Literature review, references and further reading

Defining Self-Evaluation

Self-evaluation is also sometimes referred to as self-assessment, self-analysis, self-review or self-enquiry (Chapman and Sammons, 2013). The literature generally defines self-evaluation as a reflective, evidence-informed process, through which educational institutions assess their own performance; identify areas for improvement; and plan strategically. The process involves multiple stakeholders, and aims to uncover blind spots and align institutional practices with strategic goals, with a view to improving institutional quality. It is often iterative – rather than a one-off activity – and involves collaboration within and between teams.

The QAA(QAA, 2024a) distinguishes ‘evaluation’ from ‘monitoring’ and ‘review’: the key difference is that evaluation involves a greater degree of critical distance and assessment of impact of any actions taken, rather than simply describing what has happened. The literature on self-evaluation more broadly stresses that self-evaluation must be grounded in verifiable evidence, and capable of withstanding external scrutiny (for instance, Virtanen and Aremo, 2015).

There is also a significant body of pedagogical research on self-evaluation at the level of the individual learner, in the context of assessment for learning (for instance, Sambell, McDowell and Montgomery, 2012). For the avoidance of any confusion, this literature review is solely concerned with institutional, not learner, self-evaluation – though there are some minor areas of overlap between the two, such as the role of reflective practice and the importance of learner voice.

Context of Self-Evaluation

Self-evaluation takes place in a context that is shaped by national policy, institutional culture, and broader accountability frameworks. In many systems – in particular, in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries – self-evaluation is embedded within external quality assurance processes, as a formal requirement established by regulators. In the Welsh schools sector, for instance, the National Resource for Evaluation and Improvement (2024) positions self-evaluation as a cornerstone of a self-improving education system, aligned with Curriculum for Wales and the Schools as Learning Organisations model. In higher education, the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG 2015) – with which the Quality Assurance Agency’s (QAA) review method in Wales is compliant – requires a ‘self-assessment’ as part of its standards and guidelines for external quality assurance (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 2015).

In its ‘How we inspect’ guidance for further education providers Estyn (2025a) identifies that a provider should include its recent quality development plans and self-evaluation reports among the documents to be presented to the inspection team but makes no stipulation about the format or content of the reports – these are at the discretion of the provider.

Across sectors, and in a range of different national and regional systems, OECD (2013, 2025) notes a shift from compliance-based models to more formative, improvement-oriented approaches. These have been driven in part by economic and political imperatives, which have favoured decentralisation and an increase in institutional autonomy. The literature shows a shift in interest from research into School Effectiveness (benchmarked top-down, at the system level) to School Improvement (more contextualised, bottom-up), and the growth in self-evaluation as an activity is a part of this shift (Chapman and Sammons, 2013). However, it is important that both institutions and system-level actors are clear on the goals of their review method: McNamara et al. (2021) point out that the competing imperatives driving the shift to self-evaluation are not always in alignment.

The context of self-evaluation might also be the individual institution’s own values and inherent commitment to improve, regardless of any external requirements or the systemic context. MacBeath (2005, 9-10) argues that evaluation is ‘motivated behaviour’ guided by the questions: ‘What particular aspects of the school would benefit from evaluation? Why is the evaluation information required at this time? Who needs the evaluation information?’ QAA’s (2024) review of higher education institutions’ approaches to review found that, while institutions often make reference to the external environment, their own context, values and strategy were their next port of call. The Scottish Funding Council’s (SFC) (2022) has developed a tertiary-wide self-evaluation model, which is also rooted in a strong values basis: “if we are all reflective practitioners, effective self-evaluation practice will flow naturally.”

Factors Underpinning Effective Self-Evaluation

The literature identifies several key factors that are significant in delivering effective self-evaluation:

• Flexibility, contextualisation and reduction in burden on the institution: Frameworks should be adaptable to institutional needs, and avoid becoming overly prescriptive. As one example, in Scotland’s tertiary sector, the SFC (2022) promotes a co-created, flexible model, which acknowledges institutional diversity while ensuring a focus on sector-wide goals. OECD (2025, 19-20) has noted that, in a number of systems, there is greater recognition of the costs of self-evaluation and the need to avoid reduplication in data collection, which has prompted a tendency to align quality assurance approaches across vocational and higher education sectors.  
• Co-creation: Effective models involve staff, learners, and external stakeholders in meaningful ways (Welsh Government, 2024). The Scottish tertiary self-evaluation model features sector-agreed measures and effective data sharing, to provide institutions with a clear frame of reference for benchmarking (SFC, 2022). In his work on self-evaluation with ten schools in England, MacBeath (2005, 21) elicited over 1000 indicators of what constitutes a good school from stakeholders, affording ownership to pupils, parents and staff; he then aligned these with evidence-based principles to form the final categories of analysis.
• Embedded, not token, learner voice: The Scottish tertiary approach to self-evaluation advocates strongly for learner voice to be ‘heard rather than simply recorded’; and for institutions to reflect on what they mean in practice when claiming (for instance) to place the ‘learner at the centre’ (SFC, 2022). Many institutions find the self-evaluation process itself a valuable exercise in renewing focus on learner voice (IEP, 2018; Virtanen & Aremo, 2015).
• Use of diverse evidence: The Welsh Government (2024) favours approaches that involve both quantitative and qualitative evidence, including stakeholder feedback and professional judgement. Cervai et al’s (2013) ‘Expero’ model for self-evaluation of vocational training proposes an intricate model for weighting evidence and feedback from internal and external stakeholders – including employers and trade unions. This model draws attention to the discrepancies between each stakeholder’s understanding of what ‘should’ be (i.e. their expectations) and what ‘is’ actually delivered, to deliver a rounded and balanced evaluation.  
• Honesty and transparency: In self-evaluation, institutions should reflect without being defensive or obfuscating; this is central to the effectiveness of the exercise (SFC, 2022; Welsh Government, 2022; 2024). OECD (2025) points out that, as self-evaluation has become more contextualised and there is less reference to fixed external criteria, there is a risk that stakeholders will perceive institutions to be behaving less transparently – which heightens the importance of honesty and transparency as principles. Conversely, Virtanen & Aremo (2015), reflecting on their experience of self-evaluation at a Finnish university, noted that the external-facing nature of the exercise might indeed sometimes result in institutions being overly self-critical when carrying out a self-evaluation.
• Distribution of responsibilities and empowerment of colleagues: Estyn (2024c) noted that where improvement planning was effective, leaders ensured that plans were developed collaboratively, giving middle leaders, other staff and governors a sense of shared ownership; with clear lines of responsibility and accountability at different levels of leadership. QAA’s (2024) review of institutions’ approaches to review found that many encourage staff to respond locally to issues identified through ongoing monitoring, with senior colleagues providing supportive, positively-framed enhancement interventions that are proportionate to risk. The Welsh Government (2024) also encourages teachers and staff across the school to engage in and contribute to institutional self-evaluation.
• Institution-wide professional learning: Self-evaluation should be linked to enquiry-based professional development and capacity building (Welsh Government, 2022). Virtanen and Aremo’s (2015) noted that their own self-evaluation of a Finnish university proved an opportunity to educate and inform colleagues across the institution on quality terminology and processes, exposing blind spots; this ultimately led to a less siloed way of working. Quality and Qualifications Ireland’s (QQI) (2014, 22) Review of Reviews found that further and higher education institutions found self-evaluation ‘challenging but rewarding’, and ‘very valuable’, despite some initial misgivings; QQI’s (2024) most recent thematic review of higher education reports identified an emergent trend of institutions using self-evaluation as an opportunity to address ‘cross-cutting challenges’.
• External perspectives: In the school context, there is evidence that engaging a ‘critical friend’ from outside the institution can support reflection, challenge assumptions and facilitate team-building (Chapman and Sammons, 2013, 15; O’Brien et al., 2014).
• Engagement of senior leaders and governors: While the Welsh Government (2024) is clear that responsibility needs to be distributed, the role of leadership (including institutional governors) in creating a culture of reflection and continuous improvement, and ensuring accountability, is paramount (Chapman and Sammons, 2013, 14; OECD, 2013, 21; Welsh Government, 2022, 3). In the Vietnamese vocational college context, Vanphan & Dangnguyen (2023) found that the role of senior leadership was crucial in navigating a changing external policy environment and ensuring that the practical considerations in delivering effective self-evaluation were resourced within institutions.
• Appropriate emphasis on impact: Evidencing impact is what distinguishes self-evaluation from review (QAA, 2024). The Scottish tertiary sector encourages assessment of impact against sector-agreed success measures, with the key questions: ‘What? Why? So what? How do you know? What next?’ (SFC, 2022). However, in the context of schools, the Welsh Government (2024) cautions against an overly-rigid emphasis on ‘proving rather than improving’.
• Continuous, not a ‘one-off’: A Welsh Government review (2022, 8) has found that self-evaluation is most effective when it is ongoing and embedded in the culture of the institution. QAA (2024) noted in its overview of institutions’ approaches to review that, in practice, most institutions are involved in some form of continuous monitoring – and, where institutions had periodic or cyclical review processes that lacked an ongoing monitoring and self-evaluation component, this often resulted in important changes being delayed until the next review.
• Action planning: It is self-evident, though worth reiterating, that self-evaluation that is not an isolated ‘one-off’ activity. Self-evaluation that is reflective of a culture of continuous improvement should lead to planned actions (Welsh Government 2022, 2024).

Impact of Self-Evaluation on Teaching and Learning

Much of the literature on self-evaluation in the tertiary and non-compulsory sectors focuses on engagement and impact at the institutional and system levels. There is more evidence from studies of school improvement that institutions that practice effective self-evaluation see improvements in teaching and learning. The literature suggests that this is most likely to be the case when:

• Findings from self-evaluation are aligned with research evidence: Chapman & Sammons (2013, 28) report empirical work by Demetriou and Kyriakides (2012) that found a significant link between self-evaluation and improvements in learning outcomes when teachers’ reflections were aligned with evidence and materials from education effectiveness research.
• Teachers are supported through appropriate capacity-building to engage in self-evaluation, and are empowered throughout the process: OECD’s (2013, 398-402) metareview of school evaluation practices identified that, in Scotland and South Korea, an emphasis on addressing challenges of teacher capacity to engage in effective classroom-level self-evaluation could help ensure classroom-level impact.
• Leaders are supported in engaging with, and leading, teaching and learning: OECD (2013, 316-318) also found that, in the Czech Republic, school principals – many of whom were from administrative, not teaching, backgrounds – benefitted from resources to support teacher appraisal. In Norway – where there is less tradition of direct inspections of teaching – induction for new principals set clear expectations for leadership in teaching and learning.
• Attention is paid to learner engagement: Welsh Government (2022, 11-12)’s review of self-evaluation for school improvement found some evidence that engaging learners in self-evaluative practices had a positive impact on learning.
• Teachers engage in communities of practice, collaborate and share insights arising from self-evaluation:  Welsh Government (2022, 10) identified links between the emergence of professional learning communities to successful, ongoing engagement with self-evaluation and impact on learning. Chapman and Sammons (2013, 44) presented a case study of developing practice in primary school reading, with extensive collaboration resulting in improved reading outcomes school-wide.    

Estyn’s annual report for 2023-2024 gives an overview of the impact of self-evaluation across the sectors it inspects (Estyn 2024c). It found that, ‘In the very best examples… leaders judged teaching by its impact on learning and teachers were reflective, evaluating their own sessions regularly and refining their teaching as a result to ensure that learners made good progress. Staff welcomed the scrutiny arising from an evaluative culture. They were open and keen to innovate and improve.’

The literature suggests that the impact of self-evaluation on learning cannot be taken for granted; it is thus crucial that consideration is given to this in the design stage. This is especially important in contexts where direct observation of teaching is less frequent, such as in higher education. The independent higher education quality body IEP’s (2018) review of its evaluations of institutions globally, for instance, found that, while self-evaluation helped institutions reflect and develop quality cultures, the reliance on proxy indicators of teaching and learning meant that it was in practice difficult to demonstrate direct impact.

Estyn (2024c) noted that, where there were weaknesses in self-evaluation and improvement planning, these fell into three broad categories: firstly, where leaders did not focus self-evaluation well enough on identifying strengths and areas for improvement in teaching; secondly, when evaluating teaching, providers did not consider its impact on learning; and thirdly, leaders did not focus their improvement planning on the aspects of provision that needed the most urgent improvement.

Furthermore, care should be taken to ensure that the self-evaluation process does not distract from a focus on teaching and learning, or lead to performative engagement. There are particular risks of this occurring where teachers perceive the model as having been imposed ‘top-down’; where this is the case, the Welsh Government (2022, 10-13) has even found that the observable impact on teaching and learning might be negative. One case study from Hong Kong (ibid, 37-39) involved a new school self-evaluation model which failed to achieve its goals, as it was perceived by teachers as a bureaucratic and burdensome imposition that did not fairly allow schools to represent their contexts and strengths. Zou et al’s (2012) content analysis of 53 higher education self-evaluation reports in China found a tendency to reflect less on internal teaching and learning quality than on promoting the institution’s organizational strengths to external audiences. Ehren et al.’s (2015) review of evaluations in six European systems noted that external pressures (e.g. PISA rankings and public accountability) on occasion distorted the purpose of self-evaluation, leading to a narrowing of the curriculum in the interests of satisfying external benchmarks.

To an extent, there is a risk of performative engagement in any external model of self-evaluation, however ‘bottom-up’ its design, given the high-stakes outcomes of failure in review and the resulting power dynamics (Chapman and Sammons, 2013, 10). Nonetheless, self-evaluation can constitute a powerful tool for promoting a culture of reflection, supporting institutional learning and evidencing impact for learners. When implemented effectively, it can help institutions align their strategic priorities with teaching and learning practice, and achieve and demonstrate impact. 

Summary

Effective self-evaluation is a reflective, collaborative, and evidence-informed process that enables institutions to identify strengths and areas for development, and to align strategic priorities with practice. It is rooted both in the context of external accountability and institutions’ own values and commitment to continuous self-improvement. Though the policy context and institutional circumstances vary, core principles such as transparency, co-creation, learner voice, and collective professional learning consistently emerge as key enablers.

However, the literature also warns against superficial or performative self-evaluation, particularly when the process is perceived as imposed or top-down. Evidence suggests that self-evaluation most clearly impacts on teaching and learning when it is implemented with a clear focus on impact, context, and shared ownership.

References and further reading

Alps. (2025). Alps homepage. [accessed 21/07/25]

Cervai, S., Cian, L., Berlanga, A., Borelli, M. & Kekäle, T. (2013). Assessing the quality of the learning outcome in vocational education: the Expero model. Journal of Workplace Learning, 25(3), 198-210.

Chapman, C., & Sammons, P. (2013). School Self-Evaluation for School Improvement: What Works and Why? CfBT Education Trust.

Ehren, M. C. M., Gustafsson, J. E., Altrichter, H., Skedsmo, G., Kemethofer, D., & Huber, S. G. (2015). Comparing effects and side effects of different school inspection systems across Europe. Comparative Education, 51(3), 375–400.

Estyn. (2024a). What we inspect (2024 – 2030):  Maintained schools and pupil referral units. [accessed 21/07/2025]

Estyn. (2024b). Ready Already! (post-16). [accessed 21/07/2025]

Estyn. (2024c). Annual Report 2023-2024: Self-evaluation and improvement planning. [accessed 23/07/2025]

Estyn. (2025a). Estyn inspection guidance resources. [accessed 21/07/25]

Estyn. (2025b). Supplementary guidance: inspecting school sixth forms. [accessed 21/07/25]

European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). (2015). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). Brussels.

IEP. (2018). Examining the usefulness and impact of IEP evaluations. [accessed 08/07/25].

Learning and Work Institute. (2024). Adult Community Learning Partnerships: Tool for Effective Practice and Delivery. [accessed 21/07/25]

MacBeath, J. (2005). Schools Must Speak For Themselves. Routledge.

McNamara, G., Skerritt, C., O’Hara, J., O’Brien, S., & Brown, M. (2021). For improvement, accountability, or the economy? Reflecting on the purpose(s) of school self-evaluation in Ireland. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 54(2), 158–173.

Medr. (2026a). Quality Framework for the Tertiary Education Sector in Wales (final) [accessed 09/04/2026]

Medr. (2026b). Regulatory Framework. https://www.medr.cymru/en/regulatory-framework/ [accessed 09/04/2026]

O’Brien, S., McNamara, G., & O’Hara, J. (2014). Critical facilitators: External supports for self-evaluation and improvement in schools. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 43, 169–177.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2013). Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment. [accessed 08/07/25].

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2025). Ensuring Quality in VET and Higher Education: Getting Quality Assurance Right. OECD Education Policy Perspectives No. 118. [accessed 08/07/25].

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). (2020). Gateway Quality Review: Wales, handbook. [accessed 21/07/25]

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). (2024a). Quality Strategy Network: Approaches to Monitoring, Review and Evaluation Summary Report. [accessed 08/07/25].

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). (2024b) UK Quality Code for Higher Education. [accessed 21/07/25]

Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI). (2014). Review of Reviews: Report of the Independent Review Team.  [accessed 08/07/25].

Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI). (2024). Quality in Irish Higher Education 2024: A Thematic Analysis of the Higher Education Institution Annual Quality Reports for 2024. [accessed 08/07/25].

Sambell, K., McDowell, L. & Montgomery, C. (2012). Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. Routledge.

Scottish Funding Council. (2022). Self-Evaluation in the Tertiary Sector: Co-Creating a New  Approach.   [accessed 08/07/25].

Vanphan, T. & Dangnguyen, L. (2023). Management of Self-Assessment and Quality Accreditation Activities at Vocational Colleges in Vietnam: Policy, Practice and Some Solutions. Journal of Educators, Teachers and Trainers, 14(3), 327-334.

Virtanen, A., & Aremo, N. (2015). Self-evaluation as an effective tool in establishing quality management at the University of Helsinki. European Quality Assurance Forum.

Welsh Government. (2022). Self-evaluation for school improvement: An evidence review. [accessed 08/07/25].

Welsh Government. (2024). Evaluation and Improvement Resource (NR:EI).   [accessed 08/07/25].

Zou, Y., Du, X., & Rasmussen, P. (2012). Quality of higher education: organisational or educational? A content analysis of Chinese university self-evaluation reports. Quality in Higher Education, 18(2), 169–184.

---

Glossary

Term	Meaning
Adult learning in the community (ALC)	Learning opportunities provided in community settings for adults, often focusing on skills development, personal enrichment, or progression into further study or employment. The sector is also frequently referred to as the adult community learning (ACL) sector.
Apprenticeships	Work-based training programmes that combine employment with structured learning, enabling individuals to gain job-specific skills, qualifications, and experience while earning a wage.
Continuous improvement / enhancement	Continuous improvement is the ongoing process through which providers use self-evaluation, data, analysis and information to strive for sustained excellence. It is iterative and can include both addressing deficits and making incremental changes to learner outcomes over time. Higher education providers usually refer to this activity as enhancement. For the purposes of this resource, we use the terms synonymously.
External evaluation	The generic term used here to encompass Estyn inspections and QAA quality reviews.
Further education (FE)	Education and training for learners aged 16 and above, outside of school-based sixth forms and higher education.
Higher education (HE)	Education provided by universities and other degree-awarding institutions, typically at undergraduate and postgraduate levels.
Governing body	A collective, constituted body responsible for the strategic oversight and management of a university, school or educational institution.   The format and precise role of governing bodies varies across the tertiary system. For example, in FE colleges or school sixth forms, it is typically a formal governing body, with a chair and a range of sub-committees. In local-authority ALC provision, it may include the council’s scrutiny committees or the involvement of elected members. In HEIs this may be the university’s council or senate or the authorised bodies of the senate.
Inspection	An external evaluation of provision carried out by an independent body (such as Estyn). Inspections typically assess compliance with regulatory requirements, the quality of teaching and learning, and the effectiveness of leadership and management.
Learner / Student / Pupil	The different sectors use different terms. In HE, the term typically used is ‘student’. In FE and ALC, the term typically used is ‘learner’. In apprenticeship provision, both ‘apprentice’ and ‘learner’ are used. In school sixth forms, the terms ‘learner’ and ‘pupil’ are both used. For the purposes of this document, the terms are interchangeable. For clarity and to align with terminology used by Medr, we use the term ‘learner’ throughout this document. Our emphasis is on the importance of involving the learner / student / pupil in the process of self-evaluation and ensuring that their voice is heard.
Local government education services (LGES)	Local government education services cover statutory education functions of the local authority for children and young people up to age 25.
Peer inspectors	Practitioners from within the education sector who support inspection processes. Peer inspectors bring current professional expertise and sector perspective to the evaluation of provision.
Quality enhancement	A term used mostly in HE to describe the deliberate process of taking steps to improve the student learning experience and educational outcomes. Unlike quality assurance, which focuses on meeting requirements, enhancement is about going beyond baseline expectations to add value.
Quantifiers / Estyn quantifiers	In its inspection and other reports – and in the sections of this site which relate to sectors within its inspection activity – Estyn uses the following quantifiers: nearly all = with very few exceptions | most = 90% or more | many = 70% or more | a majority = over 60% | half = 50% | around half = close to 50% | a minority = below 40% | few = below 20% | very few = less than 10%
Review	A structured evaluation process, usually external (such as QAA), that assesses how well an institution or programme is meeting agreed expectations for quality and standards.
School sixth forms	Post-16 education provided within schools, offering academic and, in some cases, vocational programmes such as A levels or equivalent qualifications.
Self-evaluation	For the purposes of this resource, we use the term ‘self-evaluation’ as a generic term synonymous with terms such as self-assessment, self-analysis, self-review or self-enquiry. The literature generally defines self-evaluation as a reflective, evidence-informed process, through which educational institutions assess their own performance; identify areas for improvement; and plan strategically.
Tertiary system / Tertiary sectors / Tertiary system	Where we use the term, ‘tertiary system’ or ‘tertiary sectors’ we are referring to the tertiary sectors as a whole – a collective term for the full range of post-16 education and training provision within Medr’s oversight, including the further education, higher education, apprenticeships, adult learning in the community, school sixth forms, and local government education services. We also refer to each ‘sector’ individually, for example the further education sector, the higher education sector etc, where we discuss issues specific to that particular sector only