A Critique of the Teachers’ Performance Appraisal and Development Tool of Evaluation in Kenya with Reference to the Socratic Pedagogy

Teachers’ appraisal is key to enhancing their professionalism, which translates to effective curriculum implementation. This paper sought to evaluate the Teachers Performance Appraisal and Development (TPAD) process in Kenya with a view to identifying its challenges and suggesting ways of enhancing it. The study took a philosophical approach, subjecting the teachers’ appraisal process to criticism in light of the Socratic Pedagogical theory. The study established eleven errors that riddle the teachers’ appraisal process. These are the errors of strictness, leniency, central tendency, halo effect, recency of events, failure by participants to identify professional development gaps, failure by participants to attend the appraisal meetings, subjectivity nature of the TPAD appraisal process, alienation of some participants from the appraisal process and passive participation of some participants.The study utilized the six tenets of Socratic Pedagogy (participatory, dialectical, conversational, inquisitive, rational and practical tenets), interpreted to constitute the soul of the TPAD appraisal process, to fix the aforementioned errors. Therefore, the study recommended that the TPAD online system be reconfigured so that the appraisal process could be in tandem with the soul of the appraisal process.

Introduction

Appraisal of teachers is of utmost significance not only to teachers but also to students because it leads to enhanced professionalism, which in turn translates to enhanced curriculum implementation. Armstrong (2003) defined performance appraisal as an ongoing process of evaluating an employee’s performance. Performance appraisal can also be defined as the process of evaluating work behaviours by measuring and comparing them to previously established standards, recording the results, and communicating them back to the employee (Akampurira, 2014; Moorhead & Griffin, 1992).

In Kenya, teachers are appraised via the Teacher Performance Appraisal and Development (TPAD), which is an online management system of teachers’ appraisal introduced in 2016 through funding by the World Bank in conjunction with the Kenya Primary Education Development Project (PRIEDE). It was introduced to all teachers employed by TSC, pursuant to Article 52 (1) and Article 52 (2)(c) of the TSC Code of Regulations for Teachers in Kenya (Gichuki, 2015; Republic of Kenya, 2015). It entails the teacher being the subject of appraisal, hence referred to as the appraisee and the appraiser, who happens to be colleague teachers, such as Heads of Departments or deputy Principals, designated to assess the appraisees’ performance and, in turn, provide feedback on the same (Gichuki, 2015). Since 2020, the entire appraisal process has been done online (Njagi, 2021). With regard to the TPAD’s appraisal procedures, every teacher employed by the TSC has an individualized online account to facilitate the appraisal process (Njagi, 2021). The rationale behind the introduction of TPAD is a need to develop a more open performance appraisal system for teachers in the TSC’s employment to strengthen the supervision of teachers and to continuously monitor the performance of teachers in curriculum implementation at the institutional level (Republic of Kenya, 2015). However, a critical analysis of this process reveals gaps in the way it is conducted, thus hindering the achievement of its intended purpose. This paper, therefore, examines the appraisal process with a view to identifying and proposing ways of filling the gaps.

Structure of the TPAD Process

TPAD is divided into three major sections, namely, Performance Contract (PC) for heads of institutions (HOIs), Performance Appraisals (PA) for teachers comprising evaluation of teaching standards, student performance and lesson attendance. Lastly, Teacher’s Professional Development (TPD) for all teachers employed by TSC (Teachers Service Commission, 2021b). This study purposed to focus on the Performance Appraisal component of teaching standards, commonly known as TPAD’s Teaching Standards, using Plato’s theory of education with a specific focus on the pedagogical theory.

An effective appraisal process begins with a planned meeting between the appraiser and the appraisee. The goals for the following year are set, and the competencies expected of the appraisee and the appraisee’s needs are discussed. In the course of the year, the appraiser discusses the performance of individual appraisees with them, motivates them, periodically renews their performance and occasionally solves performance problems that may arise. The supervisor occasionally adjusts the set objectives according to the prevailing priorities. The appraiser then conducts a performance assessment on the appraisee based on how well they excel in the various areas spelt out by the appraisal instruments and assigns an appropriate rating. Finally, both the appraiser and the appraisee hold a meeting for the review of the latter’s performance for the year. They then discuss the appraisee’s performance, and they strive to reach a common understanding of the appraisee’s ratings and how the ratings have been arrived at (Grote, 2002).

The self-appraisal/self-assessment is guided by the individual institution’s TPAD calendar of activities, which guides the entire appraisal process. During the appraisal process, the appraisees themselves award marks against every target indicated in the TPAD tool while attaching tangible evidence alongside the respective targets. They are also required to identify professional gaps they could be having. They then submit the appraisal report online to the appraiser, who in this case happens to be the deputy head of the school or the subject Head of the Department for appraisal (Republic of Kenya, 2015). Upon receipt of the appraisal report, the appraiser awards marks to every target under evaluation and completes it by submitting it on their online platform. From here, the appraisal moves to another platform still on the appraiser’s platform in readiness for the appraisal meeting, where both the appraiser and the appraisee get an opportunity to jointly discuss the marks awarded. They can either agree, alter or disagree with the marks awarded. Upon completion of the online meeting, the appraisal report moves automatically to the head of the institution’s platform for countersigning (Teachers Service Commission, 2021a).

Any disagreement between the appraisee and the appraiser is handled by the countersigning authority (Republic of Kenya, 2015). The appraisal exercise is done termly, and an annual staff appraisal report is submitted to the TSC at the end of every year (Republic of Kenya, 2015). In view of the preceding discussion, the appraisal process, as conceptualized in the TPAD’s tool teaching standards, entailed the following: self-appraisal, peer-to-peer appraisals and administrative appraisal.

According to the TSC TPAD Evaluation Report for the period between 2016 and 2019, only 87.37% of the teachers in the Sub-Counties under review were appraised successfully (Teachers Service Commission, 2021a). It also observed that only 84% of the respondents participated in the appraisal meeting and that only 78.2% identified teacher professional development gaps during self-appraisal. This indicates that 16% did not participate in appraisal rating meetings, while 21.8% did not identify professional gaps when appraising themselves, pointing to inefficiency in the appraisal process. This meant that the appraisal process for these teachers did not take place since they failed to have a rational reflection on their performance on the various teaching standards, which is a critical aspect of the appraisal process. This signalled that there were some aspects hindering teachers from being appraised satisfactorily, hence the need to carry out this study.

Theoretical Framework of the Study

The theoretical framework of this study was based on Socratic Pedagogical Theory, which entails teaching through interactive enquiry. Socratic Pedagogical Theory was the pedagogy Plato used during his teachings. This method is also referred to as the Socratic Method or the Dialogical method. It is a method of teaching and learning through asking questions between the learners and teachers, which enables the participants to acquire knowledge from each other through sharing ideas and experiences. This mode of teaching and learning is practical and interactive because the subject matter is not meant to be memorized; instead, it is presented as tasks meant to be accomplished by the learner. During the teaching and learning process, learners develop inquiry skills as they strive to research the problems presented to them by their teachers. The dialogical nature of Socrates’ pedagogy renders the pedagogy inter-subjective as both the learner and the teacher communicated and participated throughout the learning process in its totality. It is fundamental to note that the inquisitive nature of Socrates’ pedagogy activates the learners’ faculty of reason, hence enabling them to think critically and strive to arrive at the absolute truth (Andafu, 2019).

The theory emphasizes interactive teaching where participants ask each other questions, and as they struggle to get answers, they clearly understand the underlying issues. Most of Plato’s works were presented as dialogues in which discussions between interlocutors were presented. In this, he did not offer any final opinion about a concept but underscored that reasoning and truth could only be gained through dialogues by stating assertions and testing them. Subsequently, the learners’ claims and beliefs are subject to the test of reason and analysis (Bruce, 2017).

Socratic Pedagogy is characterized by inquisitiveness, rationality, participatory aspect, dialectics, practicality and above all, the presence of interlocutors (Andafu, 2019; Bruce, 2017). These six fundamental principles constitute what entails the Socratic pedagogical theory. The Socratic Pedagogy is inquisitive because it is the method of teaching which happens through asking questions, and as the learner struggles with the answers, they trigger their faculty of reason, making the pedagogy not only rational but also practical and very participatory. The dialectical nature of Socratic pedagogy is demonstrated by the fact that it involves a conversation between two or more people, making the presence of interlocutors mandatory. These interlocutors have to be the respective teachers who are teaching and individual learners who are the subjects of learning. Based on this premise, this study identified the six aspects outlined above as the fundamental tenets underpinning the Socratic pedagogy as manifested in Plato’s conception of education.

Socratic pedagogical theory guided this study through the following: enabling appraisees to activate the teachers’ faculty of reason as they appraise themselves or when being appraised. The TPAD tool has set out the criteria for the appraisal of teachers whereby teachers appraised themselves against specific set targets. The TPAD tool has questions that teachers are expected to answer back to specific set targets, hence getting appraised in the process. Just like in Socratic pedagogy, where no teaching and learning could occur without reason, this study postulated that the conclusive and appropriate appraisal of teachers could not happen during the entire appraisal process. Secondly, the six tenets of Socratic Pedagogical theory (participatory, dialectical, conversational, inquisitive, rational and practical) were used to interrogate the TPAD appraisal process to address the errors that arise during the appraisal process.

Relationship between the Appraisal Process and the Socratic Pedagogy

In an aristocratic and distinguished family, Plato was an ancient Greek philosopher born in Athens around 428 B.C.E. He was a Socrates student who greatly influenced his perspectives on politics, ethics, potency of ideas, and clear thinking. In 387 B.C.E, he established an Academy called the Platonic Academy, where Mathematics, Philosophy, the art of reasoning, Ethics and Politics were taught (Murira, 2013). The pedagogy Plato used to teach is called Socratic Pedagogy (Andafu, 2019). The Socratic pedagogical theory entails teaching by interactive enquiry. The theory emphasizes interactive teaching where participants ask each other questions, and as they struggle to get answers, they clearly understand the underlying issues. Most of Plato’s works were presented as dialogues where discussions between interlocutors were presented. In this, he did not offer any final opinion about a concept but underscored that reasoning and truth could only be gained through dialogues by stating assertions and testing them. Subsequently, the learners’ claims and beliefs are subject to the test of reason and analysis (Bruce, 2017).

Socratic Pedagogy is inquisitive, rational, participatory, dialectical and practical. In addition, interlocutors must be present (Andafu, 2019; Bruce, 2017). These six fundamental principles constitute what entailed Socratic pedagogical theory. Socratic Pedagogy is inquisitive because it is the methodology of teaching which happens through asking questions, and as the learner struggles with the answers, they trigger their faculty of reasoning, making the pedagogy not only rational but also practical and very participatory. The dialectical nature of Socratic pedagogy is demonstrated by the fact that it involves a conversation between two or more people, making the presence of interlocutors mandatory. These interlocutors have to be the respective teachers teaching and individual learners who are the subjects of the learning process. Based on this premise, this study identified the six aspects outlined above as the fundamental tenets underpinning Socratic pedagogy, manifested in Plato’s conception of education.

Therefore, this study was cognizant that the TPAD tool entails a set of questions in the form of some set targets against which a teacher was evaluated. As the appraiser/countersigning officer grapples with the mark to award against a specific target based on the available evidence, the teacher, appraiser, or countersigning officer engages in reasoning. To this end, this study postulated that the appraisal process was an active, rational discourse that entails applying reason.

A Critique of the Teachers’ Appraisal Process in Kenya

Lunenburg (2012) observed that the performance appraisal process could fail to be accurate and objective, even though performance appraisal experts cited it as ideal and devoid of subjectivity and curacies. This failure could lead to rating errors brought about by one strictness or leniency, which entailed appraisers rating appraisees consistently low or high. The second error might be a central tendency, whereby the appraiser feared being too strict or generous when rating the appraisee. The third one was known as the halo effect, a single positive or negative aspect of the appraisee’s performance influences their appraiser’s rating. Finally, there is the recency effect of events, when an appraiser uses the recent appraisee’s performance compared to the appraiser considering the appraisee’s performance for the entire period. This review brings to the fore that any appraisal system for the evaluation of teachers is prone to error, and the TPAD tool for teachers’ evaluation is not an exception.

Various countries have their contextualization of the teacher performance appraisal process. For instance, Bartlett (1998) elucidated a two-year teacher appraisal process that was compulsory for all teachers. It entailed at least two lesson observation sessions lasting for one hour each. This was followed by an appraisal meeting where targets were set and reviewed, and their progress was discussed. Before the two-year cycle can begin, the appraiser and appraisee met to discuss areas of focus that the appraiser needed to focus on during the appraisal period. This process was riddled with much confidentiality and the need for integrity. The senior management was only interested in how the appraisal can help manage schools’ resources and improve teaching and learning.

Anyango (2019) outlined how Teachers’ Performance Appraisal in Kenya was guided by the institutional TPAD calendar of activities, which was arrived at before every commencement of the school term. The TPAD calendar of activities was supposed to run for the entire term. The study contended that the teachers knew the guidelines and were ready to conduct appraisals effectively. However, they were contradicted by the education authorities, who claimed that many schools did not follow the set guidelines, raising questions about the performance appraisal.

The TSC Evaluation Report for TPAD for the years 2016–2019 indicated that TPAD had since improved teachers’ performance and attendance to their lessons and had helped teachers keep time when attending lessons. Secondly, TPAD provided opportunities for teachers and supervisors to identify their professional strengths and areas of improvement in their respective curriculum implementation processes. Finally, TPAD was reported to have improved teachers’ competencies by enabling them to prepare and maintain professional records and adequately cover syllabi due to improved lesson attendance and ICT usage. However, the report observed that 9.27% of the respondents failed to participate in the terminal target-setting meeting, signalling the beginning of the appraisal process. Next, 16% of the respondents did not participate in the appraisal rating meetings, while 21.8% did not identify teacher professional development gaps when self-appraisal (Teachers Service Commission, 2021a).

Failure by some respondents to identify teacher professional gaps during the appraisal process meant that the appraisal process failed to occur among the said respondents. Therefore, this necessitated applying the tenets of Socrates’ pedagogy to the TPAD process to improve it by ensuring that all teachers fully participate in the process for its intended purpose to be achieved. Subsequently, this study aims to utilize Socrates’s understanding of pedagogy to interrogate the entire TPAD process.

Method

The study employed the critical method of philosophy. The New Oxford American Dictionary indicates that the word ‘critical’ is derived from the Greek word ‘Kritikos’, which means “the ability to judge well”. It further indicates that the word ‘criterion’ comes from the Greek word ‘Kriterion’, a ‘means of judgement’ (Mackean, 2005). To this end, Lipman (2003) saw the critical method as the thinking that depended on criteria to make reasoned judgements.

The critical method creates an avenue upon which philosophers probe ideas before admitting them as worthy of being believed beyond a reasonable doubt. This is elucidated in Plato’s dialogue, Meno when Socrates underscored the need to seek justification and analyze basic concepts in his quest to demonstrate ‘recollection’ of knowledge. As Plato put it, “Things are often different from what they appear to be.” (Plato, n.d., as cited in Andafu, 2019). Subsequently, the critical method, as it is with critical thinking, involves intellectually conceptualizing, analyzing and synthesizing information to attain clarity, accuracy, consistency and justification of arguments or premises (Namwamba, 2005, as cited in Andafu, 2019).

The starting point of the critical approach is having a state of doubt on premises supporting a specific conclusion. This is followed by critically questioning claims and assumptions in the premises under discussion to verify the argument’s validity (Njoroge & Bennars, 1986). Therefore, this meant that a discussion ensued for an argument to be tested, hence making the critical method also referred to as the dialectical method. This dialectical method states that for every advanced idea/proposition (which in this case is also referred to as thesis), there has to be a contradictory idea/proposition (also referred to as antithesis). As these two ideas are consolidated, they give forth a third idea/proposition called synthesis. This process does not stop there because the synthesis becomes the thesis in its own right, and the cycle continues. (Bottomleyet al., 2019). The critical methods encourage honesty of thought and endeavour to protect individuals from fanatical and hypocritical tendencies. This also liberates them from dogmatism and leads them to positively evaluate premises based on clear and distinct ideas (Njoroge & Bennars, 1986).

The critical approach dissects propositions objectively, devoid of our personal and societal beliefs or influence, to attain clarity of thought. In this study, the researcher subjected the process of Teachers’ performance Appraisal in Kenya to criticism by applying the tenets of Socrates’ pedagogy to the appraisal process to identify the errors that could arise during the appraisal process. This helped to determine the successes and failures of the appraisal process as envisaged in the TPAD.

Results and Discussion

Errors in the TPAD’s Appraisal Process

The researcher subjected the TPAD’s appraisal process to criticism, where this study utilized the TPAD Tool and other studies done on the appraisal process to identify the errors that riddled the appraisal process. To begin with, this study determined that the TPAD appraisal process stands to have the error of strictness or leniency. As indicated earlier, this error entailed awarding marks against the targets either very low or very high (Lunenburg, 2012). For instance, in the TPAD’s teaching standard, professional knowledge and practice, precisely the sixth target, the teacher’s ability to identify and nurture learners’ talents, there are no clear parameters for how the appraiser would distribute the three marks. This is despite expected evidence being indicated (Teachers Service Commission, 2021a). Upon critical scrutiny of the entire TPAD tool, this study posits that this strictness error affects all the targets in the TPAD tool.

Central tendency is the error resulting from the fear of the appraiser being too strict or too generous when awarding marks during the appraisal process, leading to the medial awarding of marks (Lunenburg, 2012). This would lead to the appraisee being either under-appraised or over-appraised. To illustrate this, this study considers the target of the teacher’s ability to carry out learners’ assessment, which is under the TPAD’s teaching standard- professional knowledge and practice. Under this target, the appraiser would be reluctant to award a maximum of 3 marks or maybe a lower mark of 1; instead, the appraisers would award 1.5 marks (Teachers Service Commission, 2021b). This is regardless of the teacher’s performance, which would lead to inappropriate evaluation of teachers.

The third error to be looked at is the halo effect. Lunenburg (2012) described the halo effect as the appraisers using one single appraisee’s positive performance indicator to appraise them. A teacher can be an outstanding performer in co-curricular activities, scoring very high in the first teaching standard and the fifth target, which is identifying learners’ capability and learning styles. However, the same teacher can have weaknesses in the same TPAD’s teaching standard, such as preparing professional documents (Teachers Service Commission, 2021a). This study establishes that an appraiser committing this error would be driven by the halo effect on this target despite the cited glaring gap.

The recency of events is the fourth error to be discussed. This entails the appraiser considering the appraisee’s recent events compared to their overall performance across the term (Lunenburg, 2012). This recency of events can either be positive or negative. For instance, under target 1 of the TPAD’s teaching standard—professional knowledge and practice, a teacher can either prepare or fail to prepare the professional records. If they fail to do so, the appraiser might award the appraisee low marks in the other target areas, based on this weakness in their performance despite them having performed very well in other areas and vice versa. These errors, just like others, could lead to gaps in the evaluation process, leading to the TPAD process to capture the true performance of a teacher. These four errors riddling the TPAD could result from a lack of clear parameters guiding how the marks against the various targets would be distributed.

At this juncture, this study subjects the TPAD’s appraisal process in Kenya to criticism. This may help to illuminate other errors that could be affecting the appraisal process. To begin with, according to the TSC Evaluation Report on TPAD for the period between 2016 and 2019 released in 2021, 21.8% of the total respondents identified performance development gaps during their appraisal, while 16% of the total respondents did not participate in the appraisal rating meetings (Teachers Service Commission, 2021a). These two aspects unraveled two other errors that could arise during the appraisal process.

The first one is a failure by the appraisee to identify performance gaps during the appraisal process, signaling their failure to engage in reasoning. The second error is that some respondents who failed to attend the appraisal rating meetings omitted the dialectical process, a critical factor of the appraisal exercise.

Kagema and Irungu (2018) observed a precise mechanism for reviewing individual teachers’ appraisals upon completion of the appraisal process. This means that teachers cannot understand their professional ratings or competence. Secondly, they criticized teachers’ appraisals for being subjective instead of objective.

Additionally, some challenges impede comprehensive TPAD implementation, leading to errors arising during the appraisal process. For instance, a lack of ICT skills among some institutional heads forced them to hire IT technicians to conduct appraisals, leading to the omission of key participants during the appraisal process, hence putting the quality of appraisal in such schools into question. Secondly, the lack of internet connectivity in some schools forced teachers to outsource their appraisals to commercial cyber cafes, hence generating the error of omission of teachers as key participants during the appraisal process. Finally, teachers had minimal education or sensitization on the TPAD process. This denies several teachers the opportunity to undertake the exercise effectively. A case in point is that some teachers do not know that there is a provision for arbitration in case of any disagreement arising during the appraisal process (Manyinsa, 2019). This section has highlighted almost 11 errors affecting the appraisal process, jeopardizing the entire appraisal process of teachers in Kenya. This study is called to interrogate the TPAD’s appraisal process in Kenya, as discussed in the next section.

An Interrogation of TPAD’s Appraisal Process in Light of the Socratic Pedagogy

Socratic pedagogy is inquisitive, rational, participatory, dialectical, practical, and conversational. Similarly, as illustrated below, the appraisal process is equally conceived to be inquisitive, rational, participatory, dialectical, practical, and conversational. The TPAD’s appraisal process is participatory. This is because, as observed with the Socratic pedagogy, participants exist across the four stages of the TPAD’s appraisal process. To begin with, during self-appraisal, the appraisees are expected to appraise themselves in person, making them participate in the stage of self-appraisal. In equal measure, the appraisers are expected to participate in person during the appraisal process. Subsequently, the appraiser and appraiser participate in the appraisal rating meeting. The appraisers are expected to appraise the appraisees in person because they are assumed to be familiar with their (appraisers’) performance.

The researcher considers the teachers’ appraisal process in Kenya to be dialectical since there exists a dialogue on several fronts. The first is the dialogue between the appraisee and the appraisal process. When the appraisee appraises themselves, they engage in a dialogue with the TPAD tool as they reflect on the marks they award themselves against every target. Secondly, a dialogue exists between the appraiser and the appraisee when the former interrogates the latter’s marks, which they have awarded themselves during self-appraisal. The third dialogue is the one that happens between the appraiser and appraisee during the appraisal rating meeting when both the appraiser and appraisee discuss the ratings, which they either update, disagree, or agree on. Finally, there exists a dialogue between the countersigning authority and the appraisal when the countersigning authority gets to interrogate the following ratings before countersigning: both the appraisee’s and appraiser’s ratings, the agreed rating gaps identified by both the appraiser and appraisee and, finally the comments by both the appraiser and appraisee.

The idea of the TPAD’s appraisal process being dialectical makes the appraisal process considered to be conversational. Being conversational entails having two or more interlocutors engaged in a discussion. A well-structured discussion ought to have a beginning and an end. So, just like in well-ordered discussions, the TPAD’s appraisal process is considered conversational, for instance, when the appraisees are appraising themselves during appraisal, appraisal rating meetings, and countersigning.

The rational aspect of the TPAD’s appraisal process is manifested across the four stages, especially during the identification of gaps. To begin with, the appraisees identify gaps they could be having against each target while the appraisers identify the gaps the appraisee could be having during the appraisal process. The countersigning officers are also expected to consider these two gaps before countersigning. Evidently, when the appraisee grapples with the marks they are supposed to award themselves against various targets, they engage equally in a rational process.

The fifth component of the TPAD’s appraisal process is its inquisitive nature. The targets have maximum marks that appraisees can award themselves, and the appraisers can award them during the appraisal process. These targets are like questions requiring the appraisees to self-evaluate themselves and award themselves marks based on their performance judgments. The same is supposed to happen to the appraisers. The targets ask the appraisers to evaluate the appraisees and, based on the judgment of the appraisee’s performance, award them a mark. The TPAD appraisal process is also deemed inquisitive because it strives to interrogate teachers’ performance and attach a numerical value to it.

Finally, practicality, as it is in the case of Socratic pedagogy, is construed as a critical component of TPAD’s appraisal process. Practicality in the TPAD’s appraisal process manifests itself in several ways: When the participants take part in the entire process in person. When the appraisees and appraisers identify the appraisee’s professional gaps in person. It manifests in the participants’ engagement in a conversational dialogue throughout the appraisal process. It is manifested in the appraisee’s preparation of the requisite professional documents and evidence for use during the appraisal rating meetings.

The foregone interrogation has elucidated that practicality during the appraisal process is just as mundane as the other five components of the TPAD’s appraisal Process. This interrogation of the TPAD’s appraisal process gives this study impetus to conceive the idea of the Soul of the TPAD’s Appraisal process in Kenya.

The Soul of the TPAD’s Appraisal Process

This study strove to evaluate the TPAD tool of teacher evaluation with reference to Socratic Pedagogy. It is evident that both the Socratic pedagogy and TPAD’s appraisal process have tenets which determine their existential quality. The six tenets, namely, dialectical, inquisitive, rational, participatory, conversational and practical tenets of Socratic pedagogy, are found to be mutually and jointly mandatory for a pedagogy that is characteristic of Socratic Pedagogy. To this end, this study postulates that the tenets of TPAD’s appraisal are dialectical, inquisitive, rational, participatory, conversational and practical, as demonstrated by the following syllogistic propositions: All Socratic discourses are dialectical. All the TPAD appraisal processes are analogous to Socratic pedagogy. Therefore, all TPAD appraisal processes are dialectical. All Socratic discourses are inquisitive. All the TPAD appraisal processes resemble Socratic pedagogy. Therefore, all TPAD appraisal processes are inquisitive. All Socratic discourses are rational. All the TPAD appraisal processes resemble Socratic pedagogy. Therefore, all TPAD appraisal processes are rational. All Socratic discourses are participatory. All the TPAD appraisal processes are analogous to Socratic pedagogy. Therefore, all TPAD appraisal processes are participatory. All Socratic discourses are conversational. All the TPAD appraisal processes are analogous to Socratic pedagogy. Therefore, all TPAD appraisal processes are conversational. All Socratic discourses are practical. All the TPAD appraisal processes are analogous to Socratic pedagogy. Therefore, all TPAD appraisal processes are practical.

The above syllogistic propositions illustrate clearly the relationship between the Socratic pedagogy and the TPAD’s appraisal processes. Consequently, this study deduces that these tenets of the TPAD’s appraisal process (dialectical, inquisitive, rational, participatory, conversational and practical) are mutually and jointly mandatory for a successful appraisal process. Based on this premise, this study deduces that the six tenets constitute what this study conceives as the Soul of the TPAD’s appraisal process in Kenya. This is because these tenets value the appraisal process in Kenya. This study further postulates that this soul constitutes the six tenets, which are obligated to work in congruence such that if any part was omitted, the appraisal process could not be attached to any value. Subsequently, this study underscores the importance of the Soul of TPAD’s appraisal process in Kenya in addressing some, if not all, errors that may ensue during the appraisal process in Kenya.

The Soul of TPAD’s Appraisal Process in relation to Appraisal Errors

The identified components of the soul of the TPAD’s appraisal process stand to address the errors of the TPAD’s appraisal process in Kenya. The errors of strictness or leniency, central tendency, halo effect, recency of events, failure by appraisees to identify professional development gaps and to attend the appraisal meetings, outsourcing appraisal to third parties, and the subjectivity nature of the appraisal process can be addressed through the dialectical component of the appraisal process working in congruence with others. The participatory, inquisitive, conversational, and practical dialogue l can address these errors that disenfranchise the teacher during the appraisal process and could be commensurate to the teacher being appraised very highly without considering the reality of such a teacher’s performance. Appraisees, who are victims of errors that may have disadvantaged them during the appraisal process are expected to use the appraisal meeting to defend their ratings. This underscores the importance of appraisal rating meetings in the entire appraisal process. This is because it acts as the quality assurance tool of the appraisal process in Kenya. The appraiser and appraisee must discuss the ratings they have awarded against every target and agree on every mark. If they disagree, the appraisal will proceed to the arbiter for arbitration, where more dialogue occurs.

However, dialogue at this level could only address the errors that compromise teachers’ appraisals. This calls for the countersigning authorities to act as the second level of maintenance of quality assurance of the appraisal process. The dialogue between the countersigning authority and the ratings of the appraisees and appraisers and the appraisal rating meeting allows the countersigning authorities to confirm whether the ratings reflect the reality on the ground. It is incumbent upon them to scrutinize all these ratings keenly and, if possible, request evidence. If they feel that the ratings do not meet the reality on the ground, they can cancel the appraisal so that the entire process can begin afresh. This means that the countersigning authorities must participate in person and practically during the appraisal process.

This section reiterates what an authentic appraisal process ought to be. An appraisal process that is riddled with errors cannot be considered successful. Therefore, for these errors to be eradicated, the six tenets of the TPAD’s appraisal process must be seamlessly incorporated into the appraisal process right away from the self-appraisal level to the countersigning stage.

Conclusion

This study notes that the TPAD appraisal process is riddled with errors like strictness or leniency, central tendency, halo effect, recency of events, failure by appraisees to identify gaps during self-appraisal, the appraisees’ failure to attend the appraisal rating meetings, absence of a follow-up mechanism of appraisees’ ratings after countersigning, the subjectivity nature of the TPAD appraisal, delegation of appraisals by both teachers and HOI to third parties, and finally, absence of adequate education on the TPAD evaluation leaving some teachers ignorant on some procedures of the appraisal process such as arbitration. These errors stand to compromise the quality of TPAD’s appraisal process if left unchecked. However, the remedy to these errors is found in the concept of the Soul of the TPAD’s Appraisal process in Kenya.