Faculty and Administrator Perceptions of a Faculty Evaluation Process and Its Ability to Advance ...

269 Pages·2015·7.25 MB·English

by  Mary Giovannetti

Faculty and Administrator Perceptions of a
Faculty Evaluation Process and Its Ability to
Advance Faculty Enrichment
by
Mary Marguerite Giovannetti
M.A., Simon Fraser University, 1998
B.Ed., Mount Saint Vincent University, 1978
Dissertation in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in the
Curriculum and Instruction Design Program
Faculty of Education
 Mary Marguerite Giovannetti 2015
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Fall 2015
Approval
Name: Mary Marguerite Giovannetti
Degree: Doctor of Philosophy
Title: Faculty and administrator perceptions of a faculty
evaluation process and its ability to advance faculty
enrichment
Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Vicki Kelly
Associate Professor
Dr. Allan MacKinnon
Senior Supervisor
Associate Professor
Dr. Michael Ling
Supervisor
Senior Lecturer
Dr. Shawn Bullock
Supervisor
Assistant Professor
Dr. Michelle Pidgeon
Internal/External Examiner
Associate Professor
Dr. Gary Poole
External Examiner
Senior Scholar
Faculty of Medicine
University of British Columbia
Date Defended/Approved: November 23, 2015

ii
Ethics Statement  

iii
Abstract
Using qualitative case study methodology, this study examined faculty and administrator
perceptions of a faculty evaluation process at a special purpose teaching university that
was for the majority of its history a community college. The study explored faculty and
administrator satisfaction with the process, what they considered the most important
components of the faculty evaluation process to be, and whether the process led to
faculty enrichment.
Through five focus groups and in-depth interviews with five participants, the themes of
tensions, opportunities, and contradictions emerged. Examining the process of faculty
evaluation and participants’ lived experiences with it exposed the gap that exists
between the process surrounding faculty evaluation at this institution and the
perceptions and preferences of faculty and administrators who are affected by or have
responsibility for this process. A further analysis of the faculty evaluation process using
Bourdieu’s (1997, 1993, 1992, 1990) “thinking tools” unearthed how the process
structures and confines the actions of participants and perpetuates a “structuring
structure” (1977/2004, p. 72).
Since faculty enrichment is an expected outcome of a faculty evaluation process, this
study employed Wenger’s (1998) social theory of learning to illustrate how faculty
enrichment could be conceptualized through Faculty Learning Communities. Finally, this
study uncovered the unintended effects of a faculty evaluation process that has been
cemented in the culture of an organization for most of its 47-year history; therefore, this
study could be useful in informing the design of faculty evaluation programs at other
institutions.
Keywords: Faculty evaluation; Bourdieu’s “thinking tools”; qualitative case study
methodology; faculty enrichment; Wenger’s social theory of learning;
faculty learning communities

iv
Dedication
I dedicate this thesis to the late Charles Brady Giovannetti, a gifted carpenter, a man of
few words, and a father who hungered for a formal education. To us, Dad!
v
Acknowledgements
I must first begin by acknowledging my senior supervisor, Dr. Allan MacKinnon. From
my first meeting with him prior to beginning my formal Ph.D. studies to the completion of
this dissertation, he has been a constant supporter and advisor, who has been eager to
assist, quick to respond to my queries, and generous with his time. Our many meetings
over the last five years have always provided me with direction and compelling ideas to
consider.
Dr. Michael Ling, I could not have completed this dissertation without you. You
constantly awakened in me a desire to know more, to understand difficult theoretical
concepts better, and to view them as a lens to understanding my life’s work. I always
left our stimulating conversations more enlightened, more challenged, and inspired to do
more.
Thank you, Dr. Shawn Bullock, for your valuable perspective and feedback on this
dissertation. You added much to my understanding of what I was trying to accomplish
and how I might best accomplish it. I realize how fortunate I was to have you join SFU at
a time when I really needed your expertise.
To my colleagues at Capilano University and to the participants in this study, I sincerely
thank you for your support and encouragement during my Ph.D. studies, which have
been an incredibly satisfying personal learning endeavour.
To my family, especially Bob, Matthew, Breanne, and Patricia, who endured my absence
as I hid myself away for more days and months and years than we ever expected, I
thank you for your patience and support.
To my daughter Patricia who has endured my absence the most, I look forward to
attending your Ph.D. defence in the future. To my grandchildren, Dominic, Eli, Myles,
and Jayden, who were all born in the years after my starting this Ph.D. journey, may
your desire to learn always be sparked by the beauty of “wonder.”

vi
Table of Contents
Approval ............................................................................................................................. ii

Ethics Statement ............................................................................................................... iii

Abstract ............................................................................................................................. iv

Dedication .......................................................................................................................... v

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... vi

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. vii

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... x

Chapter 1.
  Introduction ............................................................................................... 1

1.1.
  Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 1

1.2.
  Background .............................................................................................................. 2

1.3.
  My Story ................................................................................................................... 5

1.4.
  Research Questions ............................................................................................... 12

1.5.
  Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 12

1.6.
  Overview of Methodology ....................................................................................... 14

1.7.
  Organization of the Study ....................................................................................... 16

Chapter 2.
  Literature Review .................................................................................... 18

2.1.
  The Purpose of Faculty Evaluation ........................................................................ 18

2.2.
  Student Evaluations of Teaching (SETs) ............................................................... 19

2.3.
  Formative and Summative Evaluations .................................................................. 23

2.4.
  Peer Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 25

2.5.
  A Need for Training ................................................................................................ 28

2.6.
  Faculty Portfolios .................................................................................................... 29

2.7.
  Some Contemporary Approaches to Evaluation .................................................... 30

2.8.
  Faculty Enrichment ................................................................................................ 33

2.9.
  Guiding Principles for a Faculty Evaluation Program ............................................. 36

2.10.
 Faculty Learning Communities ............................................................................... 37

2.11.
 Best Practices of Mentorship ................................................................................. 40

2.11.1.
  Benefits ..................................................................................................... 40

2.11.2.
  Guiding Principles of Faculty Mentorship ................................................. 41

2.12.
 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 43

Chapter 3.
  Research Methods .................................................................................. 44

3.1.
  Research Design .................................................................................................... 44

3.2.
  Qualitative Methodology ......................................................................................... 44

3.3.
  Case Study ............................................................................................................. 44

3.4.
  Bourdieu’s “Thinking Tools” ................................................................................... 47

3.4.1.
  Habitus ...................................................................................................... 47

3.4.2.
  Field .......................................................................................................... 49

3.4.3.
  Capital ....................................................................................................... 50

3.4.4.
  Cultural Capital .......................................................................................... 50

3.4.5.
  Social Capital ............................................................................................ 51

vii
3.4.6.
  Economic Capital ...................................................................................... 51

3.4.7.
  Doxa .......................................................................................................... 51

3.4.8.
  Symbolic Violence ..................................................................................... 52

3.5.
  Method of Research ............................................................................................... 52

3.6.
  Data Collection and Analysis ................................................................................. 57

3.7.
  Trustworthiness ...................................................................................................... 59

3.7.1.
  Credibility .................................................................................................. 59

3.7.2.
  Transferability ............................................................................................ 61

3.7.3.
  Dependability ............................................................................................ 61

3.7.4.
  Confirmability ............................................................................................ 62

3.7.5.
  Ethical Issues ............................................................................................ 62

Informed Consent Form ........................................................................................ 63

Confidentiality ....................................................................................................... 63

Member Checks .................................................................................................... 64

3.8.
  Reflexivity Statement ............................................................................................. 64

3.9.
  Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 72

Chapter 4.
  Profiles of the Participants ..................................................................... 74

4.1.
  [Darrell]’s Profile ..................................................................................................... 74

4.1.1.
  Commentary on Darrell’s Profile ............................................................... 83

4.2.
  [Rachael’s] Profile .................................................................................................. 85

4.2.1.
  Commentary on Rachael’s Profile ............................................................. 94

4.3.
  [Simone’s] Profile ................................................................................................... 98

4.3.1.
  Commentary on Simone’s Profile ............................................................ 107

4.4.
  [Sandra’s] Profile .................................................................................................. 109

4.4.1.
  Commentary on Sandra’s Profile ............................................................ 123

4.5.
  [Linda’s] Profile ..................................................................................................... 127

4.5.1.
  Commentary on Linda’s Profile ............................................................... 138

4.6.
  Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 140

Chapter 5.
  Interpretations ....................................................................................... 141

5.1.
  Tensions ............................................................................................................... 142

5.1.1.
  Purpose of the Faculty Evaluation Process ............................................ 142

5.1.2.
  The Usefulness of Peer Evaluations ....................................................... 144

5.1.3.
  Alerting and Guidance ............................................................................. 147

5.1.4.
  The Challenges of Change ..................................................................... 150

5.2.
  Opportunities ........................................................................................................ 151

5.2.1.
  The Value of Formative Evaluation ......................................................... 151

5.2.2.
  Removing the Fear Factor ...................................................................... 154

5.2.3.
  The Value of Student Evaluation of Teaching (SETs) and Co-
ordinator Reports .................................................................................... 155

5.2.4.
  Unofficial Mentoring ................................................................................ 160

5.3.
  Contradictions ...................................................................................................... 162

5.3.1.
  Timeliness of Results .............................................................................. 162

5.3.2.
  Opportunities for Improvement in Teaching Performance ...................... 165

5.3.3.
  Satisfactory versus Less than Satisfactory Performance ........................ 167

5.3.4.
  Training ................................................................................................... 169

viii
5.4.
  Guiding Principles for a Faculty Evaluation Program ........................................... 172

5.5.
  Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 176

Chapter 6.
  An Analysis and Interpretation of the Faculty Evaluation
Process Using Bourdieu’s “Thinking Tools” ..................................... 179

6.1.
  Mapping the “Thinking Tools” onto the Setting .................................................... 179

6.2.
  Mentorship ........................................................................................................... 181

6.3.
  Formative Evaluations .......................................................................................... 183

6.4.
  Alerting and Guidance .......................................................................................... 185

6.5.
  Training Needs ..................................................................................................... 186

6.6.
  Satisfactory versus Less than Satisfactory .......................................................... 188

6.7.
  Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 195

Chapter 7.
  An Idealization of Faculty Enrichment ................................................ 197

7.1.
  Introduction .......................................................................................................... 197

7.2.
  Discovery: Lack of Faculty Evaluation Theory .................................................... 197

7.3.
  Discovery: FLC Research Lacks Theoretical Lens ............................................. 203

7.4.
  Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 205

Chapter 8.
  Implications and Recommendations ................................................... 206

8.1.
  The Research Questions ..................................................................................... 206

8.2.
  Evaluating the Research ...................................................................................... 209

8.3.
  Recommendations ............................................................................................... 212

8.4.
  Final Reflections ................................................................................................... 214

References ...................................................................................................................221

Appendix A.
  Interview Questions ............................................................................. 231

Appendix B.
  Focus Group Questions ....................................................................... 233

Appendix C.
  Faculty Evaluation Process ................................................................. 234

Appendix D.
  Informed Consent Form ...................................................................... 253

Appendix E.
  School of Business Questionnaire ....................................................... 258

ix
List of Tables
Table 1:
  Components of a Social Theory of Learning (Wenger, 1998, p. 5). ............. 199

x