How evaluation processes affect the professional development of five teachers in higher education

Main Article Content

Leah Shagrir


This paper presents research that investigates the nature of the connection between the professional development of five teachers in higher education and the evaluation processes they have to undergo. Since teaching, scholarship, and service are the three components that evaluation measures, this research examines how the teachers’ professional development was reflected in these components, and how they viewed the connection between their professional activities and the evaluation process. One conclusion states that while the  evaluation process is intimidating and taxing, it develops the skills for the teaching component. The contribution stems principally from a mentoring channel, which enables teachers to receive counseling and guidance from experienced veteran colleagues. Mentoring encourages the teachers and prompts them to seek advice, study, scrutinize their work methods, and improve the quality of their teaching. Another conclusion reveals that during the first years of work in higher education, evaluation was not found to influence activity in the scholarship and service components. The evaluation requirements notwithstanding, the extent of the activity in these components was limited and non-intensive as a result of the teachers’ focus on teaching. Professional development deepens and expands as seniority increases and confidence in one’s teaching abilities grow. Despite the limited scale of the study, the research conclusions may serve as recommendations for institutions of higher education to consider providing a mentoring channel for the teachers who are in their first years of academic work. Furthermore, institutions should demonstrate flexibility vis-à-vis the extent and depth of such individuals’ activity in scholarship and services when evaluating them. Another recommendation is to encourage institutions to take into account the advantages of veteran teachers, and the fact that professional activities deepen and expand as seniority increases.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Shagrir, L. (2012). How evaluation processes affect the professional development of five teachers in higher education. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(1), 23–35. Retrieved from
Author Biography

Leah Shagrir, Levinsky College of Education

School for Continuing Education and Professional Development, Levinsky College of Education, 15 Shoshana Persitz, Tel-Aviv, Israel, 61481.


Becker, E., Cotton, M. L. and Grizzle, G. (2003). The derived demand for faculty research. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(8), 549-567.

Brooks, R. L. (2005). Measuring university quality. The Review of Higher Education, 29(1), 121.

Caffarella, R. S. and Zinn, L. F. (1999). Professional development for faculty: A conceptual framework of barriers and supports. Innovative Higher Education, 23(4), 241-255.

Centra, J. A. (1983). Reaserch productivity and teaching effectiveness. Research in Higher Education, 18(4), 379-389. doi: 10.1007/BF00974804

Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). The unforgiving complexity of teaching, avoiding simplicity in the age of accountability. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 3-5.

Colbeck, C. L. (2002). Integration: Evaluating Faculty Work as a Whole. Evaluating Faculty Performance: New Directions for Institutional Research, 2002(114), 43-52.

Earl, H. (2008). Looking the other way? Accreditation standards and part time faculty. Academe, 94(2), 103-110.

Elen, J., Lindblom-Ylänne, S. and Clement, M. (2007). Faculty Development in ResearchIntensive Universities: The role of academics’ conceptions on the relationship between research and teaching. International Journal for Academic Development, 12(2), 123-139.

Findlow, S. (2008). Accountability and innovation in higher education: a disabling tension? Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 313-329.

Foote, K. E. and Solem, M. N. (2009). Toward better mentoring for early career faculty: results of a study of US geographers. International Journal for Academic Development, 14(1), 47-58.

Gaye, L. and Cullen, D. L. (1995). Empowering the faculty: Mentoring redirected and renewed [ERIC Digest]. Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Retrieved April 3 2010, from

Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 748-750.

Halse, C., Deane, E., Hobson, J. and Jones, G. (2007). The research–teaching nexus: what do national teaching awards tell us? Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 727-746.

Holsti, O. R. (1968). Content Analysis. In L. Gardner & A. Elliot (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 596-692). Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Huber, M. T. (2002). Faculty Evaluation and the Development of Academic Careers Evaluating Faculty Performance: New Directions for Institutional Research, 2002(114), 73-83.

Krahenbuhl, G. S. (1998). Faculty work. Change, 30(6), 18-25.

Landrum, R. E. and Clump, M. A. (2004). Departmental Search Committees and the Evaluation of Faculty Applicants. Teaching of Psychology, 31(1), 12-17. doi: 10.1207/s15328023top3101_4

Lord, T. (2009). "But, I Thought We Were Colleagues?" Professors Evaluating Professors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 38(3), 62-66.

Meizlish, D. and Kaplan, M. (2008). Valuing and evaluating teaching in academic hiring: A multidisciplinary, cross-institutional study. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 489-512.

O’Meara, K. A. (2002). Uncovering the values in faculty evaluation of service as scholarship. The Review of Higher Education, 26(1), 57-80.

Sabar-Ben-Yehoshua, N. (1990). Qualitative Research. Tel Aviv: Massada.

Secret, M., Leisey, M., Lanning, S., Polich, S. and Schaub, J. (2011). Faculty perceptions of the scholarship of teaching and learning: Definition, activity level and merit considerations at one university. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(3), 1-20.

Serow, R. C. (2000). Research and teaching at a research university. Higher Education, 40(4), 449-463. doi: 10.1023/A:1004154512833

Shagrir, L. (2010). Professional development of novice teacher educators: professional self, interpersonal relations and teaching skills. Professional Development in Education, 36(1-2), 4560. doi: DOI: 10.1080/19415250903454809

Shulman, L. S. (1998). Teaching and Teacher Education among the Professions. Paper presented at the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), New Orleans, Louisiana.

Smeby, J. C. (1998). Knowledge production and knowledge transmission. The interaction between research and teaching at universities. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(1), 5-20. doi: 10.1080/1356215980030101

Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical assessment, research & evaluation, 7(17). Retrieved June 21, 2011, from

Terpstra, D. E. and Honoree, A. L. (2009). The effects of different teaching, research, and service emphases on individual and organizational outcomes in higher education institutions. Journal of Education for Business, 84(3), 169-176.

Wenger, E. C. and Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 139-145.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: design and methods (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Zanting, A., Verloop, N. and Vermunt, N. J. D. (2003). Using Interviews and Concept Maps to Access Mentor Teachers' Practical Knowledge. Higher Education, 46, 195-214.