Making Systemic Changes: Questioning Meritocracy at the Faculty Level

(Image Caption: When thinking about a healthy ecosystem, the research team created this tree for inspiration. The roots show practices we hoped became norms and the branches represented the culture we wanted to cultivate.)

Using Asset-based Perspectives for a Peer Observation Tool in Tenure and Promotion

The Eco-STEM Project

The overarching goal of the Eco-STEM project, funded by an NSF-IUSE grant (#2013630) and hosted at California State University, Los Angeles, is to create supportive and culturally responsive learning¹ and working environments for all members of our university community including students, staff, and faculty. To create this environment, we focus on community assets, inspired by Tara Yosso’s Community Cultural Wealth,² to enhance motivation, excellence, and success, thus making teaching and learning rewarding and fulfilling experiences. The Eco-STEM project has three pillars it focuses on: Foundation, Implementation, and Assessment. You can learn more about the extent of the project here. The focus of this blog is on one aspect of the Implementation Pillar: Reimagining Faculty Evaluation process using an ecosystem, asset-based Peer Observation Tool (POT), a tool for faculty to conduct teaching peer evaluations.

The high-stakes nature of the traditional teaching evaluation has led to anxiety in faculty in literally “teaching to the test”, and with minimal opportunities for growth. Other common issues with traditional peer evaluations include the observed faculty never seeing the feedback, the peer evaluation being done in a rushed manner to meet a deadline, and having a review with no actionable items. In traditionally meritocratic cultures such as engineering, success is believed to come from hard work and natural abilities.³ When considering evaluating teaching as a meritocratic, unbiased process, it is difficult to emphasize the importance of learning and growth that is to come from the review process. In implementing this tool from an asset-based perspective, the research team has heard both overwhelmingly positive responses to the POT, and anxious concerns from faculty. Concerns include faculty wondering if feedback on what to improve can be misconstrued as a negative, such as someone not being a good educator, when this review goes in the evaluative process of Tenure and Promotion.  In this blog, we discuss reasons why these legitimate concerns faculty express come from the reproduction of an evaluation structure that is based on cultural beliefs and norms around merit.

The Peer Observation Tool (POT)

Traditional methods of conducting peer evaluation of teaching include faculty observing other faculty for Tenure and Promotion, with a focus on a summative evaluation. The philosophical approach for the proposed POT is one that the observer serves as a second set of eyes to provide feedback on areas and strategies that have been defined by the faculty being observed. The POT is intended to work as a constructive feedback mechanism for faculty, or as a formative evaluation of one’s teaching. This approach encourages faculty to focus on their growth as educators as opposed to meeting the evaluator’s idea of good teaching. The process for this Peer Observation Tool includes:

1. Observation partners meet to discuss what they want the other to focus on observing in their classroom. The Eco-STEM Project has provided a set of observable practices faculty can choose, which are structured around Climate, Structure, and Vibrancy of the class. See more details here.
2. Faculty then schedule times to observe each other’s classrooms and conduct observations.
3. Finally, faculty schedule another meeting after both faculty partners have conducted observations to reflect on the observations and provide detailed feedback.

The POT is most beneficial if used as part of a reflection on the feedback received and strategies for continuous improvement. This reflection can be used as part of evaluation for retention and promotion. In this approach, faculty are evaluated on the assessment and continuous improvement of their teaching, rather than what happens in one class. The Eco-STEM Wiki has the POT and examples on how to create more positive learning environments.

Many faculty who piloted this format really enjoyed the process, in that, compared to how peer assessments are traditionally conducted, the expectations were clear, and they had a say on what they were being evaluated on. Faculty appreciated that they could be observed on a range of practices, including ones they wanted to verify were going well and others they wanted feedback on because they were experimenting with them.

The unique aspects of this POT include the frameworks that influenced its development. This perspective includes the valuing of reflection, agency, and lifelong learning. Below, we have included extended descriptions and some quotes from faculty who have used the Peer Observation Tool.

• Guidance: The research-driven peer-observation tool outlines specific actions and behaviors expected from instructors to foster an inclusive learning environment. These behaviors focus on classroom Climate – supportive, inclusive and recognizing cultural assets, Structure that facilitates the learning process, and Vibrancy – levels of activity and engagement.
  • “I’m actually excited about this tool. The way they did it before was that we went to see other instructors, to see what they are doing, anything we can adapt. The way they framed it is very frustrating. A list of open schedules, pick the one(s) you were available. Also, they came to your class and then said you should do this, this, this, which may not be your style. This tool is more structured.”
• Lifelong Learning: Consistent with assets is the idea that faculty should be lifelong learners. In STEM, and specifically engineering, one goal is to get our students to learn how to learn as indicated by Student Outcome 7 from ABET, the Engineering Accreditation Commission. Being consistent with faculty, we acknowledge that faculty can always improve their teaching as new research on pedagogy is developed. This also keeps faculty with tenure excited to keep learning beyond their technical expertise.
  • “I like the list. I’ll just print it and put it on my desk! I’m excited to try and see what I’m doing well, maybe the observation will tell me what I’m doing well and what I can add to my class.”
• Reflection: One common thread in the Eco-STEM is reflection as a critical practice. When reflecting, one can process what one has learned and make informed decisions on how to do things differently next time if they do not go according to plan. By having faculty meet before and after the observation process, they have the time and space to articulate what they want to be evaluated on and discuss with another faculty how these changes can be made. The literature shows this process also helps with community building between colleagues.
• Agency: Finally, in giving faculty the ability to choose what they want to be evaluated on, faculty have a sense of control over what they want feedback on. This is consistent with Self Determination Theory, which maintains that an understanding of human motivation requires a consideration of innate psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness.⁴
  • “It was nice to choose what we wanted to be observed on. I chose some that I thought I wasn’t doing that I want to do.”

Tensions Between New Ways of Doing and Cultural Norms

One tension this project has come across is the difficulty in moving towards a more growth-minded perspective in a space that has historically overvalued merit-based, evaluative systems. STEM spaces are often critiqued for their overreliance on meritocracy.⁵ As our project aims to foster more asset-based perspectives to create more inclusive and equitable spaces for both students and faculty, we continue to face the tension of seeing individuals change and appreciate asset-based perspectives, while the meritocratic system remains focused on a system that recognizes and rewards those with the greatest talent and dedication.⁶

Although faculty appreciate the growth-focused nature of the new tool, when thinking about this tool as one that could be used for tenure and promotion, faculty often expressed more hesitance. Many made comments like, “Our life is dependent on a piece of paper that is put into our RTP profile.” When piloting the tool within their Eco-STEM cohort, faculty felt more comfortable choosing to be observed on aspects they were less confident about. The notion that the observer had no control on what defines effective teaching also made some senior faculty uncomfortable. Other comments focused on having two separate evaluations. One faculty member said, “I like how flexible this tool is. It’s not mechanical. I still want feedback on some other things too, but not ‘on paper.’” Similarly, another faculty in a different session said,

“My evaluators are people in my department [who] want me to be retained…As long as I’m doing a decent job. I can’t get useful feedback from them because they just want me to look good for the RTP process. I think it would be useful to have an avenue for peer-to-peer feedback that is separate from the RTP process.”

Each of these concerns makes more sense in a summative evaluation but are less of a concern in a formative evaluation focused on improvement and growth.

This blog post highlights the tension between the historical favoring of meritocracy and a change towards growth-oriented spaces that promotes DEIA. How can we create an equitable and inclusive education system, that so many talk about and seem to desire for the future of education, if the evaluation of faculty continues to promote a system that disregards individual strengths and focuses on merit rather than growth? As one faculty mentioned, “In the RTP workshop, [the Dean] told us it was comparative. So how can it be growth-oriented?”

Taking Action

The Eco-STEM team encourages others to try out the Peer Observation Tool, as we continue to get positive feedback on the tool. How do your faculty respond to this format? Can you try it within your department? Within your College or School? We also encourage different institutions to modify the tool for their setting, maybe adding what contributes to a positive climate, structure, and vibrancy in your setting.

Finally, in the spirit of the project of having Critically Reflective Dialogue, we provide a few questions you can ask yourself or your team when you come across resistance to change to identify the source of the concern.

• What is causing concern? Why?
• Is this concern related to meritocracy?
• Are we looking for a summative tool instead of a formative tool? Why?
  • Do we need this to be summative?
  • How can formative be helpful?
• Can we create equitable and inclusive learning spaces if faculty is evaluated on a meritocratic, one-size fits all basis?

Change is difficult, so we hope this Peer Observation Tool allows you to try something different in a small way in order to contribute to creating more inclusive STEM education environments.