Abstract
Faculty evaluations play a key role in improving teaching quality in higher education institutions. However, the development of evaluation programs worldwide has paid little attention to the impact of faculty evaluations on teacher educators’ professional development. This qualitative case study examined the influence of faculty evaluations on individual professional development at teacher education institutions in Cambodia. The results indicated that performance evaluations developed by management teams were beneficial for identifying strengths and improving professional and instructional practices. In addition, the performance evaluation results were used for self-improvement and self-regulation in continuous professional development plans and shared with supervisors and colleagues. Moreover, although teacher educators appreciated performance evaluation and reported that they led to their professional development and cultivated a sense of responsibility in the workplace, their process remained limited. Recommendations for performance evaluations to improve professional development are provided.
Plain Language Summary
Faculty evaluations play a key role in improving teaching quality in higher education institutions. However, the development of evaluation programs worldwide has paid little attention to the impact of faculty evaluations on teacher educators’ professional development. This qualitative case study examined the influence of faculty evaluations on individual professional development at teacher education institutions in Cambodia. The results indicated that performance evaluations developed by management teams were beneficial for identifying strengths and improving professional and instructional practices. In addition, the performance evaluation results were used for self-improvement and self-regulation in continuous professional development plans and shared with line managers and colleagues. Moreover, although teacher educators appreciated performance evaluation and reported that they led to personal professional development and cultivated a sense of responsibility in workplace, their process remained limited. Recommendations for performance evaluations to improve professional development were provided.
Keywords
Introduction
Globalization and international trends have greatly impacted the expansion of higher education. Additionally, there has been an increased emphasis on quality in policy discussions surrounding language, degree programs, pedagogies, and generic skills (Altbach et al., 2010). Changes in evaluation priorities and increasing understanding of the significance of learning outcomes indicate that higher education is shifting paradigms (Tremblay et al., 2012). Due to structural changes brought about by the Bologna Process, the European university system has experienced significant change over the last several decades with the goal of improving research quality and making institutions more comparable, competitive, dynamic, and transparent (Sułkowski et al., 2020). As higher education institutions (HEIs) need to reform all stages to succeed in the educational market, tasks related to planning, design, and innovation in assessment have become essential parts of their education systems (Quesada et al., 2017). This is a result of promoting the enhanced understanding of novel management tools that strengthen the implementation of key metrics pertaining to university quality. These tools primarily focus on faculty evaluations that emphasize assessing the performance of university teaching and learning (Hallinger, 2010). Performance assessment is used for many purposes, including making decisions in selecting and recruiting employees, accreditation, program improvement, compensation and incentives, and personal and professional development of learners (Lussier & Hendon, 2019; Stewart & Brown, 2019).
In Australian schools, professional development is considered key to improving teaching quality and providing a competitive education system that can meet the need for skilled and knowledgeable workers (Barry et al., 2020). According to Barry et al. (2020), teacher evaluations are conducted in accordance with professional standards established by the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership and funded by the Federal State and Territory governments. Consequently, performance evaluation in Australian schools considers standards less important than other factors, such as association between teachers and their evaluators, evaluators’ skills, and inclusion of a post-evaluation development plan (Barry et al., 2020).
Performance evaluations of individual faculty members in universities in Israel were developed based on student evaluations to measure teaching quality and effectiveness (Hadad et al., 2020). These evaluations may provide direct assessments and focus on teaching strengths and weaknesses, thereby improving the skills of teacher educators (Hadad et al., 2020). Conversely, in tertiary schools in developing countries, especially in Southeast Asia, faculty evaluations focus on performance evaluation, including reward systems, teaching quality enhancement, stages of teacher efficiency, and faculty changes (Hallinger, 2010).
As mentioned earlier, while considerable attention has been paid to assessing performance evaluations in HEIs, the focus has been on improving teaching quality, while not adequately considering the impact of these evaluations on teachers’ professional development. Nevertheless, there is a lack of research and comprehensive discourse on teacher educators’ professional development through faculty evaluation at institutes. Moreover, the progress of education and training in HEIs in Cambodia, including providing qualified and relevant education, plays a crucial role in the development of human resources (Ministry of Education Youth and Sport [MoEYS], 2017). Thus, this study focused on the influence of faculty evaluations on teacher educators’ professional development at teacher education colleges (TECs) in Cambodia using self-assessment reports, professional development plans, and result-oriented work (ROW) assessments. Consequently, the following research questions were posed:
How are faculty evaluations in Cambodia designed?
How do teacher educators improve professional development?
How do teacher educators evaluate performance evaluations and their process?
This study is significant for three reasons. First, faculty evaluations focus on professional development and teaching quality as well as the relationship between theory and practice. Second, the findings describe individual professional development that cultivates a sense of responsibility in the workplace, including promoting a culture of professional dialog among faculty. Finally, this study addressed a gap in existing literature and revealed that recent changes in national certification requirements resulted in the broader applicability of faculty evaluations to improve professional development.
Conceptual Framework
Evaluation in Higher Education
Gómez and Valdés (2019) examined performance evaluations of teachers at universities and concluded that the evaluation purpose must be well understood before choosing what to assess, as the results reveal the activity’s meaning and value. It is crucial to define the purpose of assessments, as they serve as the foundation for choosing the theory, evaluation model, and design that are most appropriate.
In addition, existing teacher evaluation approaches cannot provide valid and trustworthy outcomes. Teacher performance evaluations in HEIs tend to be vastly oversimplified and embedded within political, social, and cultural contexts contributing to the practicality being evaluated (Gómez & Valdés, 2019).
Evaluations require specific explanations and adequate systematization in their initial approaches (Lussier & Hendon, 2019). Various evaluation methods, such as teaching portfolios, self-evaluation, peer evaluation, and co-evaluation with the teacher, have been developed to encourage teachers to use critical knowledge, focus on real-life contexts, and improve their metacognition and reflective skills (Yurdabakan, 2011). Therefore, the establishment of evaluations in HEIs is essential for teachers’ professional development and education quality improvement (Gómez & Valdés, 2019).
Who Should Assess Performance?
Ogunlana and Oshinaike (2016) stated that several sources of data and assessment tools are required for an in-depth understanding of what university teachers need to achieve. They suggested using faculty evaluations, self-evaluations, and student evaluations to obtain a holistic perspective of teacher effectiveness. The most common gatekeeper is the immediate supervisor, as supervisors are expected to determine the degree of performance of their employees. However, this is not always the case due to problems with the supervisor’s performance assessments (Lussier & Hendon, 2019).
Faculty Evaluation and Process
Performance evaluations and management are crucial components of the evaluation process; they are focused on identifying, measuring, monitoring, and enhancing human resource performance (Lussier & Hendon, 2019). According to Lussier and Hendon (2019), the primary functions of appraisals are communication, decision-making (evaluation), and motivation (engagement). These are to encourage formal communication between supervisors and employees, allowing for two-way communication with unambiguous feedback about employee performance to contribute to an organization (Ogunlana & Oshinaike, 2016). This assists organizations in preventing or resolving performance issues by understanding what is required, when it is required, and how everyone’s contribution compares (Lussier & Hendon, 2019).
The performance evaluation system was instituted as a four-step process and all the flows are bidirectional (Lussier & Hendon, 2019; Stewart & Brown, 2019).
Task Scrutiny
A small element of the workflow is task or job analysis, which entails identifying the work activities performed by employees and the knowledge and skills required to accomplish the tasks efficiently (Lussier & Hendon, 2019). The methods used in task analysis differ based on the task being analyzed, and evidence may include duties, position, background, education, work experiences, training courses, and self-assessment reports. Another method, job analysis, has been established in accordance with the organization’s standards. As previously stated, employees must comprehend their job-related knowledge, skills, and attitudes, and the performance management process must guide them toward the achievement of the organization’s mission and objectives (Lussier & Hendon, 2019; Stewart & Brown, 2019).
Establish Standards and Measurement Methods
Employee performance is evaluated using a standard form developed by the human resources department in the performance appraisal process (Lussier & Hendon, 2019). Employees are evaluated based on job-related behaviors and individual effort rather than personal characteristics. Individual effort and performance are graded on a scale of excellent, good, average, fair, and poor in behavioral assessments. Graphic rating scale forms are widely utilized in formal performance appraisals, as they involve little time, effort, cost, or training (Lussier & Hendon, 2019; Stewart & Brown, 2019). Supervisors set specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) objectives for each employee in this phase based on self-assessment evidence (Lussier & Hendon, 2019).
Informal Performance Evaluation by Coaching and Disciplining
Performance evaluation, as indicated in its definition, is continuous. Supervisors devote significant time to coaching and developing employees, which organizational leaders recognize as the true responsibility of a manager. Positive feedback produces a sense of accomplishment that fosters persistent effort, as long as employees have goals that allow them to do their best. They require frequent positive feedback on their work to understand the quality of their performance; therefore, they use coaching even when a formal review occurs only once or twice per year (Lussier & Hendon, 2019; Stewart & Brown, 2019).
The annual or biannual informal approach does not ensure the effectiveness of the performance review process. It depends on the supervisors’ interpersonal skills in continuous critical incident coaching. Moreover, it relies on effective performance measurements that are accurate enough to explain to everyone why they are graded at a specific level (evaluative) and how they should improve (developmental) for the next assessment. At the conclusion of the meeting and discussion, the supervisor and employee agree to approach the final stage.
Prepare for and Conduct Formal Performance Appraisals
The supervisor uses three methods of evaluation in this phase to encourage improvement: (1) critical incidents noted in self-assessment reports, (2) letters of recommendation indicating strengths and weaknesses that serve as a written record, and (3) ranking from worst to best throughout the performance period (Lussier & Hendon, 2019; Stewart & Brown, 2019). Key episodes are frequently used for developmental decisions as well as evaluative judgments. For legal reasons, a list of documented critical episodes that led up to the decision to fire individuals must be kept on hand. The decision to award workers is made by the supervisor based on their performance during the last section of the assessment. The annual wage increase for the employee will be determined using the evaluation findings as a reference. Both giving praise for a work well done and taking corrective action when standards are not met are facets of coaching between supervisor and employee (Lussier & Hendon, 2019; Stewart & Brown, 2019).
To summarize, all the performance appraisal steps demonstrated that supervisors use the authority (top-down) approach to plan and decide the achievement of employees rather than allowing employees to decide how to improve their careers and enhance personal development. The researcher used all four elements of the continuous performance evaluation process in developing a conceptual framework for this study, with the exception that all the flows were bidirectional. The performance appraisal process, as previously stated, highlights a potential gap between the theoretical model and reality.
Professional Development of Teacher Educators
Professional development is defined as the improvement of formal and informal knowledge and skills in a particular profession and is an important part of professional practice (Berry, 2021; Srinivasacharlu, 2019). The members of a well-established profession are responsible for their particular professional growth, which is one of the most important characteristics of the profession. Teacher educators have to devote their whole careers to professional growth if they want to maintain their status as professionals (Van der Klink et al., 2017).
Consequently, training is described as a deliberate event in which participants learn something that will help them perform better at work. The majority of institutions, regardless of size or structure, provide at least some formal and informal training to assist employees’ learning (Srinivasacharlu, 2019). These organizations benefit from providing training, as this helps employees achieve their strategic objectives by equipping them with the specific knowledge, abilities, and attitudes required to make strategic objectives a reality (Stewart & Brown, 2019). Furthermore, as second-order practitioners (Murray & Male, 2005), teacher educators must improve the quality of their work through professional development to “become the best professionals they can be” (Smith, 2003, p. 203). One exception is Smith (2017), who provides a unique perspective by discussing her personal career journey and the valuable lessons that can shape the professional development of teacher educators in the future. Smith (2017) emphasizes two crucial factors that contributed to her growth: self-improvement or regulation to step outside her comfort zone and embrace new challenges, as well as the importance of cooperation with colleagues. Similarly, Van der Klink et al. (2017) conducted a study examining teacher educators’ concerns regarding their engagement in professional development activities, such as informal study programs and consultations with peers. Like Smith (2017), they emphasize the significance of personal motivation and professional development as driving forces for enhancing the field. According to Czerniawski et al. (2017), the primary challenges faced by participants in professional development activities are limited time and heavy workloads.
Methodology
This study followed the qualitative case study design (Yin, 2011, 2014), which is appropriate to inquire “how” and “why” research questions.
Sample
This study was conducted at two TECs located in Phnom Penh Royal City and Battambang Province. In the development of ESP2014–18, MoEYS emphasized teacher education reform through the Teacher Policy (MoEYS, 2013), Teacher Policy Action Plan (TPAP; MoEYS, 2015), and Teacher Education Provider Standard (MoEYS, 2016b). The need to transition to a “teacher education” system, where teachers are considered qualified professionals through a four-year education program (12 + 4), was also highlighted (MoEYS, 2017). In 2017, the Battambang Teacher Education College (BTEC) and Phnom Penh Teacher Education College (PTEC) were established by merging the two campuses of the Regional Teacher Training Center and the Provincial Teacher Training Center in the respective cities. These colleges offer pre- and in-service teacher training programs for primary and lower secondary school teachers, following the 12 + 4 (12 years of basic education and 4 years to obtain a Bachelor of Education) formula. The program leads to a Bachelor of Education degree for basic education (grades 1–9) (MoEYS, 2017).The total number of teacher educators in both TECs was 171. This study included 108 teacher educators. Participants with 0 to 2 years of teaching experience in TECs who had not completed a training course for performance evaluations (n = 18) were excluded from the study. Furthermore, 65 participants were excluded due to incomplete questionnaires or withdrew from the study. The final sample included 25 participants, who were lecturers with an average of 3 years of experience in teaching student teachers (12 + 4). Among the 25 participants, 4 were department heads. Participation was voluntary, and all participants provided written informed consent. This study was approved by the ethics committees of the two TECs.
Data Collection
This study was conducted from September 2021 to August 2022. The participants had been trained on how to evaluate their performance and use standards for teacher educators and had finished their performance assessment cycle (2021–2022). Directors and deputy directors of TECs provided a three-day training (professional standards for teacher educators, performance evaluation and how to implement performance process) to all staff in the two TECs. After completing the training, individual teacher educators began to conduct performance evaluation. Two data collection methods were used: document analysis and semi-structured interviews. Bowen (2009) argued that document analysis can be used to interpret and develop empirical knowledge about the study phenomenon. Therefore, data included documents related to the structure and content of professional standards for teacher educators (MoEYS, 2022), ROW assessments (MoEYS, 2021b), and self-assessment reports of teacher educators in the 2021 to 2022 academic year. Moreover, to investigate the participants’ perspective, the 25 purposive participants completed self-assessment reports and shared their professional development plans.
The data were collected through individual interviews with participants, which provided insight into this case study, and the researchers captured language and action through conversation (Hennink et al., 2020). Interviews were conducted in March 2022 regarding the participants’ perceptions of performance assessment procedures and effect of evaluations on professional development and dialogs with supervisors, such as deputy directors, deans, and head of departments. Questions were open-ended to receive rich information from participants, with follow-up questions when necessary. Before conducting the interviews, the researcher piloted interview questions with three teacher educators and a technical assistant not involved in this study who worked at TECs. The pilot led to adding some wording and content questions and adapting several others. Interviews were conducted online using Google Meet and took approximately 40 min by following the interview questions (Table 1). All data were kept confidential and used solely for the purpose of this study.
Interview Questions.
Data Analysis
This study employed inductive content analysis, which is one of the main approaches in qualitative research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Graneheim & Lundman, 2004; Yin, 2014). Data were analyzed and interpreted in two stages. In the first stage, the elements of analysis were categorized and chosen after identifying data aligning with the research purpose and questions. The resulting data and themes were sorted and improved by repeated data analyses to produce recurrent themes and patterns and build core categories. In the second stage, the main categories were generalized to provide descriptions that fit the data and research study as a whole.
Results
Faculty Evaluations at Teacher Education Institutions
The Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) prioritizes capacity building and human resource development in its Rectangular Strategies (MoEYS, 2019a). The Education Law aims to enhance educational quality and establish educators’ rights and obligations. The MoEYS has implemented various policies and regulations, such as the Education Strategic Plan and Human Resource Policy for the Education Sector. The Teacher Policy aims to develop comprehensive human resources, covering education quality from pre-school to upper secondary education and teacher training institutions. The policy focuses on improving pre-service teacher training education institutions and ensuring continuous professional development for teachers and teacher educators (MoEYS, 2013). To achieve these objectives, the Education Strategic Plan for 2019–2023 emphasizes the need for teacher education reforms, including improving teacher qualifications and ensuring quality in teacher education institutions (MoEYS, 2019a).
This study examined the purpose of faculty evaluations, mechanisms of designing performance evaluations, and structure of and procedure for performance evaluations. The results indicated that faculty evaluations aimed to develop competent second-order practitioners for the 21st century with high academic and professional standards for teacher educators are anticipated to know (knowledge), be able to do (skills), and have the right attitudes to become competent teacher educators (MoEYS, 2022).
Evaluations assess teacher educators’ efforts in implementing the standards in all departments within TECs in alignment with Cambodia’s teacher standards (MoEYS, 2016a, 2019b), the Accreditation Committee of Cambodia (ACC, 2010; Accreditation Committee of Cambodia [ACC], 2004), the national qualifications framework (Royal Cambodian Government, 2014) and teacher education provider standards (MoEYS, 2016b). Furthermore, evaluations cooperate with internal quality assurance in TECs (MoEYS, 2018). Evaluations serve the goals of the TECs to achieve high standards of teacher education, teaching, learning, and research among teacher educators and student teachers to ensure systematic internal quality improvement (MoEYS, 2021a).
In 2021, faculty evaluations were developed by TECs for professional development. Self-assessment uses questionnaires to set personal development goals and Continuous Professional Development (CPD) targets. It comprises six professional standards and behavioral indicators for teacher educators (MoEYS, 2022): (1) professional knowledge, (2) professional practice, (3) professional development, (4) professional ethics, (5) educational research, and (6) program development.
Initial performance evaluation was developed during a working meeting with the management team (TEC directors and deputy directors) and a technical adviser in February 2020. The standards for teacher educators were considered. The plenary and working group talks produced some broad concepts for professional standards for teacher educators. In June 2020, the original draft was developed and reviewed by MoEYS officials, TEC management, and TEC department heads and deputy heads. All academic staff in both TECs attended an online workshop on standards for teacher educators, and the standards were implemented in September 2021. In February 2022, MoEYS signed and approved the professional standards for teacher educators.
The process for performance evaluation was created by the management team of TECs and consulting and feedback with other stakeholders and heads and vice heads of each department. All heads, vice heads of department, deputy directors, and directors are named supervisors and evaluators, depending on organizational structure in TECs. According to the performance evaluation conducted in line with the organizational structure of each TEC, evaluations are performed as follows:
All teacher educators are evaluated by the department vice-head;
All department vice-heads are evaluated by the department head;
All department heads are evaluated by the TEC deputy director.
Supervisors are responsible for four teacher educators within the same specialty and must follow the procedure for performance evaluation, including three phases: self-assessment, professional development, and ROW assessment. Table 2 lists the performance evaluation procedures based on MoEYS (2021b, 2022).
Performance Evaluation (Self-Assessment, Professional Development, and ROW Assessment) Procedure and Timeframe.
Source. Adapted with permission from MoEYS (2021b).
Improving Professional Development Through Performance Evaluation
Self-assessment
At the end of the 2020 to 2021 academic year, participants used the self-assessment tool to self-evaluate based on the list of professional standards with behavioral indicators, behavioral anchors, and work outputs. The participants rated their performance on a five-point Likert scale (1 = not applicable, 2 = not very well, 3 = not well, 4 = well, 5 = outstanding). This approach is fast and does not require significant data gathering and analysis. However, the results may not be accurate, as data are self-reported. Nevertheless, this self-assessment tool provides the opportunity to assess skills, attitudes, and knowledge, which are key elements of an effective teacher educator. This assessment could help teacher educators identify the key standards and assist with reflection and goal setting.
According to self-assessment reports from participants and teacher educators (TE), the majority identified writing as a weak area in their professional development plans. The areas align with the following core domains of professional standards (MoEYS, 2022): (1) professional practice (teaching methodologies), (2) educational research (knowledge and skill of educational research), and (3) program development (develop syllabi, coursebooks and teaching materials) (evident in the examples provided by TE1, TE2, TE3, TE4, TE5, TE11, TE18, and TE25).
Contract Agreement
In the first phase, participants brought their self-assessment reports to discuss their strengths and weaknesses with their supervisors. Furthermore, participants set planned activities and expected results for a specific period and sent these plans for approval to their supervisors. In mid-November, the supervisors met the teacher educators for approximately 30 min to discuss their plans and possible development activities. Four participants used professional development plans from their self-assessment reports and finished their ROW assessment as the final stage. The other 21 did not finish their ROW assessment, as they could not complete the document for each stage due to time constraints and didn’t know how to write and the process because it was complicated. In other words, their evaluators did not know the process to inform and guide them on how to conduct performance evaluation.
“After completing the self-assessment tool, I created a plan to improve my skills by prioritizing the areas that I have not fully grasped: (1) teaching methods, (2) mentoring during teaching practicum and evaluation, and (3) research. I have created a specific timeline for these development activities, and I intend to discuss this plan with my supervisor for guidance and support. While this plan is new to me, it is important for me to recognize my own needs.” (TE5, 2022)
Performance Review
In the second phase, midway through the academic year, participants received performance reports and sent them to the supervisors to monitor and assess their progress. At the end of April, the supervisors met with teacher educators to provide feedback and suggestions on achieving the results they want before final assessment.
Furthermore, based on professional development plans, the participants focused on improving teaching quality by engaging in lesson study to address pedagogical weaknesses, microteaching, assessment, and preparing lessons of educational research. In addition, four participants began working on textbooks for their respective courses. Moreover, the participants processed the lesson study activities every Thursday afternoon with their colleagues. One participant encouraged her student teachers to practice microteaching as part of their teaching methodology. One participant compiled lessons for their students at the end of the course.
“I have received training in a microteaching course, and I use this method with student teachers to allow them to practice teaching specific parts of a lesson in a condensed timeframe. I regularly incorporate this method when teaching student teachers about teaching methods.” (TE5, 2022) “This year, I signed a contract to write a 200-page coursebook, which is currently being written. Additionally, I will be writing two more coursebooks next year. Writing coursebooks is an important responsibility for teacher educators, as they serve as documentation for the next generation to learn from. If we [teacher educators] could create these coursebook and documents, our student teachers would have a fundamental resource to research or learn from. I have prepared some basic documents that provide student teachers with guidelines and ideas to access additional resources beyond what we have available.” (TE3, 2022)
ROW Assessment
At the end of August, participants completed final reports regarding their achievements in academic year of 2021 to 2022 and submitted them to the supervisors. Subsequently, the supervisors discussed the contents with the teacher educators and gave final assessments and recommendations. The teacher educators used the results of the final assessments to reflect on their work and develop new plans and contract agreements for the next academic year. Moreover, the supervisors who were the heads or deputy heads of departments played an important role and had a dual function in performance evaluation procedures. As part of their role as evaluators, they examined, coached, and assessed the documents provided by each participant. They examined the following questions: “Are these documents adequate evidence to illustrate that you are an experienced teacher educator?” and “Are the performance evaluations intended to promote professional development or to serve as quality assurance for teacher educators?” Supervisors acted as a resource by providing participants with information about their qualifications. They also assigned “unsatisfactory” ratings to the four participants regarding their goals and results. Moreover, they helped participants set professional development goals and strategies for their own growth for the next academic year.
“As all the work at TEC is new to me, I can self-assess that the implementation of my work was not smooth and did not produce the desired results. All the problems and challenges that I didn’t complete this year, I hope to complete next year. All my weaknesses aside, I have to develop my knowledge and skills for this new experience to get good results in the next year. We need a process for teacher educators to upgrade and increase their knowledge and skills to educate student teachers effectively.” (TE1, department head, 2022) “After I finish my self-assessment, professional development plan, and outcome, I would like to share my experiences with my supervisor and other colleagues in my department. It is important for other teacher educators to participate and understand the importance of professional development to become professionals by receiving promotions and rewards.” (TE25, 2022)
To sum up, the results of performance evaluation were used to self-evaluate the achievement of CPD plans and share them with supervisors and colleagues.
Performance Evaluation of Teacher Educators
Professional development of teacher educators can be considered in terms of diverse frameworks and models. The technique by which a group of colleagues attain requirements that are the foundation of their profession enhances the overall quality of services provided by an experienced teacher educator. The presence of experienced teacher educators with suitable training and strong conceptions of professionalism demonstrates that the department sets high-quality standards and indicates a professional organization. In this sense, “professional development” refers to a person’s efforts to improve the quality of their teacher educators’ professions and their goal to “be the great professionals they can be” (Smith, 2003, p. 203). In addition, the professional development of teacher educators includes the most private, independent learning from their experiences. Furthermore, informal development possibilities in schools are included in this category. Formal learning opportunities and training programs are also available (Srinivasacharlu, 2019).
A vital component of the ROW assessment is the ability to self-regulate. Starting with a self-evaluation, the team developed a ROW assessment method that served as a starting point for the process. The participants examined their personal problems, such as the time required for teaching and other tasks assigned by TEC directors, and conveyed their findings to the supervisors. During each step of the process, the participants relied on the standards for analyzing their position or developing professional dialog with supervisors and their colleagues.
In June 2022, the researcher asked participants to share the files of their assessment procedure to determine how meaningful they anticipated this to be in the phases of performance evaluation. The participants defined the importance of the self-assessment procedure. For instance, in phases 1 and 2, all four participants agreed that the work was more important than anticipated in their initial self-assessment. All participants reflected on their work in the old academic year and continued to work in the new academic year (2021–2022). In phase 3, two participants, who were department heads, set few plans for professional development (supervision and lesson study in improving teaching and learning quality), as they played dual roles as administrators and teacher educators. The MoEYS assigned department heads as heads of technical teams. In addition, department heads must teach in the same way as other teacher educators. Therefore, department heads who were supervisors assessed either teacher educators’ work performance or prepared assessment report for deans to evaluate their tasks.
Virtually all participants reported beneficial results. In addition, all participants noticed changes in their own personal behaviors. Although the assessment procedures were designed to promote individual professional development subjectively, participants reported outcomes on a collective rather than individual level by sharing their experiences with colleagues in their department. Surprisingly, they reported results that were unrelated to the objectives they established for themselves at the outset. Moreover, the key focus of these findings appeared to be the participants’ values, self-esteem, and self-regulation. In some cases, the participants said that the assessments gave them “a more positive sense of themselves,” helped them develop their “personality and values,” and made them “look forward to teacher education more.”
“Being a teacher educator, we must [clearly] know our roles and responsibilities to make sure that we have actually performed our work with quality before getting recognized and encouraged. […] More importantly, meeting all requirements of the standard means that a teacher educator is really qualified, which may significantly influence the quality of teacher education, prospective teachers learning, and education as a whole.” (TE4, 2022) “To me, as a department head, we [must] self-evaluate like the staff [teacher educators] because we also must do a good job and develop ourselves regularly…. If we do not self-evaluate, we do not know how many results there will be. We need to self-evaluate our teaching practice and self-development plan to fulfill our weakness.” (TE1, 2022) “Of course, I really [knew] about the faculty evaluation and its procedure… I was well aware of the assessment qualities I should have, but I didn’t participate to develop them. The procedures of faculty evaluations were new concepts and difficult for me. Following feedback from the deputy director and department head, as well as student teachers’ evaluations, I decided to create my own professional plan and evaluate myself to improve my teaching and professional quality.” (TE3, 2022)
In conclusion, teacher educators and supervisors appreciated that the performance evaluation led to their personal growth and cultivation of a sense of responsibility as teacher educators.
Teacher Educators’ Evaluation of the Performance Evaluation Process
The participants evaluated (1) the performance evaluation process (e.g., organization, explanation, and orientation of procedure in actual practice), remaining annual performance evaluations, and requirements in evaluation, and (2) the degree of importance assigned by teacher educators to the work in each activity compared to the expected performance evaluation for different stages of performance evaluation.
Most of the participants who were faculty members agreed or strongly agreed that the process, which was organized but not well clarified, should continue annually and be required for all faculty members, including new and experienced teacher educators, department heads, and vice heads, and directors and deputy directors in TECs.
“I am satisfied with the organization of the evaluation, but some points are not clear and are difficult to answer properly. They should be corrected to make them easier to understand. The process of preparing the explanation was somewhat difficult due to some ambiguities, and the explanation was required to be cited as an example. We have not conducted an evaluation for quite some time.” (TE18, 2023)
In addition, the participants responded that supervisors should provide positive feedback and dialog as well as constructive feedback as evaluators. Performance evaluation involves more than merely improving teaching practice and introducing insightful teaching methods; it also evaluates teacher educators’ professional development activities.
Although the general comments from the participants were positive, the process of performance evaluation was ineffective. The majority of teacher educators only completed a self-evaluation report and a professional development plan. They kept their assessments in their teaching portfolio. Based on interview results, teacher educators identified the professional development objectives set for themselves, types of professional development activities in which they participated, and goals of their professional development activities. Specifically, teacher educators who voluntarily participated in the performance evaluation were able to set professional development goals for themselves. In addition, they were challenged to participate in a wide range of professional development activities because they didn’t attend the professional development activities. The management team didn’t nominate them to attend the training or workshops because there were limited participants and budgets support. Moreover, they perceived that their participation professionally benefited them and their professional setting.
“Regarding the assessment and support from supervisors, there are still limitations. The support does not meet our needs and the systematic evaluation should be stronger and clearer to align with the support provided through the common professional development plans of teacher educators. Conducting assessments should be considered an obligation of every teacher educator. The evaluation also reflects the abilities of teacher educators as compared to the standards.” (TE 20, 2023)
Participants defined the importance of the steps of performance evaluation procedure. For instance, for Steps 1, 3, and 5, all participants agreed that the work was more important than anticipated during their initial self-assessment of their work performance, setting goals and plans for professional development, and developing teaching portfolio. Table 3 presents the evaluation of the performance process adopted by MoEYS (2021b).
Degree of Importance Compared to Anticipated Performance Evaluation (N*= 25).
Source. Adapted with permission from MoEYS (2021b).
In summary, although teacher educators appreciated that performance evaluation led to personal professional development and cultivated a sense of responsibility in the workplace, the processes remained limited.
Discussion
The main strength and effectiveness of performance evaluation was due to the involvement of teacher educators and supervisors during the design and enactment phases. These results were in line with the findings of previous studies (Hallinger, 2010; Lussier & Hendon, 2019; Stewart & Brown, 2019). In the Cambodian context, supervisors serve dual functions as evaluators and those who are evaluated. Evaluators adhere to the organizational structure established by the TEC management team for training courses and coaching.
In TECs, management teams selected professional development by following procedures for performance evaluation and used self-assessment to set personal development goals and CPD targets. This differed from other institutions that used the best practice in teaching (Hallinger, 2010). In this sense, performance evaluations aim to achieve student learning outcomes and improve the quality of second-order practitioners’ professionalism to “be the great professionals they can be” (Smith, 2003, p. 203). Previous studies revealed that supervisors develop targets with SMART goals to evaluate the performance of teacher educators (Lussier & Hendon, 2019). In contrast, Cambodian teacher educators used professional development plans with specific objectives from their self-assessment reports for discussion with their supervisors.
The results of performance evaluations are used as a frame of reference of self-regulation and self-improvement, defining both individual and team strengths and development opportunities, as well as indicators for evaluating teacher educators’ performance. Performance evaluation procedures are not only beneficial for personal responsibility but also widely recognized and respected as a meaningful tool for the personal and professional development of teacher educators.
Previous studies included four stages of performance evaluation process: task analysis, development of standards and measurement methods, informal performance evaluation, and preparing for and conducting formal performance evaluation (Lussier & Hendon, 2019; Stewart & Brown, 2019). The present results revealed that the study institutions applied these stages differently. The participants conducted job analyses by including self-assessment reports at the beginning of the academic year; however, this step depended on contract renewal at the end of performance evaluations. Although the performance evaluation process varied slightly, it benefited teacher educators and management teams and helped improve teaching quality in the TECs. For instance, in the first assessment (contract agreement) of the performance evaluation process, performance planning and assessment were incorporated. ROW assessment was significant in the performance evaluation in the third assessment. Evaluators gathered all reports from the teacher educators assigned to them and provided final assessments and recommendations. The outcomes of the previous evaluation were used by teacher educators to reflect on their new plan and contract agreement for the following academic year.
The faculty evaluation processes were organized and explained and provided teacher educators constructive feedback. Similar to previous studies, the faculty evaluation processes were limited, as evaluations were voluntary (Gómez & Valdés, 2019). Some evaluators were new and did not have experience in coaching and giving feedback to teacher educators. In addition, participants who were supervisors stated that they learned from their work as both evaluators and those who were evaluated based on professional development plans and outcomes and participated in constructive discussions or professional dialogs. To increase participation, this process requires all faculty members to serve as gatekeepers. The interview results suggested that this assumption was justified, with the majority of participants agreeing that contributing as a gatekeeper would advance their knowledge, skills, and attitudes in teaching and coaching.
A lack of documentation skills, including writing accurate self-assessment reports and development plans in a timely manner, made it difficult to evaluate all teacher educators in each department. Therefore, the evaluation procedure encouraged but did not require faculty members to submit their assessments for annual performance review or promotion and reward system. Most of the faculty members who were evaluated “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that self-assessments, professional development plans, and the ROW assessment cycle were included in their annual performance evaluations. To prepare performance evaluations, supervisors established clear plans and schedules for annual evaluations with specific times and helped guide teacher educators on completing documents during each phase. Participants stated that faculty evaluations provided opportunities for CPD; however, opportunities were limited. Therefore, including faculty evaluations annually would be more informative. All CPD activities were reported to improve their professional skills and address their needs as teacher educators.
The participants noted that time was a limitation. Similarly, a previous study reported that the performance evaluation process was time-consuming (Adachi et al., 2018; Lussier & Hendon, 2019; Stewart & Brown, 2019). In the Cambodian context, teacher educators with work overloads, such as teaching more than20 hr/week, find it challenging to manage their time. TEC management teams should encourage and support supervisors and teacher educators to practice faculty development in each department. TEC management teams should facilitate the development of quality teacher educators using a promotion and reward system.
In summary, faculty evaluations, including organization, process, and stages, significantly contribute to the effectiveness of TECs in Cambodia. These evaluations should serve as crucial documents for the MoEYS to assess promotion and rewards. By evaluating faculty members, supervisors gain a comprehensive understanding of the needs and areas for improvement among teacher educators. This facilitates their professional development through professional dialog. Furthermore, teacher educators benefit from the evaluations by gaining insights into their own areas for growth and making informed decisions based on their needs, with the assurance of receiving necessary support.
Conclusion
This study offered insights for teacher educators to acquire a broad knowledge of the teaching profession, professional skills, and career encouragement through job analysis and the formulation of continuous development plans. The influence of faculty evaluations is crucial in teacher education institutions, particularly in Cambodia. The faculty evaluation process contributes to the development of a well-prepared evaluation system that can address the educational challenges and professional development of teacher educators, the needs of TECs, and other teacher education institutions in Cambodia. This fulfills the quality assurance of teacher education institutes as set in the teacher education reform policy effectively (MoEYS, 2019a).
This study addressed a gap in the literature and demonstrated that designing and using faculty evaluations was beneficial for faculty members’ self-improvement, self-regulation of continuous development plans, and culture of professional dialogs in institutions. Performance evaluations assessed individual performance of teacher educator in current work and development plans. Performance evaluations served two functions: evaluating teacher educators’ current work performance to identify strengths and weakness and providing information to support individual professional development plans and goals, as well as transfers and contract renewals. Moreover, the findings revealed that performance evaluations create supportive collaborations including professional dialogs between teacher educators and supervisors and enhance teacher educator performance and integration of institutional values and goals. However, faculty performance evaluations require further attention. TECs could clearly set goals, provide positive feedback, and train staff on conducting self-assessments and completing professional development plan documents and relevant reports. Furthermore, educational leaders should evaluate the professional development plans proposed by teacher educators and incorporate them into their regular programs to enhance the ability of teacher educators. This can promote continual growth and development among teacher educators. Performance evaluations provided an opportunity for teacher educators to share their teaching philosophies and learn new skills and competencies from each another. Establishing professional development plans allowed faculty members to enhance their lecturing skills in the classroom. These opportunities should be provided to all faculty members to determine appropriate activities. Supervisors should support and value faculty evaluations and professional discussions. Teacher education institutions in Cambodia have struggled to prepare qualified and competent teachers. This study focused on the process of faculty performance evaluations; however, the impact of professional development was not investigated. In addition, although professional standards for teacher educators were utilized in the evaluation process, this study did not discuss them. Therefore, further research should examine how to evaluate CPD activities of second-order practitioners. Evaluations of teacher educator CPD based only on self-assessment and evaluations by supervisors are subjective and limited. Performance evaluations of teacher educators should include self-assessments (participant reaction, participant learning and CPD plans, faculty members’ use of new knowledge and skills), student teacher evaluations, and co-performance, and faculty evaluations (Guskey, 2000).
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author would like to express deep appreciation to Prof. Maki Takayoshi for his valuable comments and constructive suggestions throughout this study. Sincere thanks also go to Mr. Sopha Soeung, and anonymous reviewers who provided crucial comments on the manuscript, strengthening the writing of this paper, as well as to the participants in this study for providing me with their valuable time and informative responses. Moreover, the author would like to thank the participants of this study for providing their valuable time and informative responses.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the JICA scholarship (the Project for SDGs Global Leadership by Japanese Grant Aid) provided by the Japanese people and the Japanese government.
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.