Introduction
Although faculty evaluation (FE) continues to evolve, conversations about its purpose and how it can best be designed to meet that purpose are ongoing (Carmack & LeFebvre, 2019; Gillman et al., 2018; Opidee, 2018). Recent research has advocated for a handful of guidelines regarding best practices in the evaluation of faculty (Benton & Young, 2018; Lyde et al., 2016), while acknowledging that the process should be tailored to meet the needs of individual higher education institutions, disciplines, and delivery models (DeCosta et al., 2016; Thomas, 2018). In accordance with Indigenous research methodologies and findings that support the design of context-specific or place-based FE processes, this study seeks to contribute to an area that has yet to be studied: faculty evaluation at tribal colleges and universities (TCUs).
More specifically, the purpose of this qualitative study was to understand and share information related to FE at TCUs that can be applied to promote the continued advancement of TCUs by supporting the development of their faculty and, as a result, the success of their students. Considering the data invisibility currently experienced by TCUs (Nelson, 2017), it is largely unknown how their FE processes have been designed or what practices they include. Without this information, it is not surprising that faculty experiences with their institution’s FE process and their perceptions of how FE practices contribute to their professional development is also a mystery at TCUs.
This study explored TCU faculty experiences with and perceptions of the FE process. Given the limited research on TCU faculty, this study was designed to elicit first-hand perspectives to contribute to the knowledge available regarding TCU faculty experiences with the FE process. The following research questions served as the primary questions guiding this study: 1) How have faculty at TCUs experienced the faculty evaluation process at their institutions? 2) What evaluation practices do TCU faculty perceive as having contributed to their professional development?
Background
TCUs are important and unique higher education institutions, as captured by their missions that articulate both academic and cultural goals. Of the 37 TCUs in the United States, all were chartered by their own tribal government or the federal government to meet the needs of their local communities; as such, tribal culture and language are foundational components of their institutional outcomes (American Indian Higher Education Consortium [AIHEC], 2021; Center for Community College Student Engagement [CCCSE], 2019; Marroquin, 2018). Even though the persistence, retention, and graduation rates for students attending TCUs tend to be lower than those at other institution types (Stull et al., 2015), focusing only on these traditional measures of academic success without contextualizing them portrays TCUs as ineffective institutions. Furthermore, the benefits TCUs provide to their communities cannot be captured by looking at student data alone.
The success of TCUs is founded on their dedication to meet the needs of their students and communities in very tangible ways, primarily by being accessible both geographically and financially (Song, 2016). Multiple publications have noted that without TCUs, many of those living in some of the poorest and most rural areas in the United States would have no other opportunity to pursue postsecondary education (Espinosa et al., 2018; Exec. Order No. 13592, 2011; Postsecondary National Policy Institute [PNPI], 2019). In addition to their location, TCUs have an open-door policy, meaning regardless of previous academic achievement, students who submit complete application packages will be accepted (DeLong et al., 2016). Furthermore, TCUs support their students and wider communities by offering services such as childcare, food banks, transportation, and GED tutoring and testing (Stull et al., 2015).
Even while operating in a state of chronic underfunding (Nelson & Frye, 2016), TCUs have proven themselves as integral to the advancement of Native Americans (AIHEC, 2020). In fact, in a study investigating the relationship between previous TCU attendance and eventual mainstream graduation rates, Bryan (2019) found that Native American students who attended a TCU before transferring to a mainstream institution were more likely to graduate with their bachelor’s degree than those who had no prior TCU affiliation. Brown’s (2017) analysis of graduation rates for Native American students in Montana resulted in similar findings, illustrating that Native American TCU transfer students were nearly twice as likely to graduate as their counterparts who began at mainstream institutions. Given the aforementioned data, continuing to find ways to support TCU faculty and the work they do is necessary to improve outcomes for the students they serve.
Very little published research exists on TCU faculty. In fact, the American Indian College Fund administered both the first and last cohesive survey of TCU faculty in 2003 (Voorhees, 2004). Although the data on TCU faculty is scarce, multiple publications have asserted that TCU faculty often fulfill various support roles in addition to teaching, serving on committees and performing other advisory duties (Antoine, 2013; Bryan, 2019). As illustrated by one TCU faculty member who compared their work expectations to that of the Duracell bunny, to describe TCU faculty as “busy” is an understatement (Antoine, 2013). From what has been written about faculty at TCUs, their experiences appear to support Gonzales and Ayers’s (2018) findings that community college faculty are “under-supported and overstretched” (p. 456).
The demands TCU faculty face should not be ignored. Given the positive relationship between faculty-student interaction and student success at TCUs and other higher education environments (Al-Asfour et al., 2020; Lancaster & Lundberg, 2019), it is important for institutional leaders to be cognizant of faculty needs. Considering the assortment of roles TCU faculty fulfill in addition to the unique environments in which they work, early and ongoing instructional support is necessary. As illustrated by the few published studies that have addressed TCU faculty development, both faculty and administrators alike consider opportunities for growth or professional development an essential component of faculty success (Al-Asfour & Young, 2017; Bunkowski & Shelton, 2019). When viewed as a tool to help facilitate faculty development, faculty evaluation emerges as an important area of focus.
In the book Grading the College: A History of Evaluating Teaching and Learning, Gelber (2020) surmised that the evaluation of teaching and learning at a post-secondary level began in the 1920s, and that for a period of approximately 50 years, supervisor and student evaluations were the most used types of FE across institutions. Although these two types of evaluations have been used for decades, they are not infallible in their measurement of faculty performance, including the quality of teaching. Many scholars have agreed that effectively evaluating faculty performance is a difficult endeavor (Benton & Young, 2018; Wieman, 2015) and has never been flawless (Opidee, 2018). Furthermore, not to be overlooked in a discussion of FE is the ongoing issue of how the data produced as part of the FE process can be used to help faculty enhance their skills and more effectively contribute to student learning (Benton & Young, 2018).
Recently, scholars interested in FE have increasingly called for approaches focused on the improvement of faculty performance (Lutz et al., 2018; Opidee, 2018; Theall, 2017; Weiman, 2019). While research productivity is a common marker of faculty performance at mainstream institutions (Schimanski & Alperin, 2018), the primary role of faculty employed at community colleges and TCUs is teaching. Considering studies have shown that focusing on service, research productivity, or content knowledge does not replace good teaching (Cadez et al., 2015; Weiman, 2015), the evaluation of teaching needs to be considered a worthy endeavor in itself and designed as such (Wieman, 2015). With the acknowledgement that improved teaching quality leads to more desirable student outcomes that in turn facilitate continued institutional wellbeing (Mangum, 2017), it is easy to see why a college or university would find it worthwhile to design and implement an FE process informed by the goal of continued teaching improvement.
Even though there is no “one size fits all” approach to FE, the consensus among scholars is that its utmost priority should be to improve student learning (ASCCC, 2013; Benton & Young, 2018; Lutz et al., 2018), an outcome in alignment with an Indigenous worldview emphasizing personal growth as a means to contribute more significantly to the greater community (LaFrance et al., 2012). With the improvement of student learning as the goal, the focus of FE lands heavily on the improvement of faculty teaching.
To reach the most accurate conclusions about a teacher’s performance, current research advocates for the use of multiple measures, with student, peer, self, and supervisor assessments being widely employed (Berk, 2018; DeCosta et al., 2016). Additionally, educator or teacher portfolios have been implemented more recently and often include evidence from a combination of the four primary measures mentioned above (LeVan, 2020). Ensuring data are being gathered from multiple sources allows the evaluation to be both thorough and fair, two qualities that help prevent faculty from losing trust in a process that relies solely on one approach (Benton & Young, 2018). Research has shown that the type of measure in addition to how the measure is designed and implemented influences how faculty perceive its usefulness (Williams & Hebert, 2020).
In conjunction with the measures and practices used to evaluate faculty, facilitating an effective FE process relies upon faculty involvement during both the creation and implementation stages (Fayez et al., 2019), a position supported by the American Association of University Professors’ (AAUP’s) Statement on Teaching Evaluation (AAUP, 2015). Inviting faculty to contribute to the creation and design of the FE process increases their perception of its worth; once faculty are on board, they are apt to participate willingly as long as they continue to see the process as valuable (Fayez et al., 2019), or as research has shown, constructive (Benton & Young, 2018; Opidee, 2018; Theall, 2017). It is no surprise that the opportunity to receive constructive feedback weighs heavily on faculty perceptions of evaluation practices; faculty—and in this case, TCU faculty in particular—want to be good at what they do, and constructive feedback helps them not only fulfill their required duties but continuously improve and excel in their roles (Al-Asfour & Young, 2017; Bunkowski & Shelton, 2019). In essence, faculty want to grow, and the reception of quality feedback can help them do so more effectively (Niyivuga et al., 2019). An in-depth review of the literature reveals, however, that studies have not yet investigated the specifics underlying the design, implementation, and effectiveness of FE, particularly as these factors pertain to TCUs.
Both self-determination theory (SDT) and the Indigenous evaluation framework provide lenses through which to view the FE process. Primary tenets of SDT are that people are inherently motivated to develop and can best do so in a supportive environment (Ryan & Deci, 2000). When individuals view an act as one that supports their ability to develop, they will be more motivated to engage with it, which results in higher levels of participation and greater performance (Ryan & Deci, 2020). By acknowledging the relationship between perception and motivation, designing the FE process to be viewed positively by faculty becomes imperative to its ability to function effectively. If administrators want the FE process to give them accurate results of how well their faculty are performing, then they will need the faculty to fully engage in the process. For faculty to fully engage, they will need to view the process as worthwhile.
The Indigenous evaluation framework also recognizes the importance of growth and learning, specifically the importance of focusing on the use of evaluation to “better understand and improve programs” (AIHEC, 2009, p. 108). In other words, framed through the lens of the Indigenous evaluation framework, the FE process should be designed to support faculty in understanding their roles as instructors—contextualized within programmatic and institutional objectives—and help them develop their instructional capacities. Taken together, both SDT and the Indigenous evaluation framework support the creation of FE processes that TCU faculty perceive to contribute to their ongoing development as professionals.
Methodology
Using a qualitative phenomenological design, we explored TCU faculty perspectives of and experiences with FE, with the goal of identifying specific FE practices faculty perceive to contribute to their professional development. A qualitative phenomenological approach was chosen for this study because it allowed for the researchers to become immersed in a range of TCU faculty perspectives in order to develop a deep understanding of their experiences with FE (Creswell, 2013). Furthermore, in alignment with an Indigenous approach to research underscored by the values of relationality and reciprocity, it was necessary for the faculty who chose to participate in this study to be welcomed into a conversational space (Minthorn & Shotton, 2018). This study was designed to communicate to the faculty participants a sense of partnership in a process intended to produce knowledge, increase understanding, and improve practice for TCUs and the students they serve.
The population for this study consisted of full-time faculty who had experienced faculty evaluation at a TCU. To recruit for this study, we began with purposive sampling, contacting faculty known to be teaching at a TCU. A snowball sampling approach was then employed to extend the reach and diversity of faculty participants. Seven faculty representing five different TCUs across the Midwest responded to the request to participate in the study and met the participation criteria.
The variation in TCUs, disciplines, and years taught offered an eclectic sample of faculty experiences. Each conversation began with the faculty sharing details that served to contextualize their place at their TCU. These details included their discipline, years taught, and roles they currently fulfill in addition to their teaching responsibilities. Table 1 lists the faculty by pseudonym and the number of years they have served as a TCU faculty member. The last two columns list the average number of courses the faculty member teaches per semester and whether they perform any other lead roles. The number of other lead roles is also included in the last column, because all seven TCU faculty members said they fulfill at least one other lead role at their institution in addition to teaching.
Individual faculty disciplines were not listed, as one faculty member requested for that information not to be shared due to the potential increased risk of a breach in confidentiality. In the interest of protecting the confidentiality of participants, the researchers are not disclosing other demographic details such as age and race.
Table 1
Pseudonyms and Professional Experience of Study Participants
| Pseudonym | Number of Years as a Faculty Member at a TCU | Average Number of Courses Taught Per Semester | Other Lead Role (e.g., Grant Lead, Committee Head, or Club Advisor), Number of Other Lead Roles |
| Leah | 3 | 5 | Yes, 2 |
| Jess | 7 | 3 | Yes, 2 |
| Tonya | 7 | 3 | Yes, 2 |
| Devon | 8 | 5 | Yes, 1 |
| Kent | 10 | 3 | Yes, 3+ |
| Pat | 10 | 3 | Yes, 3+ |
| Brody | 15 | 5 | Yes, 1 |
The semi-structured interview questions were designed to align with Bevan’s (2014) approach to phenomenological interviewing. In accordance with Bevan’s method, the researcher began the interview by asking questions designed to inform the “context and biography from which the experience gains meaning” (Bevan, 2014, p.139). Initial questions focused on eliciting contextual details designed to lead to a better understanding of the experience of focus. Once the context was established, the researcher asked descriptive questions that focused on the experience or phenomenon of most concern—in this case, faculty evaluation. The last phase in Bevan’s method emphasizes “imaginative variation,” an approach that involved posing “what if” or hypothetical questions to the participant. These questions were intended to contribute to a clearer understanding of the participant’s experience and the meaning they ascribed to it. The hypothetical questions were especially important to this study as they allowed the faculty to move beyond their experiences with the FE process and to share ideas on how to improve it.
Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed using a secure, third-party service, and member checking was employed to ensure transcript accuracy and to strengthen the authenticity of the study (Johnson & Rosulova, 2017). Through a process of content analysis, the researchers completed multiple readings of each transcription to identify, organize, and categorize the data according to common meanings. Inductive analysis was then employed to identify patterns and themes that occurred across the content shared by participants.
Findings
The interview questions that framed this study were designed to inspire conversations with TCU faculty members that would produce data that could then be shared with others to increase knowledge and insight surrounding TCU faculty experiences with and perceptions of the FE process. The results presented include quotes from the faculty that illustrate a first-hand perspective into their experiences and thoughts as they relate to the FE process. Attentive analysis of the interview data enabled us to identify commonalities in participant responses. Ultimately, the researchers identified five themes regarding how TCU faculty have experienced and perceive the FE process: 1) The FE process is important. 2) Discontinuity exists between FE policy and practice. 3) Faculty appreciate and desire qualitative feedback. 4) Faculty prefer ongoing opportunities for evaluation. 5) Faculty input should inform FE processes and practices.
For the first theme (the FE process is important), participant responses demonstrated variation in FE processes and practices from one institution to the next. Although no single FE process matched another, there were common threads that highlighted similar experiences and perceptions among the TCU faculty interviewed. One overarching theme apparent in each participant’s transcript was the potential positive impact that could be realized from the FE process at TCUs. In some form, each participant noted they perceive the FE process to be important and potentially beneficial. Tonya shared that she views FE “as a growth process to become better at what I do,” while Brody commented that the process contributes to “improving of my teaching job…improving of my teaching capability.” Speaking about faculty perceptions generally, Pat expressed that they appreciate knowing “what the Institution is expecting.” Further highlighting the importance of the existence of faculty evaluations, Kent added, “they need to be done because I think it is easy to become complacent.” Jess’s response aligned with Kent’s in that they perceive that the FE process encourages higher levels of accountability and that certain FE practices could even inspire faculty to “up your game a bit.”
Secondly, a majority of participants noted they had experienced a discrepancy between the existing FE policy and the FE practices being implemented at their institution. Their responses showed that this discrepancy contributed to negative feelings and thoughts toward the FE process as a whole. Devon shared that, per institutional policy, their FE process “did include a classroom observation component and that classroom observation component never occurred…No one came in and supervised my classes or otherwise evaluated my actual teaching.” Leah’s experience was similar to Devon’s in her indication that “sometimes observations are scheduled and haven’t happened at all.” Tonya also observed an inconsistency in policy and practice related to classroom observations. Even though classroom observations were listed as a required practice in their institution’s FE process, they “haven’t happened though…it has been inconsistent.”
The outcomes of discrepancies between written policy and implemented practice appear to damage faculty perceptions of the entire FE process. Tonya expressed, “If there is something listed as a piece in this process, but then that piece isn’t actually being carried out, the whole process can lose integrity,” while Pat shared that “it used to really annoy me because I’ve had supervisors that never watched you but would evaluate you.” Pat’s statement is especially telling because it illustrates how perception can influence attitude. If faculty hold a negative attitude toward a FE policy or practice, it is plausible that their level of potential investment in the FE process will be compromised. As Devon observed, faculty who hold ongoing negative attitudes toward the FE process or specific practices could reach a point where they become completely disengaged: “I have a fellow colleague who found the process so useless that they just don’t participate anymore.”
The third theme was that participants appreciate and desire qualitative feedback. The participants looked forward to receiving feedback from a variety of sources and perspectives, including students, supervisors, and peers. Regardless of the source, feedback was most appreciated when it was qualitative in nature. Speaking of student evaluations in particular, Tonya noted that faculty at her institution take feedback from students “very seriously…I reflect on the comments that are made.” Leah shared that she appreciated learning about the students’ experiences in her course: “I got a lot of feedback that it was really, really difficult, but it felt good at the end.” Furthermore, as Brody’s response highlights, faculty understand the importance of maximizing student participation in the evaluation process: “The more students participate, the better…so the faculty can see what’s really going on in the class and where the faculty can improve.”
Regarding administrator or supervisor feedback, Leah shared that “it makes you feel appreciated just to be acknowledged…just to know that your administration is paying attention.” Following the completion of an evaluation form or classroom observation, Jess expressed that they would like more feedback from their supervisor: “The face-to-face interviews [with the supervisor] …could be better, that is, longer.” However, it is also important to acknowledge potential harmful effects of supervisor feedback, as illustrated by Devon’s experience: “The meetings have been largely focused on my personal characteristics, with no clear connection to my actual teaching or performance as a faculty member.” Devon’s experience illustrates that those providing feedback must be conscious of the purpose of their feedback and the context and content in which their feedback is shared.
Peer feedback was also mentioned, although no participants stated that peers served as part of the formal evaluation process. Instead, peer feedback was discussed as occurring in informal ways outside of the official FE process. When asked what types of feedback they found most helpful, Tonya shared, “The informal conversations that I have with other faculty…about things that I might be struggling with…a lot of it is some of those informal conversations.”
Fourthly, faculty prefer ongoing opportunities for evaluation. Toward the end of each interview, participants were asked questions that encouraged them to share their thoughts on how the FE process could be most effective. These questions asked them to focus on changes that could be made to their TCU’s current FE process to improve it. Participants shared a number of practices, including the importance of eliciting faculty input while creating or revising the FE process and ensuring faculty were receiving qualitative feedback. Additionally, practices such as goal setting and reflection were mentioned in multiple responses. Collectively, these responses contributed to a larger theme of the necessity for ongoing evaluation.
When respondents discussed practices such as goal setting, reflection, or feedback, they used phrases such as “stay aware,” “able to adjust,” and “change our choices,” each of which speak to the idea of an evaluation process that is ongoing rather than a practice or a disconnected set of practices conducted only once or twice a year. The faculty responses illustrate that they appreciate evaluation for its potential to highlight how they can adjust and improve their teaching practice. As Brody noted, implementing midterm evaluations not only ensures faculty are involved in the FE process on more than an annual basis, but also allows them the opportunity to engage in a practice that could contribute to their development: “The pieces help me improve because during midterm you are able to adjust.” Kent further emphasized the connection between ongoing evaluation and learning by acknowledging the importance of reflection. In reference to the self-evaluation document faculty are required to complete, Kent said, “I think it’s easy to collect data, but if we don’t reflect on it and think about how to change our choices, I think it’s not always helpful.”
In regard to goal setting, Tonya noted the importance of the support received in conjunction with these goals as a key factor influencing the potential impact the goals could have on the faculty responsible for forming them: “Encouragement and collaboration and ongoing support to reach those goals…if that’s not happening, you end up having faculty that aren’t really heavily invested and focused on those goals.” Tonya continued with a suggestion for how this ongoing support could appear throughout the year: “Some of our meetings could be more focused on professional development, where we have breakout sessions, and there’s different things you could do, but I think that those would be good times for faculty to focus more on personal growth.” The responses that TCU faculty shared demonstrate they do not perceive FE as a “one and done” annual activity. Instead, they perceive an effective FE process as one that is supported by various formal and informal practices over time.
Finally, an additional theme that surfaced through the conversations with faculty is the importance of faculty input regarding the FE process and practices contained therein. In short, faculty input matters. Although no faculty described what they perceived to be the “ideal” FE process, many mentioned the importance of seeking faculty input to create a process that is both meaningful and well-accepted. Tonya noted that “There was a change [to the FE process] and faculty were not involved in that decision making process…we felt that there should have been some collaboration with faculty.” Tonya continued by emphasizing the importance of getting “faculty involved in that process of what they think rather than administration saying ‘I’m gonna switch the evaluation tool.’”
While no other participant described experiencing a change in the FE process without prior consultation with faculty, the participants emphasized faculty input as an important factor in creating an effective FE process. For example, Kent shared that “one piece that would be helpful is getting feedback from all faculty as to what in that process they would like to see.” Kent continued, “In any process, it’s kind of that faculty buy-in, whether they really want to or not; if they at least have input and they’re not being told…that gives them that opportunity to have a voice and have a say…I think that’s a huge piece.” In addressing the meaning and impact of the self-evaluation form, an FE tool mentioned by many of the participants, Devon suggested to “look to other faculty members…there might be a way to create a meaningful evaluation form that’s more peer-based and more self-reflective and less of a ranking.” In addition to highlighting the importance of faculty input, Devon’s response also prioritizes a more formative or constructive practice rather than one based on a ranking or hierarchical system.
Discussion
Insufficient research exists on TCUs and their faculty, and research focused on specific policies is even more scarce. This study aimed to contribute to what is currently known about TCUs and their faculty by researching TCU faculty experiences with and perceptions of faculty evaluation (FE), with the intent of sharing information that could contribute to the creation and implementation of more effective FE processes and practices.
The first question of this study explored how TCU faculty have experienced the FE process at their respective institutions. Of the experiences shared, there was much overlap, especially related to the practices included as part of the FE process. Multiple practices noted by the participants, including self-evaluations, student evaluations, and supervisor observations, have been previously discussed as widely used evaluation measures (Berk, 2018; DeCosta et al., 2016).
One significant finding regarding faculty experiences with FE was the discontinuity experienced between what was written in FE policy and what was implemented in practice. A majority of participants noted that at least one piece of the FE process as described in policy was not employed in practice. In-person evaluations were the most commonly identified practice to be overlooked or not fully executed as written in the FE policy. All faculty who shared experiencing such discrepancies expressed negative feelings and attitudes as a result, including annoyance and a lack of investment in the process as a whole. Ensuring that FE processes execute the standards outlined in institutional policies can be addressed relatively easily at most institutions, and TCU administrators who take steps to align processes and policies with practice restore faculty conviction in the FE process.
Though discontinuity between policy and practice was a common experience for the TCU faculty who participated in this study, faculty still held overwhelmingly optimistic perspectives of what the FE process could be. When asked to share what came to mind when they thought of faculty evaluation, the participants described the FE process as “something to strive for” or “a growth process to become better at what I do.” Others said it was meant to contribute to the “improve[ment] of my teaching capability.” These faculty responses demonstrate that faculty are open to participating in the faculty evaluation process, and they perceive the process as an aspirational one. Framing FE as an opportunity for growth is not unexpected, as prior research has found that TCU faculty desire to continuously improve (Al-Asfour & Young, 2017).
The second question of this study explored what FE practices TCU faculty perceive to contribute to their professional development. All practices shared by the participants are mentioned in previous research on faculty evaluation, including the reception of qualitative feedback from students and supervisors, goal setting, and reflection (Lutz et al., 2018; Debroy et al., 2019). Furthermore, this study highlights that, in addition to the specific practice or tool used as part of the FE process, the creation and implementation of that process is just as or even more important.
Nearly all participants shared that faculty input should be considered in the creation of an FE process. Viewed through a self-determination lens, the importance of ensuring faculty feel a sense of agency and autonomy in the FE process should not be overlooked. If faculty perspectives are cultivated and ultimately realized in FE practice, then faculty autonomy and competency would be bolstered. Additionally, if faculty worked in a collaborative way to design certain aspects of the FE process, then all three major tenets of SDT theory would be accounted for (Ryan & Deci, 1985). For TCUs that move to strengthen the effectiveness of their FE process, beginning by eliciting faculty input regarding what FE practices should be included and how they should be implemented is a critical first step.
One limitation of this study is that only a small fraction of the existing TCUs and their faculty were represented. Yet, considering the lack of published research on TCUs and their faculty, the findings from this study serve as a starting point for future research focused on TCUs, their faculty, and their policies and practices. Future studies on FE at TCUs could strive to identify individual TCUs where FE processes are perceived positively by their faculty; these TCUs could then serve as case studies and models for others working on revising their FE processes to better contribute to faculty development.
Additionally, for institutions that revise their FE processes and cultivate faculty input to inform the revisions, it would be worth investigating how faculty perceptions of the FE process differed before and after the revisions were made. From an administrative perspective, TCU leadership might take it upon themselves to create a meaningful and effective FE process; however, as noted by the faculty who participated in this study, faculty consider their input to play an important role in creating an effective FE process. Measuring faculty members’ perceptions of the FE process after they assisted in the creation of the process could highlight the importance of adhering to a collaborative approach to policy creation and revision at TCUs.
Lastly, though much more research on TCU faculty perceptions of FE would need to be conducted, a future goal would be to study how faculty perceptions of their institution’s FE process correlate with student success outcomes. Identifying institutions where FE processes are perceived by faculty to contribute to their development is a start; the next step is to investigate the relationship between faculty perceptions of FE and student success outcomes.
Conclusion
TCUs are integral to the advancement of those they serve, and TCU faculty are essential to this mission. Though TCU faculty fulfill multiple roles, teaching is at the center of their work. Considering that prior research has shown TCU faculty desire to grow in their teaching abilities, the time has now come for scholars to explore how these faculty can be supported in their growth efforts. Because faculty evaluation is a process that is already commonly practiced at TCUs, how it contributes to faculty development deserves to be assessed. When TCU leadership takes a critical look at how their FE processes are perceived by faculty as growth opportunities, the actions of these leaders will communicate that they value their faculty input and care about their development. This point is more than a sentiment; it is a way of modeling values inherent to the Indigenous evaluation framework. Evaluation—including the choice of tools, implementation approaches, and how to disperse and utilize findings—should be performed in collaboration with the community being evaluated. Given this point, what is worth considering for TCU leadership is how well their FE processes leverage faculty ideals about what the process could be and, if needed, revise their FE process so that faculty perceive it to include practices that do indeed support faculty development.
Kayla Alkire-Stewart, EdD, serves as a Research and Evaluation Associate with the American Indian College Fund.
References
Al-Asfour, A., & Young, S. (2017). Development Needs and Career Advancement at Tribal Colleges and Universities. The Journal of Faculty Development, 21(1), 1-8.
American Association of University Professors. (2015). Statement on Teaching Evaluation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-teaching-evaluation
American Indian Higher Education Consortium. (2021). Who We Are. Retrieved from http://www.aihec.org/who-we-are/index.htm
Antoine, N. (2013). Exploring Tribal College and University (TCU) Faculty Collegiality (Doctoral dissertation, Antioch University). Antioch University Repository & Archives. Retrieved from https://aura.antioch.edu/etds/66/
Benton, S.L., & Young, S. (2018). Best Practices in the Evaluation of Teaching (IDEA Paper #69). IDEA Center. Retrieved from https://www.ideaedu.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/IDEA%20Papers/IDEA%20Papers/IDEA_Paper_69.pdf
Berk, R. (2018). Berk’s Law: Start Spreading the News—Use Multiple Sources of Evidence to Evaluate Teaching. Journal of Faculty Development, 32(1), 73-81.
Bevan, M. (2014). A Method of Phenomenological Interviewing. Qualitative Health Research, 24(1), 136-144. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732313519710
Brown, L. (2017). Native American Transfer Students from Tribal Institutions in Montana (Order No. 10616718). [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana State University]. ProQuest Central.
Bryan, R. (2019). The Influence of Tribal Colleges and Universities on Native American Student Persistence. New Directions for Student Services, 1(167), 49-62. Retrieved from https://doi.org/ 10.1002/ss.20320
Bunkowski, L., & Shelton, K. (2019). Mission, Vision, and Core Values Through Online Education: A Case study on Tribal College Leadership. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 20(4), 1-26.
Cadez, S., Dimovsky, V., & Groff, M.Z. (2015). Research, Teaching, and Performance Evaluation in Academia, the Salience of Quality. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1455-1473. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1104659
Carmack, H. & LeFebvre, L. (2019). “Walking on Eggshells”: Traversing the Emotional and Meaning Making Processes Surrounding Hurtful Course Valuations. Communication Education, 68(3), 350-370. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2019.1608366
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2019). Preserving Culture and Planning for the Future: An Exploration of Student Experiences at Tribal Colleges. Austin: The University of Texas at Austin, College of Education, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy, Program in Higher Education Leadership.
Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.
DeCosta, M., Bergquist, E., Holbeck, R., & Greenberger, S. (2016). A Desire for Growth: Online Full-Time Faculty’s Perceptions of Evaluation Processes. Journal of Educators Online, 13(2), 19–52.
Debroy, A., Ingole, A., & Mudey, A. (2019). Teachers’ Perceptions on Student Evaluation of Teaching as a Tool for Faculty Development and Quality Assurance in Medical Education. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 8(218). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_47_19
DeLong, L., Monette, G., & Ozaki, C.C. (2016). Nurturing Student Success in Tribal Colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2016(174), 65-74. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20203
Espinosa, L., Kelchen, R., & Taylor, M. (2018). Minority Serving Institutions as Engines of Upward Mobility. American Council on Education: Center for Policy Research and Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/MSIs-as-Engines-of-Upward-Mobility.pdf
Executive Order No. 13592, 3 C.F.R. (2011). Retrieved from https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2012-title3-vol1/CFR-2012-title3-vol1-eo13592
Fayez, A., Ahmed, A., Darwish, H., El Khashab, H., Bougatfa, R., Shawky, T., & El Fouhil, A. (2019). A Review of the Methods in the Evaluation of Faculty Performance. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 6(8), 32-38. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2019.08.005
Gelber, S.M. (2020). Grading the College: A History of Teaching and Learning. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Gillman, R., Hensel, N., Salomon, D., & Wilhite, S. (2018). Refining the Paradigm: Holistic Evaluation of Faculty to Support Faculty and Student Learning. The New American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from https://nacu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/NACU_ REFINING-THE-PARADIGM_READER.pdf
Gonzalez, L. & Ayers, D. (2018). The Convergence of Institutional Logistics on the Community College Sector and the Normalization of Emotional Labor: A New Theoretical Approach for Considering the Community College Faculty Labor Expectations. Review of Higher Education, 41(3). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0015
Johnson, S. & Rasulova, S. (2017). Qualitative Research and the Evaluation of Development Impact: Incorporating Authenticity into the Assessment of Rigor. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 9(2). 263-276. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2017.1306577
Lutz, B., Ironside, A., Brown, S., & Sanchez, D. (2018). Exploring Faculty Beliefs about Teaching Evaluations: What Is Missing from Current Measures? American Society for Engineering Education Conference, Salt Lake City, UT.
LaFrance, J. & Nichols, R. (2009). Indigenous Evaluation Framework: Telling Our Story in Our Place and Time. American Indian Higher Education Consortium. Retrieved from https://portalcentral.aihec.org/indigeval/lists/indigenousevaluationfrmwork/allitems.aspx
LaFrance, J., Nichols, R., & Kirkhart, K.E. (2012). Culture Writes the Script: On the Centrality of Context in Indigenous Evaluation. In D.J. Rog, J.L. Fitzpatrick, & R.F. Conner (Eds.), Context: A Framework for Its Influence on Evaluation Practice. New Directions for Evaluation, 2012(135), 59-74.
LeVan, D. (2020). The Development of a Portfolio for Academic Promotion and Tenure for Occupational Therapy Educators. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy, 8(4), 1-8. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.15453/2168-6408.1749
Lyde, A.R., Grieshaber, D.C., & Byrns, G. (2016). Faculty Teaching Performance: Perceptions of a Multi-Source Method for Evaluation (MME). Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(3), 82–94.
Mangum, E. (2017). Teaching and Student Success: ACUE Makes the Link. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 49(5), 17-25. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2017.1366806
Marroquin, C. (2019). Tribal Colleges and Universities: A Testament of Resiliency and Nation Building. Center for Minority Serving Institutions.
Minthorn, R.S., & Shotton, H.J. (2018). Reclaiming Indigenous Research in Higher Education. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Nelson, C. (2017). Shifting from Data Invisibility Toward Data Usage: Research and Data Collection at Tribal Colleges and Universities. American Council on Education. Retrieved from https://www.higheredtoday.org/2017/11/20/moving-away-data-invisibility-tribal-colleges-universities/
Nelson, C. & Frye, J. (2016). Tribal College and University Funding: Tribal Sovereignty at the Intersection of Federal, State, and Local Funding. American Council on Education. Retrieved from https://www.luminafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/tribal-college-and-university-funding.pdf
Niyivuga, B., Otara, A., & Tuyishime, D. (2019). Monitoring and Evaluation Practices and Academic Staff Motivation: Implications in Higher Education within Rwandan Context. SAGE Open, 9(1). 1-9.
Opidee, I. (2018). ∑valuation ∑quations. University Business, 21(6), 36–39.
Postsecondary National Policy Institute. (2020). Tribal Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from https://pnpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/PNPI_TribalCollegesAnd Universities_Nov-2020.pdf
Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Wellbeing. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. Retrieved from https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2000_RyanDeci_SDT.pdf
Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2020). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation from a Self-Determination Theory Perspective: Definitions, Theory, Practices, and Future Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 1-11. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Schimanski, L.A., & Alperin, J.P. (2018). The Evaluation of Scholarship in Academic Promotion and Tenure Processes: Past, Present, and Future. F1000Research, 7(1605). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.16493.1
Song, W. (2016). American Indian Voice: A National Perspective. In A. Long (Ed.), Overcoming Educational Racism in the Community College. New York: Stylus.
Stull, G., Spyridakis, D., Gasman, M., Samayoa, A., & Booker, Y. (2015). Redefining Success: How Tribal Colleges and Universities Build Nations, Strengthen Sovereignty, and Persevere Through Challenges. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Minority Serving Institutions.
Theall, M. (2017). MVP and Faculty Evaluation. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 2017(152), 91–98.
Thomas, J., Graham, C., & Pina, A. (2018). Current Practices of Online Instructor Evaluation in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 21(2).
Voorhees, R.A. (2004). Tribal College Faculty Survey: Despite Lower Pay, Faculty Tend to Be Content, Altruistic, Ambitious. Tribal College: Journal of American Indian Higher Education, 15(3), 20–21.
Wieman, C. (2015). A Better Way to Evaluate Undergraduate Teaching. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 47(1), 6-15. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2015.996077
Williams, K., & Hebert, D. (2020). Teacher Evaluation Systems: A Literature Review on Issues and Impact. Research Issues in Contemporary Education, 5(1), 42-50.