher competencies]. Türk Eğitim Derneği Yayınları.
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Tuğluk, M. N., & Kürtmen, S. (2018). Türkiye’de öğretmen yeterlikleri [Teacher competencies in Turkey]. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(30), 809–841.
Türk Dil Kurumu. (2024, October 17). TDK Güncel Türkçe sözlük [TDK current Turkish dictionary]. https://sozluk.gov.tr
Türk Eğitim Derneği. (2009). Öğretmen yeterlikleri [Teacher competencies]. Türk Eğitim Derneği Yayınları.
Yang, Y., & Chang, Y.-C. (2023). A study on the relationship between teacher competency and job performance under human resource management in higher education. Educational Research and Reviews, 18(8), 203–217.
Yüksel, İ., & Sağlam, M. (2012). Karşılaştırmalı eğitimde araştırma yaklaşımları, yöntemleri ve türleri [Research approaches, methods and types in comparative education]. In S. Aynal (Ed.), Karşılaştırmalı eğitim yansımaları (pp. 75–102). Pegem Akademi.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Mehmet Arslan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
