Exploring Teachers’ Perceptions of the Teacher Appraisal System and Its Influence on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Wellbeing Aidana Manggytay Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Educational Leadership Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education April, 2025 Word count: 19,037 ii Author Agreement By signing and submitting this license, I Aidana Manggytay grant to Nazarbayev University (NU) the non-exclusive right to reproduce, convert (as defined below), and/or distribute my submission (including the abstract) worldwide in print and electronic format and in any medium, including but not limited to audio or video. I agree that NU may, without changing the content, convert the submission to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation. I also agree that NU may keep more than one copy of this submission for purposes of security, back-up and preservation. I confirm that the submission is my original work, and that I have the right to grant the rights contained in this license. I also confirm that my submission does not, to the best of my knowledge, infringe upon anyone’s copyright. If the submission contains material for which I do not hold copyright, I confirm that I have obtained the unrestricted permission of the copyright owner to grant NU the rights required by this license, and that such third-party owned material is clearly identified and acknowledged within the text or content of the submission. IF THE SUBMISSION IS BASED UPON WORK THAT HAS BEEN SPONSORED OR SUPPORTED BY AN AGENCY OR ORGANIZATION OTHER THAN NU, I CONFIRM THAT |I HAVE FULFILLED ANY RIGHT OF REVIEW OR OTHER OBLIGATIONS REQUIRED BY SUCH CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT. NU will clearly identify my name(s) as the author(s) or owner(s) of the submission, and will not make any alteration, other than as allowed by this license, to your submission. I hereby accept the terms of the above Author Agreement. Author’s signature: Aidana Manggytay Date: 28.04.2025 iii Declaration I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been submitted for the award of any other course or degree at NU or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgment is made in the thesis. This thesis is the result of my own independent work, except where otherwise stated, and the views expressed here are my own. Author’s signature: Aidana Manggytay Date: 28.04.2025 iv Ethical Approval v CITI Training Certificate vi Dedication To my lovely grandparents, Kuanyshbek Ongarbekov and Sulu Ongarbekova, for being a guiding light in my life. Your unconditional love, unwavering support, and wisdom have given me strength and shaped the person I am. vii Acknowledgments The beginning of this acknowledgment commences with appreciation toward Professor Duishon Shamatov who extended his constant support from beginning to end. The research process gained meaning and motivational value because he showed patience, kindness and understanding as he fostered a nurturing environment. His empathetic and humane character always brought me personal value and constant encouragement. Through every difficult situation he provided me dedicated guidance with sincere care. Working under his supervision has been an honor because he profoundly influenced my academic development as well as my personal growth. I express profound gratitude to NUGSE faculty members who delivered immense knowledge which expanded my educational research understanding and introduced novel research perspectives. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my two mothers, Karima Omar and Aigul Ongarbekova, and my best friend Aidana Amantay for being a constant source of comfort and encouragement. Special thanks to my nieces, Nuraiym Kuanyshbek and Diana Ural for their joyful presence which made busiest days brighter. I am especially grateful for them for lovingly taking care of my daughter, allowing me the time and peace of mind to focus on my studies. Many warm thanks to my beloved husband, Nurzhan Torebek, whose love, understanding, and endless support (and all those little sacrifices) made this achievement possible. My most profound affection and heartfelt appreciation exists for my priceless daughter, Ayanat, who was born during my studies at NUGSE. All my steps throughout this path included my daughter in my thoughts. I would like to also apologize for the times I could not fully present. Every portion of this accomplishment belongs to her since I love her deeply. viii Abstract Exploring Teachers’ Perceptions of the Teacher Appraisal System and Its Influence on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Wellbeing This phenomenological case study explores how teachers perceive the teacher appraisal system and how it influences teachers’ self-efficacy and wellbeing, guided by Bandura’s (1997) theory of self-efficacy and Seligman’s (2011) PERMA model of wellbeing. Focusing on the lived experiences of educators within the context of one NIS school in Astana, the study seeks to understand how the perceived appraisal processes and components shape teachers’ beliefs in their professional capabilities and impact their overall wellbeing. The study uncovers a range of perspectives on the teacher appraisal system through semi- structured interviews with a purposeful sample of teachers and provides qualitative data that illuminates the interplay between appraisal purposes and components, school administrators' support, quality feedback that influence teachers' beliefs in their professional competence and wellbeing. Emerging themes highlight the importance of fairness, transparency, and equity in the system, the critical role of school administrators’ support in reducing stress and enhancing motivation, the need for clarity of assessment criteria, and the quality of feedback received. This study contributes to the discourse on educational policy and practice by highlighting the need for teacher appraisal systems that not only uphold professional standards but also enhance teacher self-efficacy and promote sustainable wellbeing. Key words: teacher appraisal system, teacher performance evaluation, teacher attestation, teacher self-efficacy, teacher wellbeing, teachers’ perception ix Аңдатпа Мұғалімдердің мұғалімдерді бағалау жүйесі және оның мұғалімдердің өзіндік тиімділігі мен игілігіне әсері туралы көзқарастарын зерттеу Бұл феноменологиялық кейс-стади мұғалімдердің аттестаттау жүйесін қалай қабылдайтынын және оның олардың кәсіби өзіндік тиімділігі мен игілігіне қалай әсер ететінін зерттеуге бағытталған. Зерттеу Бандураның (1997) өзіндік тиімділік теориясы мен Селигманның (2011) PERMA игілігі моделіне негізделген. Астанадағы бір Назарбаев Зияткерлік мектебінің аясында педагогтердің өмірлік тәжірибесіне сүйене отырып, зерттеу мұғалімдердің қабылдауындағы аттестаттау үдерістері мен компоненттері олардың кәсіби қабілеттеріне деген сеніміне және жалпы игілігіне қалай ықпал ететінін түсінуді мақсат етеді. Мақсатты іріктеме негізінде таңдалған мұғалімдермен жүргізілген жартылай құрылымдалған сұхбаттар аттестаттау жүйесіне қатысты әртүрлі көзқарастарды айқындап, аттестаттау мақсаттары мен компоненттері, мектеп әкімшілігінің қолдауы және сапалы кері байланыс арасындағы өзара байланысты ашатын сапалық деректерді ұсынады. Бұл факторлар мұғалімдердің кәсіби құзыреттілігіне деген сеніміне және олардың эмоционалдық және кәсіби игілігіне тікелей әсер етеді. Зерттеу барысында әділдік, ашықтық және теңдік қағидаттарының маңыздылығы, мектеп әкімшілігінің қолдауының стрессті азайту және мотивацияны арттырудағы шешуші рөлі, бағалау критерийлерінің анықтығы мен кері байланыстың сапасы сияқты негізгі тақырыптар анықталды. Аталған зерттеу білім беру саясаты мен тәжірибесіне қатысты ғылыми дискурсты толықтыра отырып, мұғалімдердің кәсіби стандарттарға сәйкестігін қамтамасыз етумен қатар, олардың өзіндік тиімділігін нығайтып, тұрақты игілігін қолдауға бағытталған аттестаттау жүйелерін құру қажеттігін көрсетеді. Түйінді сөздер: мұғалімдерді аттестаттау жүйесі, мұғалімдердің қызметін бағалау, мұғалімдерді аттестаттау, мұғалімдердің өзіндік тиімділігі, мұғалімдердің игілігі, мұғалімдердің қабылдауы x Аннотация Изучение восприятия учителями системы оценки их деятельности и ее влияния на самоэффективность и благополучие учителей Это феноменологическое кейс-стади направлено на изучение того, как учителя воспринимают систему аттестации педагогов и как она влияет на их профессиональную самоэффективность и благополучие. Исследование опирается на теорию самоэффективности Бандуры (1997) и модель благополучия PERMA Селигмана (2011). Основываясь на жизненном опыте педагогов в контексте одной из школ НИШ в Астане, исследование стремится понять, как воспринимаемые процессы и компоненты аттестации формируют веру учителей в свои профессиональные способности и влияют на их общее благополучие. Посредством полуструктурированных интервью с целенаправленно выбранной выборкой учителей исследование выявляет широкий спектр мнений о системе аттестации и предоставляет качественные данные, проливающие свет на взаимосвязь между целями и компонентами аттестации, поддержкой со стороны администрации школы, качеством обратной связи, которые влияют на убеждения учителей в собственной профессиональной компетентности и уровне благополучия. В ходе анализа были выделены ключевые темы, подчеркивающие важность справедливости, прозрачности и равенства в системе, решающую роль поддержки со стороны администрации школы в снижении уровня стресса и повышении мотивации, необходимость четкости критериев оценки и высокого качества обратной связи. Данное исследование вносит вклад в дискуссию о политике и практике в сфере образования, подчеркивая необходимость систем оценки учителей, которые не только поддерживают профессиональные стандарты, но и способствуют укреплению самоэффективности учителей и устойчивому благополучию. Ключевые слова: система оценки учителей, оценка эффективности работы учителей, аттестация учителей, эффективность учителей, благополучие учителей, восприятие учителей xi Table of Contents Author Agreement .....................................................................................................................ii Declaration ............................................................................................................................... iii Ethical Approval ....................................................................................................................... iv CITI Training Certificate ........................................................................................................... v Dedication ................................................................................................................................. vi Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................vii Abstract .................................................................................................................................. viii Аңдатпа .................................................................................................................................... ix Аннотация ................................................................................................................................. x Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background and Context.................................................................................................. 1 1.1.1 Teacher Appraisal System and Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools ............................. 1 1.1.2 From NIS to Mainstream Schools ............................................................................. 3 1.1.3 The Relationship between TAS and Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Wellbeing ............ 5 1.2 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................ 6 1.4 Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 7 1.5 Significance of Study ....................................................................................................... 7 1.6 Outline of the Thesis ........................................................................................................ 8 1.7 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................................................................................... 10 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 The Purposes of Teacher Appraisal Systems ................................................................. 10 2.2 Teachers’ Perceptions of Teacher Appraisal Globally .................................................. 11 2.3 Assessment Instruments Used for TAS ......................................................................... 13 2.4 The influence of TAS on Teacher Self-Efficacy and Wellbeing ................................... 14 2.5 Key concepts .................................................................................................................. 15 2.5.1 Concept of Teacher Self-Efficacy............................................................................ 15 2.5.2 Concept of Teacher Wellbeing ................................................................................ 16 2.6 Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................. 18 2.7 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 19 Chapter 3. Methodology .......................................................................................................... 21 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 21 3.1 Research Design............................................................................................................. 21 xii 3.2 Site Selection ................................................................................................................. 22 3.3 Sample Selection ............................................................................................................ 23 3.4 Data Collection Tools .................................................................................................... 26 3.4.1 Interviews ................................................................................................................ 26 3.4.2 Document Analysis.................................................................................................. 27 3.5 Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................ 27 3.6 Data Analysis Procedures .............................................................................................. 29 3.7 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................... 31 3.8 Researcher’s Statement of Positionality ........................................................................ 34 3.9 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 35 Chapter 4: Findings .................................................................................................................. 36 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 36 4.1 The Purposes of Teacher Appraisal System .................................................................. 36 4.1.1 TAS as a Tool for Professional Growth .................................................................. 37 4.1.2 TAS as Formality .................................................................................................... 39 4.1.3 Assessment of Teachers’ Qualification ................................................................... 40 4.1.4 Salary Increase ....................................................................................................... 41 4.2 Teachers’ Perceptions of Teacher Appraisal ................................................................. 43 4.2.1 The Critical Role of School Administrators ............................................................ 43 4.2.2 Fairness and Equity ................................................................................................ 45 4.2.3 Perceptions of School-Level Evaluation: The Easiest Component......................... 47 4.3 Assessment Tools in the Teacher Attestation Process ................................................... 48 4.3.1 Classroom Observation: A Valuable and Constructive Tool ................................. 48 4.3.2 Reflexive Report: The Most Challenging Component ............................................ 49 4.4 Influence of TAS on Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Wellbeing ....................................... 51 4.4.1 Changes in Self-Efficacy ......................................................................................... 51 4.4.2 Effects of Attestation on Teacher Wellbeing: A PERMA Model Perspective ......... 54 4.5 The Results of the Document Analysis .......................................................................... 58 4.6 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 65 Chapter 5: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 67 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 67 5.1 Teachers’ Perceptions of TAS ....................................................................................... 68 5.1.1 Purpose of TAS and Teachers’ Motivation ............................................................. 68 5.1.2 TAS as a Tool to Enhance Professional Development............................................ 69 5.1.3. Administrative Support and Clarity of the Process ............................................... 70 xiii 5.1.4 School Level as the Most Predictable ..................................................................... 71 5.1.5 Fairness and Equity ................................................................................................ 72 5.1.6 Assessment Tools Used for TAS .............................................................................. 73 5.2 Teachers’ Perceptions of the Influence of TAS on Their Self-Efficacy ........................ 74 5.3 Teachers’ Perceptions of the Influence of TAS on Their Wellbeing............................. 75 Chapter 6: Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 78 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 78 6.1 What Are NIS Teachers’ Perceptions of the Teacher Appraisal System? ..................... 78 6.2 What Are NIS Teachers’ Perceptions of the Influence of the Teacher Appraisal System on Their Self-Efficacy? ........................................................................................................ 79 6.3 What Are NIS Teachers’ Perceptions of the Influence of the Teacher Appraisal System on Their Wellbeing? ............................................................................................................ 80 Limitations of the Study....................................................................................................... 81 Implications and Recommendations .................................................................................... 81 Suggestions for Further Research ........................................................................................ 83 References ................................................................................................................................ 84 Appendix A: AI Declaration Form .......................................................................................... 96 Appendix B: Informed Consent Letters ................................................................................... 98 Appendix C: Information Letter (a letter to gatekeeper) ....................................................... 104 Appendix D: Data Collection Instruments ............................................................................. 105 Appendix E: Data Analysis – Transcripts, Coding Samples ................................................. 106 List of Tables Table 1 Information about Study Participants......................................................................... 24 Table 2 Work Experience and Language Proficiency ............................................................. 59 List of Figures Figure 1 Conceptual Framework of the Study ......................................................................... 19 1 Chapter 1: Introduction This thesis explores teachers’ perceptions of the Teacher Appraisal System (TAS) and its influence on their self-efficacy and wellbeing in the context of one Nazarbayev Intellectual School (NIS) in Kazakhstan. The chapter begins by presenting the background and context of the study, followed by the research problem, the purpose, and the research questions. The final sections highlight the significance of the study and provide an outline of the thesis. 1.1 Background and Context 1.1.1 Teacher Appraisal System and Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools A Teacher Appraisal System (TAS) is an essential mechanism for assessing and improving teacher competency, thereby influencing educational quality, as “quality teachers promote quality learning” (McKenzie, 2012, p. 15). Globally, countries employ diverse evaluation systems—often referred to as teacher performance appraisal, teacher effectiveness evaluation, or educator evaluation systems. In Kazakhstan, the TAS is commonly referred to as teacher attestation. Kazakhstan inherited a centralized education system from the Soviet Union, and to this day, many aspects of teacher evaluation remain unified across the country. According to the OECD (2013), the practices and instruments involved in pedagogical attestation are critical areas of inquiry for Kazakhstan’s educational research agenda. Since gaining independence, Kazakhstan has undertaken numerous education reforms to strengthen human capital and align with global standards. One of the hallmark initiatives was the establishment of Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS) in 2008 which is 2 an autonomous educational organization created to serve as experimental platforms for innovative pedagogy and curriculum, specifically for gifted students in grades 7 to 12 (Tajik et al., 2022). There are currently 21 NIS schools across the country. As Shamshidinova et al. (2014) explain, NIS schools were tasked with two primary responsibilities: (1) implementing innovative, research-based practices while incorporating both international and Kazakhstani educational traditions, and (2) serving as hubs for disseminating these practices to mainstream schools. The NIS charter, under government resolution, explicitly mandates this role of scaling successful reforms (see MES RK, 2012). Thus, it is not merely incidental but a strategic mandate that NIS serves as a model and testing ground for educational innovations, including TAS. The influence of NIS on the broader system is evident in several mainstream reforms, such as the implementation of an updated curriculum, criteria-based assessment, and teacher professional development programs. Given this influence, examining the appraisal system at NIS is critical, particularly as its practices continue to shape national education reforms. The TAS at NIS is designed to promote continuous professional development and ultimately improve student learning outcomes (NIS, 2024). According to the system, teachers are required to undergo re-certification every five years, either to confirm their current category or apply for a higher one (Zhumukbayeva & Ablayeva, 2023). Teachers must demonstrate subject expertise and pedagogical competency (Ablayeva, 2022). The appraisal process at NIS comprises three core components: (a) Portfolio preparation and internal evaluation by the school’s attestation committee; (b) Submission of 3 a reflective report; and (c) Oral presentation and defense before the certification committee (NIS, 2025). The attestation outcomes significantly impact teacher compensation. Higher qualification categories can lead to salary increases of 30–50%, whereas repeated unsuccessful attempts may result in demotion and salary reduction (Ablayeva, 2022). 1.1.2 From NIS to Mainstream Schools TAS practices from NIS have gradually been adapted into mainstream schools. In 2018, the government adopted five qualification categories from the NIS model: teacher, teacher-moderator, teacher-expert, teacher-researcher, and teacher-master (OECD, 2020; Zharylkassyn, 2023). The sixth category, teacher-trainee, was introduced in 2022 for newly qualified graduates (MES, 2022). This staged adoption may have been due to the need for gradual implementation and institutional capacity building. In mainstream schools, teacher-trainee is a probationary category designed to support novice teachers as they transition into professional practice. While specific responsibilities may vary, this role typically includes working under mentorship, developing teaching portfolios, and participating in induction programs. In NIS, early-career teachers follow a similar model, but often within more structured and research-informed environments. Each higher category in the NIS framework reflects increased responsibility, pedagogical expertise, and research engagement: a) Teacher-moderator typically supports peer learning and implements innovative strategies; 4 b) Teacher-expert designs and evaluates educational content; c) Teacher-researcher engages in action research; d) Teacher-master leads instructional innovations and mentors peers (NIS, 2020). Although mainstream schools have adopted these titles, the tools and procedures used in their evaluations differ from those in NIS. For instance, NIS includes lesson study, action research, and reflective practice as core elements. Lesson study is a collaborative professional development approach where teachers jointly plan, observe, and refine actual classroom lessons. These components emphasize ongoing learning rather than one-time performance evaluations. However, in December 2022, the Ministry of Enlightenment attempted to make these NIS components mandatory in mainstream schools’ TAS. After resistance, possibly due to unfamiliarity, time constraints, or lack of support, the Ministry reversed this decision, declaring these elements optional (Committee for Preschool and Secondary Education, 2023). This reflects the challenge of transferring complex systems without proper contextual adaptation. While the inclusion of mainstream developments offers important context, this thesis focuses exclusively on NIS teachers’ experiences. Therefore, further elaboration on mainstream implementation is not central to the current research. Despite reforms aiming to enhance professionalism, many mainstream teachers report TAS as unclear and burdensome (Abisheva et al., 2023). While these findings underscore the complexity of appraisal systems, this study’s primary concern lies in 5 understanding the lived experiences of NIS teachers, who are at the forefront of educational innovation in Kazakhstan. 1.1.3 The Relationship between TAS and Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Wellbeing Teachers are pivotal to student success, and their self-efficacy and wellbeing are vital for cultivating effective learning environments. Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in their ability to perform tasks successfully (Bandura, 1997). Teachers with high self- efficacy are more likely to implement effective instructional practices and respond positively to challenges (Mojavezi & Tamiz, 2012; Palmisano, 2019). Wellbeing, encompassing emotional, psychological, and professional fulfillment, has a direct impact on teachers' motivation and retention. One model often cited in wellbeing research is PERMA (Positive emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment), developed by Seligman (2011). Applying PERMA in schools has shown to enhance teachers’ morale, job satisfaction, and instructional effectiveness (Turner & Theilking, 2019). An effective TAS should therefore reinforce, not diminish teachers’ confidence and professional satisfaction. However, appraisal systems that focus excessively on accountability can have the opposite effect, increasing stress and undermining motivation (Anderson et al., 2019; Kirichok, 2022). In contrast, Darling-Hammond (2015, as cited in Pak, 2020) argues that when TAS includes constructive feedback, reflection, and individualized support, it can be a powerful tool for improving teacher performance and wellbeing. 6 Given that NIS schools serve as experimental platforms for reform, understanding the relationship between TAS, self-efficacy, and wellbeing within this context is essential. If appraisal mechanisms fail to support teacher growth, it could compromise the goals of educational reform and negatively affect teacher retention and instructional quality. 1.2 Problem Statement Kazakhstan has made substantial progress in education through internationalization and legal reforms (Duman, 2024; Yakavets & Dzhadrina, 2014). The teacher appraisal system, formally introduced in 2000, has undergone numerous revisions, often creating ambiguity around expectations and procedures (OECD, 2020). Abisheva et al. (2023) surveyed 8,721 Kazakhstani teachers, revealing dissatisfaction with current TAS practices: 48% held negative attitudes, and 79.3% called for procedural simplification and increased transparency. These findings emphasize the need for a system that is both effective and supportive of teachers' professional realities. While much attention has been given to mainstream schools, there is limited understanding of how NIS teachers, who are often the first to implement policy reforms, perceive TAS. Their insights are critical for shaping future reforms and ensuring that appraisal systems enhance, rather than hinder, teacher development. 1.3 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this phenomenological case study is to explore the teachers’ perceptions of Teacher Appraisal System (TAS) and its influence on teacher self-efficacy and wellbeing at NIS in Astana. 7 1.4 Research Questions 1. What are NIS teachers’ perceptions of the Teacher Appraisal System? 2. What are NIS teachers’ perceptions of the influence of the Teacher Appraisal System on their self-efficacy? 3. What are NIS teachers’ perceptions of the influence of the Teacher Appraisal System on their wellbeing? 1.5 Significance of Study The findings of this study aim to contribute to the academic discourse by addressing a notable gap in the existing literature. While the topics of Teacher Appraisal Systems (TAS), teacher self-efficacy, and teacher wellbeing have been examined independently, there is a lack of research exploring the interconnectedness of these three dimensions, particularly within the unique context of Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS). First, this study seeks to bridge that gap by providing a deeper understanding of how NIS teachers perceive the impact of TAS on their sense of professional efficacy and wellbeing. This contribution is especially timely as Kazakhstan continues to reform its educational systems with NIS serving as a testing ground for broader national implementation. Second, the study may serve as a platform for teacher voices that are often underrepresented in policy reform processes. In line with recent research advocating for teacher agency in shaping appraisal policies (Abisheva et al., 2023; Penkina et al., 2021; Zhumykbayeva & Ablayeva, 2023), this research takes a bottom-up approach by examining how teachers themselves experience and interpret TAS. The findings can inform 8 policymakers seeking to enhance the system’s effectiveness and responsiveness to real classroom realities. Third, the study has practical significance for NIS schools by offering feedback grounded in the lived experiences of their own teachers. Insights gained from this research may assist school leaders in refining appraisal practices to better support teacher development, satisfaction, and retention. 1.6 Outline of the Thesis This thesis is organized into six chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the study, outlining the background and context, problem statement, research purpose, research questions, significance, and thesis structure. Chapter 2 presents a review of relevant literature, focusing on theoretical and empirical research related to TAS, teacher self-efficacy, and wellbeing, and highlighting the connections between them. Chapter 3 discusses the research methodology, including the rationale for using a phenomenological case study design, data collection tools, participant selection criteria, ethical considerations, and researcher’s positionality. Chapter 4 presents the findings from the data collected through interviews with NIS teachers and the results of the document analysis. Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the findings in relation to the existing literature, interpreting key themes and patterns. Chapter 6 concludes the study by summarizing the main findings, outlining implications for policy and practice, and offering recommendations for future research. 9 1.7 Summary This chapter established the foundation for the study by presenting the background and context of the Teacher Appraisal System within NIS schools in Kazakhstan. It outlined the research problem, articulated the purpose of the study, and introduced the main research questions. The chapter also justified the significance of the research, emphasizing its potential contributions to academic knowledge, policy reform, and institutional practice. Finally, it provided an overview of the thesis structure. The following chapter will critically examine the existing body of literature on teacher appraisal systems, self-efficacy, and wellbeing, and explore how these elements intersect in both global and Kazakhstani educational contexts. 10 Chapter 2: Literature Review Introduction This chapter explores the existing body of literature on Teacher Appraisal Systems (TAS), with a specific focus on teachers’ perceptions of TAS and its impact on their wellbeing and self-efficacy. Given that this study aims to investigate the lived experiences and perspectives of teachers at Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS), the review synthesizes both conceptual and empirical literature to establish the theoretical foundation of the study. It introduces key constructs such as teacher self-efficacy and teacher wellbeing and discusses how these relate to TAS. Additionally, the chapter reviews the purposes of teacher evaluation, common assessment instruments, teachers’ global perceptions of appraisal systems, and the study's theoretical framework, which is grounded in Bandura’s self-efficacy theory and Seligman’s PERMA model of wellbeing. The reviewed literature informs the study’s conceptual framework and enhances understanding of how TAS can influence teachers both professionally and personally. 2.1 The Purposes of Teacher Appraisal Systems Teacher appraisal systems are considered powerful tools for enhancing educational quality, promoting professional growth, and ensuring teacher accountability. Typically, TAS serves two main purposes: formative and summative. Formative assessment is developmental in nature, aimed at supporting teachers in improving their instructional practices through feedback, self-reflection, and goal-setting rather than judgment (Goe et al., 2008). This type of assessment often includes classroom observations, peer or supervisor reviews, and teacher self-evaluations. Darling-Hammond 11 (2013) emphasizes that formative assessment encourages lifelong learning by helping teachers recognize both their strengths and areas for growth, which can enhance their instructional methods. Danielson (2007) similarly views formative appraisal as a mentoring process that fosters professional dialogue and shared responsibility for student outcomes. Summative assessment, on the other hand, is evaluative and often used to make high- stakes decisions, such as granting tenure, promotions, or contract renewals. Stronge (2010) notes that this type of appraisal typically includes administrators’ evaluations, student achievement data, and performance goal outcomes. However, teachers often express concerns when TAS is overly focused on summative evaluation, which can lead to stress and feelings of being unfairly judged (Clipa, 2011). Critics argue that when contextual factors are not considered, summative evaluations risk being punitive and demotivating (Cochran-Smith et al., 2015; Kane et al., 2015; Marzano, 2012). It is widely recognized that a balanced integration of both formative and summative components is necessary for a fair and effective evaluation system (Asamoah et al., 2024; OECD, 2013). Aligning formative feedback with summative standards promotes both teacher development and accountability. Kane et al. (2015) emphasize that feedback should serve a mentoring function, facilitating continuous improvement. This dual-purpose approach enables a more comprehensive evaluation of teacher performance and supports sustained professional growth. 2.2 Teachers’ Perceptions of Teacher Appraisal Globally The literature reveals contrasting teacher attitudes toward TAS: systems perceived as supportive and growth-oriented are often viewed positively, while those seen as bureaucratic or punitive are met with resistance. Research consistently shows that fairness, 12 clarity, and developmental potential are key to positive teacher perceptions (Berhanu, 2024; Dal Corso et al., 2019; Mungasia et al., 2022; van Waeyenberg et al., 2022). Berhanu’s (2024) study in Ethiopian secondary schools found that when TAS was perceived as transparent and equitable, it positively influenced teacher motivation and performance. Similarly, van Waeyenberg et al. (2020) found that in Flemish schools, clearly communicated expectations from supervisors enhanced motivation and reduced burnout. Dal Corso et al. (2019) also reported a strong link between perceived fairness and teacher wellbeing, advocating for leadership training in communication and interpersonal skills to improve appraisal processes. School leadership plays a pivotal role in shaping appraisal experiences. Sartain and Morris (2024) argue that positive school climate and instructional leadership are crucial for appraisal satisfaction. Rigsby and Butcher (2015) highlight the value of frequent, actionable feedback and open dialogue between appraisers and teachers. Clipa (2011) found that Romanian teachers favored external evaluators to minimize internal bias, but emphasized the importance of assessors being knowledgeable, objective, and able to offer practical feedback. Studies also reveal that mismatches in perception between teachers and appraisers can undermine the effectiveness of TAS (Gibson, 2024; Pawson, 2019). In the UK, Pawson (2019) found that while administrators saw TAS as developmental, teachers largely perceived it as an accountability tool. Gibson (2024) similarly found a disconnect stemming from inconsistent feedback and vague processes. These findings underscore the importance 13 of clear communication and support mechanisms to ensure alignment between policy intentions and teachers' lived experiences. Overall, the literature suggests that appraisal systems are more effective when they are transparent, participatory, and focused on development. When TAS lacks clarity and is perceived as punitive, it can hinder teacher morale and effectiveness. 2.3 Assessment Instruments Used for TAS Globally, TAS utilizes a range of instruments including classroom observations, standardized tests, portfolios, self-assessments, peer evaluations, and student and parent feedback (Borg, 2019; Ongal, 2023). In the NIS context, tools include lesson observations, student learning outcomes, portfolio development, and defense presentations. Each of these tools has distinct strengths and limitations. Classroom Observations are a widely used tool that teachers often associate with professional growth (Fan, 2022; Marzano, 2012). However, studies indicate mixed perceptions. For example, Vietnamese teachers view observations as bureaucratic (Thi Man, 2024), while Kazakhstani NIS teachers express concern over dual-role appraisers and unclear evaluation criteria (Pak, 2020). Scholars recommend that observations be paired with student achievement data for a more balanced assessment (Abdulrazzaq, 2022; Kane et al., 2015). Student Learning Outcomes are often contentious. While some early-career teachers see value in Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs), others question their validity and worry about their negative effects on teaching quality and time (Fan, 2022; Zhao, 2017). Teachers 14 argue that overemphasis on standardized testing undermines the developmental intent of TAS (Elliott, 2015). A common recommendation is to incorporate multiple measures to ensure fairness and context sensitivity. Teacher Portfolios provide a more holistic view of teacher performance by documenting accomplishments and reflecting on practice. Although portfolios are valued for their reflective potential (Danielson, 2007; Goe et al., 2008), they are also seen as burdensome and bureaucratic (Tucker et al., 2003; Zhang, 2009). Reflective Reports are another valuable tool in teacher appraisal. While teachers recognize their potential for professional development (Gheith & Jaberi, 2018; Orakci, 2021), many are hesitant due to vague expectations and insufficient feedback. In Kazakhstan, Zhumykbayeva and Ablayeva (2003) found that although NIS teachers acknowledged the benefits of reflective reports, they criticized the complexity of guidelines and unclear criteria. These findings collectively highlight that for assessment instruments to be effective, they must be clear, fair, contextually appropriate, and supported by constructive feedback. 2.4 The influence of TAS on Teacher Self-Efficacy and Wellbeing Recent research has increasingly focused on the effects of TAS on teacher self- efficacy and wellbeing. Jabeen et al. (2023) found that performance evaluations positively influence self-efficacy when they are supportive and improvement-focused. In contrast, judgmental or unfair appraisals diminish teachers' confidence and motivation. 15 The role of constructive feedback is critical. Palmisano (2019) demonstrated that respectful feedback during evaluations enhances teacher confidence, while overly critical feedback has the opposite effect. Smith et al. (2019) observed that the quality of feedback, rather than the structure of the appraisal itself, was most influential in boosting self-efficacy. Further studies link frequent and meaningful feedback to improvements in classroom management and instructional confidence (Krasniqi & Ismajili, 2022; Prado Tuma et al., 2018). Teacher wellbeing is similarly impacted by appraisal systems. Positive perceptions of TAS are associated with feelings of pride, optimism, and job satisfaction (Sartain et al., 2024; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). In contrast, accountability-heavy systems can lead to stress, burnout, and even ethical concerns (Asamoah et al., 2024). Constructive feedback within TAS enhances professional motivation and helps foster a more positive school climate (Dreer, 2023). These findings underscore the importance of aligning TAS with practices that support both professional development and emotional wellbeing. 2.5 Key concepts It is essential to define key concepts in qualitative research because it shapes the methodology, influences how the data is interpreted and how the meaning is constructed. 2.5.1 Concept of Teacher Self-Efficacy Much research has indicated the significance of teacher self-efficacy in teaching and learning (Rastegar & Moradi, 2016). Most definitions of teacher self-efficacy are constructed based on Bandura’s cognitive theory of self-efficacy (Berg & Smith, 2016). 16 According to Bandura (1977, as cited in Seneviratne et al., 2019), self-efficacy is a future- oriented type of efficacy that is a belief in one's own capabilities to plan and carry out the actions necessary to manage future events. It implies that self-efficacy is an individual’s opinion about their actions that lead to certain outcomes. Bandura argues that people who believe in their capabilities consider problems as possibilities to test their own abilities. Regarding teacher self-efficacy, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) define it as teachers’ perception of their own ability to bring about desired learning and engagement results in students, especially when students are unmotivated or have learning challenges. In other words, teacher self-efficacy can contribute to students’ learning achievements. For example, Armor et al. (1976, as cited in Hussain and Khan, 2022) underline that teachers with high self-efficacy help students with educational difficulties. Zee and Koomen (2016) write that many studies with different measures and definitions of teacher self-efficacy note that a teacher with a high level of teacher self- efficacy establishes the tone for a positive learning environment, plans engaging lessons that can improve students’ abilities and skills, and handles misbehavior well. Consequently, in my study, the concept of teacher self-efficacy can be defined as a teacher’s belief about their effective professional skills and abilities. 2.5.2 Concept of Teacher Wellbeing The term “teacher wellbeing” is interpreted variously depending on what perspectives researchers have defined it from. Scholars tend to give a description of the term through the presence of positive indicators and the absence of negative indicators. For 17 example, Hakanen et al. (2006) explain teacher wellbeing through focusing on the absence of negative feelings such as burnout and stress. In contrast, according to Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2017), teacher wellbeing can be characterized through job satisfaction and work engagement levels. However, focusing exclusively on positive or negative aspects may not provide a comprehensive holistic definition of the term, because all of them may contribute to overall perceived wellbeing. Moreover, Gallagher and Cartwright (2014) note that teacher wellbeing can be defined through cultural and contextual factors. Therefore, the present research defines teacher well-being through the PERMA theory of wellbeing developed by Seligman (2011), which conceptualizes wellbeing in terms of five concepts. The first is positive emotions that involve teachers’ positive emotional experience related to their job satisfaction, pride, and being recognised and valued which may influence teachers’ future job performance. Moreover, experiencing enthusiasm and amusement in teaching plays an important role in reducing negative emotions such as stress and burnout (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). The second concept is engagement. According to Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2017), when teachers are engaged in professional development and creating an accommodating classroom environment, they report higher levels of job satisfaction and happiness. The next concept is relationships. Fostering a strong sense of community, collaborative and supportive work environment among school members contributes to reducing overall teacher burnout and stress (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Teacher wellbeing can be enhanced when teachers see their job as meaningful and have a purpose in teaching. This was teachers can have a huge positive influence on students’ present and further lives through education. Therefore, the fourth concept is meaning. And the final concept is accomplishment: teachers become more motivated, fulfilled, proud of 18 themselves when they achieve their professional goals and see positive student learning outcomes (Wang et al., 2018). 2.6 Conceptual Framework In this study, the phenomenon of Teacher Appraisal System and its influence on teachers’ self-efficacy and wellbeing is underpinned by the concept of self-efficacy of Bandura’s (1997) Social Cognitive Theory and Seligman’s (2011) PERMA model of wellbeing. The first deals with how individual’s beliefs in their abilities affect their motivation and performance while the second model offers a comprehensive view of wellbeing through positive emotions, engagement, relationship, meaning, and accomplishment. Together, these theories inform the interpretation of how teacher appraisal systems may impact teacher’s beliefs about professional capabilities and personal wellbeing. These theoretical perspectives are the basis for the conceptual framework of this study where the teacher appraisal system is a critical factor that influences two outcomes. The framework offers that teachers’ subjective perspectives of the appraisal mediate its effects on self-efficacy and wellbeing. This framework shapes the development of the study’s research questions, informs the methodological approach, and guides the interpretation of the collected data. 19 Figure 1 Conceptual Framework of the Study 2.7 Summary This chapter was aimed at reviewing key literature related to the perceptions of teachers of the teacher appraisal system practiced in the NIS network and how these perceptions influence their self-efficacy and wellbeing. The literature review confirmed that Teacher Appraisal Systems are conducted for two primary purposes such as identifying areas for teachers’ further professional growth (formative) and ensuring teachers’ accountability (summative). However, research shows that these two purposes should be used together to complement each other for effective performance evaluation. Also, the review revealed that teachers perceive TAS positively when it is approached by transparency, fairness, support, and provision of actionable feedback during and after appraisal. It emerged from the review that positive perceptions of TAS enhance teachers’ motivation to grow professionally, Teachers’ Wellbeing (Seligman’s PERMA) Teachers’ Self- Efficacy (Bandura) Teacher Appraisal System Teachers’ Perceptions of Teacher Appraisal System 20 improve job satisfaction, confidence, and engagement. In contrast, negative perceptions such as viewing the system as punitive or bureaucratic lead to stress, burnout, and reduced efficacy. Moreover, this chapter presents the conceptual framework which is used to form research questions and methodological approach used to analyze the data collected. Through Bandura’s social cognitive theory of self-efficacy, teacher self-efficacy was construed as the belief that one can influence student outcomes positively (Bandura, 1997). Wellbeing was further considered from a PERMA model which describes the emotional, cognitive, and relational aspects of teacher experience (Seligman, 2011). I evaluated commonly used appraisal instruments used in the NIS network such as classroom observations, portfolios, and reflective reports, in order to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. In the last section, the necessity of a balanced developmentally oriented evaluation practices was determined, and I presented what became the conceptual framework of the study that connects TAS with teacher self-efficacy and wellbeing. 21 Chapter 3. Methodology Introduction This chapter outlines the rationale for the methodological choices made to explore the phenomenon of the Teacher Appraisal System (TAS) and its influence on teachers’ self- efficacy and wellbeing, as perceived by teachers at one Nazarbayev Intellectual School (NIS) in Astana. The chapter is organized into nine sections. The first section presents and justifies the research design, which follows with the information on the selection of the research site and sampling strategy in sections two and three, respectively. The fourth section details the data collection tools employed in the study. The fifth and sixth sections describe the procedures for data collection and analysis, along with an explanation of how the study’s trustworthiness was ensured. The seventh section addresses ethical considerations, as well as potential risks and benefits for participants. The eight section offers the researcher’s statement of positionality. The chapter concludes with a summary of the methodological approach. 3.1 Research Design This study employed a qualitative research design. Qualitative research involves exploring how individuals or groups interpret, experience, or make sense of a particular phenomenon, condition, or sequence of events (Agee, 2009). It is particularly suited for inquiries that aim to uncover participants' perceptions, beliefs, and lived experiences. Therefore, this approach was most appropriate for the current study, which seeks to explore teachers’ perceptions of the Teacher Appraisal System (TAS) and its influence on their self- efficacy and wellbeing. 22 Within the qualitative tradition, this research adopted a phenomenological case study design. The study represents a case of how the TAS is understood and experienced by teachers at one Nazarbayev Intellectual School (NIS) in Astana, particularly in terms of its impact on their self-efficacy and wellbeing. A phenomenological case study design was selected as the most fitting approach. Phenomenology allows researchers to describe the shared meaning of a phenomenon as experienced by several individuals (Creswell & Poth, 2018), while a case study facilitates a deep and contextualized exploration of these lived experiences using multiple sources of data, such as interviews, observations, documents, and audiovisual materials (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Furthermore, case study design enables a comprehensive and detailed analysis of a specific case (Punch, 1998). Together, these approaches provided the methodological foundation for gaining in-depth insight into NIS teachers’ subjective experiences and interpretations of the TAS and its perceived impact on their professional and personal wellbeing. 3.2 Site Selection One NIS school located in Astana was purposefully selected as the research site. This particular school, established in the early 2010s as part of the “20 Intellectual Schools of the First President” initiative, was designed to serve as a pilot site for testing and introducing innovative educational practices (Shamshidinova et al, 2014). The school has since played a significant role in developing and disseminating these practices throughout the national education system. It is known for its strong emphasis on research, advanced subject teaching, and the integration of both international and national curricula. 23 Given its central role in the NIS network and its history of innovation, this school provided a rich context for exploring teachers’ perspectives on TAS. Many of the network- wide changes in the appraisal system may have originated or been piloted at this school, making it an ideal site for capturing firsthand experiences of such reforms and their influence on teachers’ self-efficacy and wellbeing. 3.3 Sample Selection The study included only teachers from the selected NIS school. Purposeful sampling was used to identify participants who could provide rich and relevant data on the central phenomenon of the study (Creswell, 2014). Specifically, homogeneous sampling, a type of purposeful sampling, was employed to select participants who share similar characteristics—namely, being teachers within the same institution and having direct experience with the TAS (Creswell & Creswell, 2012). A total of six participants were selected for this study. A small sample size is appropriate in qualitative research, especially when using semi-structured interviews, as these require considerable time and effort in both data collection and analysis (Newcomer et al., 2015). Creswell (2014) also emphasizes that a smaller sample allows for deeper engagement with participants and richer, more nuanced data. This number was deemed sufficient to allow for meaningful thematic analysis while ensuring feasibility and depth. The criteria for participant selection were as follows: (a) Currently employed as a teacher at the selected NIS school in Astana; (b) Having worked in the NIS network for at least the past five years; (c) Having undergone TAS within the NIS network during the last five years; and (d) Willingness to voluntarily participate in the study. 24 Participants profiles According to the criteria outlined above, six teachers from NIS were selected for this study. Table 1 provides details about the study participants, with pseudonyms assigned to each of the six individuals to ensure confidentiality. Table 1 Information about Study Participants № Names (pseudony ms) Gender (Male | Female) Subject Overall work experienc e in the network of NIS Last time they went through TAS 1 Omar M Chemistry 7 2023 2 Sulu F English 13 2024 3 Zhanat F Biology 8 2021 4 Aigul F Economics and Global Perspectives and Project Works (previously, English) 5 2022 5 Karima F Chemistry 6 2023 6 Assem F English 6 2022 Omar is a chemistry teacher who has been working at the NIS school for 7 years. He began his career as a teacher-trainee in 2018. In autumn 2020, changes were introduced to the qualification requirements for pedagogical categories. These changes allowed teachers with a master’s degree and an IELTS certificate to automatically obtain the “teacher” category without undergoing the TAS process. Although Omar held a master’s degree, due to the COVID-19 quarantine, he was only able to take the IELTS in 2021. Subsequently, he obtained the “teacher” category. In the 2021–2022 academic year, Omar applied for the 25 teacher appraisal but was unsuccessful. In the following year (2022–2023), with a new school administration in place, he reapplied and successfully obtained the category of “teacher-moderator.” He currently holds this category. Sulu is an English teacher and head of the English department, holding a middle management position. She has been part of the NIS network for 13 years and currently holds the category of “teacher-expert.” Her appraisal history includes an unsuccessful attempt for the “teacher-moderator” category in 2018, followed by successful applications in 2021 (teacher-moderator) and in 2023 (teacher-expert). Ailyn is a biology teacher with 8 years of experience at NIS. She holds the “teacher- moderator” category and has successfully passed the appraisal process twice, with her most recent certification in 2022. Aigul teaches economics, global perspectives and project work. She holds the “teacher-moderator” category and has 13 years of experience in education, though with some interruptions. Her career includes work in mainstream and private schools, a master's degree program, and 5 years at NIS. In 2022, she applied for early attestation and was successfully certified. Karima is a chemistry teacher with 6 years of experience at NIS. She holds the “teacher-moderator” category, having passed two rounds of certification: first for “teacher” and later for “teacher-moderator.” Her most recent appraisal was in 2023, with successful certification in 2024. Assem is an English teacher who began working at the school in 2019 after graduating from university. She initially held the status of teacher-trainee. In 2022, she 26 unsuccessfully applied for the “teacher-moderator” category. However, after completing her master’s program in the same year, she automatically obtained the “teacher” category. Currently, she is undergoing the TAS process again for the “teacher-moderator” category. 3.4 Data Collection Tools 3.4.1 Interviews The primary data collection tool was a semi-structured one-on-one interview, which is designed to explore participants' subjective experiences of a phenomenon they have encountered (McIntosh & Morse, 2015). According to Cohen et al. (2018), semi-structured interviews are flexible: while they follow a pre-determined format of open-ended questions, they also allow for reordering, elaboration, or addition of new content during the interview, thereby enabling a more complete understanding of the topic. Face-to-face interviews also allow for the observation of non-verbal cues such as facial expressions, body language, which can enhance mutual understanding and add depth to the data collected (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2010). This type of interaction contributes to a richer interpretation of participants' responses. Interview questions were designed to explore both the structure and perceived impact of the TAS on teachers’ self-efficacy and wellbeing. The questions were pilot tested with two teachers who met the sampling criteria but were not part of the main study. Minor revisions were made for clarity. All interviews were conducted in Russian or Kazakh, depending on participants’ preferences. Each interview lasted between 50 to 70 minutes. In total, six interviews were conducted with six participants. The interview protocol included three sections: 1) 4 27 questions that provided information about teachers’ background experience with the attestation; 2) 12 questions that helped me understand how teachers perceive the Teacher Appraisal system in the network of NIS; 2) 14 questions that were focused on the teachers’ perception of the influence of TAS on their self-efficacy and wellbeing. Sample interview questions: 1) What are the main purposes of the attestation in your organization? 2) How clear and transparent is the evaluation process? 3) What components of the attestation are the most useful for professional development? 4) What components of the attestation are the most challenging? (See Appendix D for the full interview protocol) 3.4.2 Document Analysis Document analysis was employed to gain contextual understanding and corroborate interview findings. As Bowen (2009) notes, documents, produced independently of the research process, can help reduce bias and enhance the credibility of the study. Specifically, the “Qualification Requirements for Teachers’ Professional Categories” and “Rules of Teacher Attestation” documents were analyzed. These policy documents outline the required years of experience, language proficiency benchmarks (e.g., KazTest, IELTS), and professional competencies expected of teachers. Cross-referencing this document with interview data helped identify consistencies and gaps between formal requirements and teachers’ lived experiences with TAS. 3.5 Data Collection Procedures Following ethical approval, I sent an informational letter to the school principal requesting permission to conduct research. This letter outlined the study's purpose, design, participants’ rights, and any associated risks or benefits. I also met with a designated gatekeeper at the school to discuss confidentiality and anonymity protocols. The gatekeeper 28 then disseminated a recruitment letter to all teachers via internal communication channels (see Appendix C). Once interested participants contacted me, I held individual meetings to explain the study's aims, clarify their roles, and address any concerns about confidentiality and voluntary participation. Teachers were then provided with informed consent forms in their preferred language (Kazakh, Russian, or English). These forms were signed in duplicate, one copy for the participant and one for the researcher. Participants were asked to choose a convenient time, location, and language for their interviews (Kazakh, Russian or English). Interviews were scheduled accordingly. Prior to starting each session, participants were reminded of their rights, including the right to withdraw from the study at any time. I also requested for the interviews to be audio-recorded, as stated in the consent form. Participants were selected using purposeful sampling, specifically homogeneous sampling, which involves choosing individuals who share key characteristics relevant to the research focus. In this study, participants were selected according to the following criteria: (a) Were currently employed as teachers at the same NIS school; (b) Had at least five years of experience within the NIS network; (c) Had undergone the TAS process at least once; and (d) Voluntarily agreed to participate. This sampling method was appropriate to ensure the participants had relevant, comparable experiences with the TAS. Before conducting the main interviews, the interview questions were piloted with two individuals who met the sampling criteria but were not part of the final participant group. This piloting process ensured that the questions were clear, understandable, and 29 appropriately aligned with the study’s objectives. Based on the pilot results, minor adjustments were made to improve clarity and flow. The interviews were conducted primarily in Russian and Kazakh, depending on each participant’s language preference. The data collection took place between November 2024 and January 2025. All procedures followed the ethical guidelines of the Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education, ensuring informed consent, confidentiality, and participants’ right to withdraw at any time. 3.6 Data Analysis Procedures This section outlines how the interview data were analyzed and presents the results of document analysis. To gain a deep understanding of the participants’ lived experiences of the Teacher Appraisal System (TAS) and its influence on their self-efficacy and wellbeing, I employed Moustakas’s (1994) phenomenological approach, which emphasizes systematic reflection and reduction. The case study framework complemented this by allowing an in-depth exploration of these experiences within a single institutional context. Moustakas’s (1994) phenomenological method involves several key steps: epoche (bracketing personal assumptions), horizonalization (identifying significant statements), followed by textural and structural descriptions, and culminating in the synthesis of meaning and essence of the phenomenon. In addition, I used Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory and Seligman’s (2011) PERMA model of wellbeing to guide the analysis of the second and third research questions. These theoretical lenses helped structure the deductive coding process by offering specific constructs through which to interpret participants’ responses. For example, I examined responses related to self-efficacy under constructs such as mastery experiences, verbal persuasion, vicarious experiences, and 30 emotional states, as outlined by Bandura. Similarly, I categorized wellbeing through the five PERMA dimensions: Positive Emotions, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, and Accomplishment, identifying how TAS affected these aspects in participants’ professional lives. To begin the analysis, I first engaged in epoche by writing a researcher’s reflexivity statement, in which I outlined my own experiences and assumptions related to TAS. This step allowed me to approach the data with openness and reduced the influence of personal bias (Creswell, 2013). Next, I transcribed each interview verbatim and stored the transcripts along with relevant policy documents in a secured folder on my laptop. All participants were assigned pseudonyms, and identifying information was removed to ensure confidentiality. I used the open-source qualitative analysis tool Taguette.org to facilitate the coding process. Initial coding began with horizonalization, where I highlighted statements that directly responded to the research questions. For the first research question, I used inductive coding to allow themes to emerge organically from the data. For the second and third research questions, which explored the influence of TAS on self-efficacy and wellbeing, I applied deductive codingbased on the theoretical constructs of Bandura and Seligman. This combination of inductive and deductive approaches ensured both openness to participants' voices and alignment with established theory. Initially, I named codes using participants’ own words (in vivo coding) to stay close to their perspectives. Later, I developed broader themes using mind mapping and concepts from relevant literature. I created textural descriptions by inserting direct quotes that described what participants experienced with regard to TAS. Then, I constructed structural 31 descriptions to explain how those experiences occurred within the specific school context, considering factors such as leadership changes, policy shifts, and institutional culture. The final step involved synthesizing these descriptions into overarching themes that captured the essence of participants’ lived experiences. To enhance credibility, I employed member-checking, where participants reviewed the accuracy of their interview transcripts and the preliminary themes to confirm that their views had been accurately represented (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Additionally, document analysis of the TAS policy and qualification requirements helped me compare the formal expectations with the practical experiences shared by teachers. This triangulation strengthened the trustworthiness of the findings by revealing consistencies and discrepancies between policy and practice (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) 3.7 Ethical Considerations Before contacting schools for gaining access and initiating data collection, I completed the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) training program on research ethics and obtained my CITI certificate in June 2024. This training helped ensure that I was aware of ethical principles regarding informed consent, confidentiality, participant wellbeing, and data protection. In accordance with the ethical standards of Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education (NUGSE), I submitted a formal application to the NUGSE Research Ethics Committee to obtain approval for my study because the research was conducted as part of my graduate program and had to comply with institutional ethical requirements. This process included the submission of detailed information about the study’s aims, procedures, 32 potential risks and benefits, and how ethical issues such as voluntary participation, confidentiality, and data security would be addressed. I got ethics approval in October of 2024. Once ethical approval was granted, I contacted the school principal of one NIS school in Astana and requested permission to conduct the study at the school. An official letter describing the research purpose, procedures, and ethical safeguards was sent to the principal, who granted permission for the study to be conducted. This initial step ensured institutional support and access to potential participants. To recruit participants, a gatekeeper from the school assigned in agreement with the principal distributed an informational recruitment letter to all teachers at the school via internal communication channels. This letter included my contact information and invited teachers who met the inclusion criteria to reach out voluntarily if they were interested in participating. Once potential participants expressed interest, I met with each of them individually to explain the purpose of the study, the nature of their involvement, potential risks and benefits, and their rights as research participants. All participants were informed that participation was entirely voluntary, they could skip any questions they did not wish to answer, and they could withdraw from the study at any time without any negative consequences. Before participating, each teacher signed an informed consent form, provided in their preferred language (Kazakh, Russian, or English). The informed consent form clearly outlined: the aim and objectives of the study; the voluntary nature of participation; their right 33 to withdraw at any point; how their information would be stored and protected; the use of pseudonyms in all written reports; and how confidentiality would be maintained (See Appendix B). Although complete anonymity is challenging in qualitative research, I used de- identifiers to protect participant identities. Personal details such as names, the specific name of the school, or its precise location were not included in the thesis. Only general demographic information such as participants’ gender, subject taught, years of experience, and professional category was recorded. Each participant was assigned a pseudonym (Omar, Zhanat, Aigul, Karima, Sulu, and Assem) to ensure their anonymity. To maintain data confidentiality, all interview transcripts and related documents were stored in a password-protected folder on my personal, encrypted laptop, which only I had access to. Consent forms were stored separately in a locked location. In accordance with ethical research practices (BERA, 2018), all data will be securely stored for three years following the completion of the study and then permanently deleted. While this study involved no more than minimal risk, it did place some demands on participants’ personal time. To mitigate inconvenience, interviews were scheduled at times and in locations most convenient for participants. Additionally, participants were reminded throughout the process that they could choose not to respond to any questions they found uncomfortable. The study also offered potential benefits to participants. By reflecting on their experiences with the TAS, participants had the opportunity to gain new insights into how the appraisal system affects their teaching efficacy and personal wellbeing. This reflective 34 process may promote professional growth and self-awareness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Furthermore, to acknowledge their valuable contribution, a small token of appreciation, a notebook and pen, was given to each participant after the interview. These tokens were distributed in a way that preserved participants’ anonymity. 3.8 Researcher’s Statement of Positionality I, Aidana Manggytay, am the author of this thesis, acknowledge and articulate my positionality as a researcher. I recognise the importance of reflexivity in qualitative research and am committed to transparency regarding my own subjectivities and experiences that may shape this study. My personal experiences, both within and outside the academic realm, have played a role in developing my research interests. My research topic “Exploring the Teacher’s Perceptions of the Teacher Appraisal System and Its Influence on Teachers’ Self-efficacy and Wellbeing” emerged from my own experience. I have been shaped by professional development programs that the Autonomous Educational Organization “Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools” offers. As I worked in the NIS network as a teacher, I have many colleagues who have shared their viewpoint on the issue under investigation. I am aware that this may lead to biased assumptions about the outcomes of the current research, and I will make explicit efforts to address these throughout the research process. Personally, I could not pass the attestation successfully at NIS in 2022. This makes me have an insider perspective which may hinder a researcher seeing a bigger picture (Mercer, 2007, as cited in Darwin Holmes, 2020, p. 6). I acknowledge that it may influence the way I perceive and interpret the teachers’ perspectives on the TAS and its influence on teachers’ self-efficacy and wellbeing. 35 In this study, I adopt a constructivist (interpretivist) paradigm because I acknowledge that the way researchers interpret the meaning depends on their own background (Creswell & Poth, 2018). My ontological stance acknowledges that the reality of TAS is constructed by NIS teachers' different experiences and “there is no objective reality” (Krauss, 2005, p.760). Epistemologically, I aim to uncover subjective meanings that NIS teachers attribute to their experience (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 24). As the researcher, I acknowledge that I am not a neutral observer. My position as a teacher, my philosophical position as a constructivist, and my prior experiences in NIS inevitably impact the framing of research questions, data collection strategies, and the interpretation of findings. In conclusion, this statement of positionality serves as a declaration of transparency and self-awareness. By recognizing and addressing my positionality, I aim to contribute to the credibility and rigor of this research. 3.9 Summary This chapter presented the methodology used to explore the phenomenon of the Teacher Appraisal System (TAS) and its impact on teachers’ self-efficacy and wellbeing in one NIS school in Astana. The research design and rationale were discussed, including the choice of a phenomenological case study approach. The site selection, sampling strategy, data collection tools (semi-structured interviews and document analysis), and data analysis procedures were also explained. Finally, this chapter outlined how ethical considerations, risks, and benefits were addressed to ensure the integrity of the research. In the following chapter, I present and discuss the findings of the study. 36 Chapter 4: Findings Introduction This chapter presents the findings of the study. Drawing on the data collected through individual interviews with six teachers from a Nazarbayev Intellectual School in Astana, the findings are organized according to four key themes that emerged from the analysis: (a) the perceived purposes of the Teacher Appraisal System (TAS); (b) teachers’ perceptions of TAS; (c) the instruments used within the TAS framework; and (d) the influence of TAS on teachers’ self-efficacy and wellbeing. Moreover, the results of the document analysis are presented in this chapter. 4.1 The Purposes of Teacher Appraisal System The participants in this study recognized attestation as a significant process; however, their reasons for engaging in the Teacher Appraisal System (TAS) varied. Based on their responses, four primary motives for TAS emerged: (1) reinforcement of professional development, (2) assessment of teachers’ qualifications, (3) formality, and (4) salary increase. While the first two purposes were generally perceived as the objectives of the organization, the third and fourth were identified as teacher-driven motivations. Several participants viewed TAS as a mechanism for supporting professional growth. Karima, a chemistry teacher with six years of experience, remarked: In general, this is a very important process both for the teacher and for the organization in which the teacher works. It allows an objective assessment of the teacher's professional growth. On the other hand, it motivates the teacher to develop. 37 Omar, another chemistry teacher, echoed this sentiment, stating: "The main goals of certification are to improve the qualifications of teachers, evaluate their performance, and improve financial conditions." An important finding was the perception that the organization's aim is to assess teachers’ performance and provide opportunities for horizontal promotion through TAS, especially given the limited availability of leadership roles. Vertical advancement was seen as less attainable due to the small number of managerial positions. As Sulu, an English teacher with thirteen years of experience in the NIS network, noted: "There are more than 200 teachers in the school and only 5 positions in top management." She emphasized that TAS serves as a form of horizontal career progression, offering teachers a sense of advancement without requiring them to move into administrative roles. She explained: "Teacher attestation is necessary as it gives teachers the opportunity to grow, but not in a vertical direction. That’s what we call it: horizontal growth. That is, you grow horizontally." Sulu’s perspective highlights the value placed on the development of expertise and the enhancement of knowledge and skills within the same professional role. 4.1.1 TAS as a Tool for Professional Growth All six participants emphasized the role of teacher attestation (TAS) in enhancing professional growth and qualifications. They viewed attestation as a meaningful challenge that motivates teachers to develop professionally and improve their teaching practices. For instance, Omar, a chemistry teacher, described TAS as a powerful mechanism for upgrading his qualifications, skills, and overall competencies. He believes that attestation pushes teachers beyond merely delivering content, encouraging them to continually refine their 38 teaching methodologies. According to him, without the stimulus provided by attestation, teachers risk stagnating in their practice. Omar explained: Attestation contributes to the comprehensive development of teachers. If you do not apply for attestation, then you will simply be a lesson giver (urokodatel). And when you successfully pass attestation, then you want to move forward—motivation to do something else appears, new ideas appear. Omar’s reflection suggests that a teacher who does not engage with TAS might limit themselves to basic instructional delivery, whereas successful attestation can ignite a desire to innovate, pursue further qualifications, and grow within the profession. It becomes a source of confidence, encouraging teachers to explore new pedagogical strategies and invest in continued learning. Similarly, Sulu, an English language teacher with extensive experience in the NIS network, highlighted how TAS provides structure for her professional growth. She noted that the attestation process helps by establishing specific goals and timeframes, which supports her productivity and focus: "I need specific goals, specific dates, some time limit in which I must do a certain amount of work in order to achieve some results." Sulu’s comment underscores the importance of goal-setting in the TAS process. From her perspective, the clear expectations and deadlines serve as catalysts for sustained professional engagement and achievement. Together, these perspectives illustrate how TAS is perceived not merely as an evaluative procedure, but as an opportunity for meaningful growth, reflection, and motivation in teachers’ professional journeys. 39 4.1.2 TAS as Formality While all participants acknowledged the formal importance of teacher attestation (TAS), several of them viewed it primarily as a procedural requirement rather than a genuine driver of their professional development. These participants reported being intrinsically motivated and committed to personal and professional growth, regardless of whether they were undergoing attestation. Aylin, a biology teacher with a teacher-moderator category, expressed this sentiment clearly: "I do not do it for the sake of attestation. I work for myself, for my students, for my happiness. And after that, it flows into my portfolio." This statement suggests that, for some teachers, TAS is a process that formalizes and documents achievements they have already pursued independently. Similarly, Aigul, an economics teacher with diverse teaching experience, noted: "There are teachers who develop themselves, take courses, work with colleagues, and participate in projects. They don't need any attestation; they already have results." These views highlight that for intrinsically motivated teachers, attestation serves more as a bureaucratic step to recognize the work they are already doing, rather than a catalyst for improvement. However, other participants acknowledged that while TAS may feel formal for highly motivated teachers, it plays a valuable role in encouraging development among those who may not take initiative otherwise. For example, Assem, an English teacher, remarked: When you go through attestation, you always check what you did against the requirements of attestation. So, teachers try their best to match them. Even those who usually do not do an extra job. They get out of their comfort zone. 40 This perspective suggests that TAS can serve as an external motivator, prompting teachers to reflect on their practice and stretch beyond their usual routines to meet professional standards. Sulu, a department head, added a more strategic interpretation. She referred to TAS as: “An opportunity to manipulate people in a certain way, so that they do certain things that we need, as a department, as a school, as she/he needs for her/himself.” She emphasized that the criteria within TAS frameworks are designed to align teacher behavior with school- wide objectives. For example, teachers are expected to support student success in academic competitions or scientific projects as part of the attestation criteria. As she noted, this encourages teachers to improve the quality of student learning outcomes as part of their own advancement: “TAS makes teachers work better with students because in order to obtain a higher category, there are certain criteria which compel teachers to teach students, so their students take places in the Olympiad or scientific project contests.” In summary, while TAS may be perceived as a formal procedure by some, it simultaneously acts as a mechanism for accountability and strategic alignment, especially for motivating teachers who may not otherwise prioritize professional development or student achievement. 4.1.3 Assessment of Teachers’ Qualification Several participants emphasized that one of the core purposes of the Teacher Attestation System (TAS) is the formal evaluation of teachers’ qualifications and competencies. In their view, the attestation process serves as a mechanism for the school to assess how much a teacher has developed professionally and whether their qualifications 41 justify salary increases. This links TAS not only to teacher development but also to institutional accountability regarding financial compensation. Aigul reflected on the evaluative nature of attestation, stating: “The main goal is to understand how much a person has grown in his/her area, because this is also about increasing salary of teachers. It is kind of a test before you get promoted.” This implies that attestation acts as a gatekeeping process, validating professional progress and determining eligibility for promotion and financial benefits. Participants also highlighted the consequences of not meeting attestation standards. According to school policy, if a teacher fails attestation twice consecutively, their professional category can be downgraded, leading to a reduction in salary. This possibility places additional pressure on teachers to perform successfully in the TAS process. Karima explained: “If you fail the mandatory attestation once, you remain at the same level that you have. If you fail the next time, your level is reduced to the previous one. Your salary is also reduced.” This comment reflects a concern that TAS is not only a tool for recognition but also a high-stakes assessment mechanism. It introduces a layer of financial insecurity, especially for teachers who rely on salary increments to support their livelihood. Thus, while TAS is intended to promote professional growth, it simultaneously functions as a formal appraisal to ensure that salaries are aligned with competence and performance levels. 4.1.4 Salary Increase All participants acknowledged the financial dimension of teacher attestation, noting that a significant motivation for applying for a higher category is the associated salary 42 increase. Although TAS is framed by the organization as a means for professional growth, many participants indicated that financial incentives are a major — and sometimes the primary — motivating factor for teachers. Omar provided a striking example of this when he prioritized preparing for TAS over accepting a prestigious six-month internship in the United States through the Bolashak program: “The difference between salaries of a teacher and teacher-moderator is approximately 95,000 tenge, and America will not run away — it can wait. I would rather improve my financial conditions, my financial level.” This decision underlines how financial stability or gain can outweigh even significant professional opportunities. Other participants similarly acknowledged the financial motivation behind applying for TAS. Aylin commented: “The main goals, well, to be honest, are the salary. Because the work you do, you will do.” Her point suggests that while teaching duties remain constant, attestation allows for financial rewards without necessarily increasing workload. Omar echoed this sentiment: “You work the same way as you worked, but you will start to earn more.” Assem also linked her motivation to financial needs, particularly in the context of losing her student stipend: “I wanted to increase my salary and risked applying for early attestation. My goal was to considerably increase my finances because that year I would graduate from the master's programme and stop receiving monthly stipends.” Sulu, who occupies a middle-management role, affirmed this general perception by stating that teachers often undergo TAS with the primary goal of increasing their salary. 43 Despite the institutional goal of fostering internal motivation for professional growth, participants’ responses reveal that the salary increment remains a decisive and practical consideration. This aligns with existing literature suggesting that extrinsic motivators such as salary can significantly influence participation in professional development programs (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Firestone, 2014). In summary, the salary implications of TAS play a substantial role in motivating teachers to engage in the process. While professional growth is acknowledged as important, financial incentives appear to be a critical factor in teachers’ decisions to apply for attestation. 4.2 Teachers’ Perceptions of Teacher Appraisal 4.2.1 The Critical Role of School Administrators Participants consistently emphasized the crucial role of school administrators in shaping their attestation experiences. Given recent changes in school leadership, participants drew comparisons between past and present administrators, highlighting that the new leadership provided significantly more guidance and support. This support, they explained, contributed to lower stress levels and a greater sense of confidence during the TAS process. All six participants noted that the current administrators were more proactive in offering personalized assistance, with Assem explaining that they “helped every candidate develop their personal trajectory of improvement.” In contrast, she recalled her first attestation attempt as frustrating due to a lack of clarity and minimal support. Although all necessary documents were made available via email, the absence of structured explanations left her feeling overwhelmed. Assem noted that she was not even aware that a designated 44 vice-principal was meant to guide candidates through attestation, a fact she only discovered once the new administration took office. Sulu echoed these sentiments, saying that the previous school leaders simply forwarded documents without offering clarification or training. In comparison, the new administration organized weekly group sessions, one-on-one consultations, and practical support. Omar described how this shift changed the experience dramatically: “They provide full support from start to finish.” This support included detailed assistance with reflective reports, trial presentations, and regular reminders about important deadlines. For example, Omar noted that they received “lessons once a week and suggestions on what to improve” in their reflective writing. Sulu added that teachers were given “five sessions on how to write a reflective report,” and Karima appreciated being consistently reminded about submission deadlines. Aigul shared a telling example of how the absence of support during her previous attestation caused confusion. Although she had submitted her application at the start of the academic year, she did not receive guidance until much later, when she was suddenly asked to submit her draft report. Like others, she admitted she “did not know what a reflective report was.” While the previous administration attempted to address this by organizing an online seminar led by an AEO representative, participants agreed this was insufficient. Sulu and Aigul commented that, under the new leadership, feedback from school-based trainers improved the quality of teachers’ reflective reports and contributed to more candidates receiving positive evaluations. 45 Aigul also noted that trial presentations which are now a regular practice did not occur during her attestation. In contrast, current candidates had already completed “two or three trial presentations,” a level of preparation she believes would have benefited her cohort. Assem, comparing her first and current experiences, noted a significant reduction in stress and expressed confidence in her likelihood of success this time. Karima reflected on the increased competency and organization of the current administration. While she found their expectations demanding, she acknowledged the value of having structured guidance: “It is stressful when they demand to follow deadlines, but in the end, you understand that you have everything for a successful outcome.” Sulu also emphasized the importance of accessibility, stating that under the new leadership, she always knew whom to approach with questions. In summary, participants viewed the current school administrators as significantly more supportive, knowledgeable, and involved in the TAS process. This support helped reduce anxiety, improved preparation, and contributed to more positive experiences compared to the previous leadership. 4.2.2 Fairness and Equity Participants were also asked whether they perceived the TAS process as fair and equitable across different subject areas, gender, and age groups. While most participants acknowledged that the formal requirements of attestation appear equal for all teachers, several raised concerns about the actual implementation, especially regarding subject- specific biases and gender disparities. Sulu shared her concern that subject inequality persists in TAS evaluations. She argued that teachers of certain subjects, particularly 46 physical education and English, face limited opportunities for advancement to higher categories such as “teacher-expert” or “teacher-researcher.” She stated: Teacher attestation committee won't give you an expert category because you are a teacher of such a subject. For example, they don't give experts to physical education teachers… Supposedly in this subject you can only grow to a certain level. Well, supposedly physical education is not such an important subject. She also expressed frustration about systemic barriers faced by English language teachers in attaining higher categories. Despite the presence of science teachers with “teacher-researcher” status, she noted that none of the 22 schools in the NIS system had an English teacher with this category: “There are 22 schools in the system, none of them have an English teacher with a category of teacher-researcher. This is the failure of the system… This is biased.” In addition to subject-based inequities, some participants raised concerns about gender-based favoritism. Sulu observed that male teachers often receive more informal support and encouragement from school leaders, based on the belief that men need to be retained in the predominantly female profession: “I know some cases when men received more support. I can cite them word by word [the words of school leaders]. ‘Men should be supported. There are a few men. So, they should be supported.’ I think it is unfair and improper.” Assem shared a similar sentiment, noting that her male colleagues appeared to be promoted more easily despite not working harder: “When I