Teacher identity and Student Evaluation
Teacher identity is central to the teaching profession, and teachers who identify with their teaching role are emotionally attached to this role, and it informs their worldview (van Lankveld et al. 2017). Identity, from a poststructuralist perspective, has many components and aspects, and is seen as “multiple, dynamic and conflictual, closely related to sociocultural contexts” (White & Ding, 2009, p.333), rather than being stable and fixed. It is created both by individuals and the society they live in (Cowie & Sakui, 2012), and van Lankveld et al. (2017, p.326) show that social and cultural forces influence the development of teacher identity and that the meanings and associations assigned to the role of the teacher help teacher development and identity maintenance.
Van Lankveld et al. (2017) in a qualitative synthesis of 59 studies into the development of teacher identity, showed that in 23 studies work environments either enhanced or constrained teacher identity. Positive work environments were perceived as collegial and supportive, had a value system in place, and teachers experienced a sense of community with emotional and practical support. Conversely, a neo-liberal management culture in universities affects teacher identity (van Lankveld et al. 2017, p.330) caused by competition between universities which have introduced “market mechanisms” such as quality assessments and audits. These mechanisms suppress creativity, trivialize teaching, and undermine core academic values.
Mercer and Gregersen (2020) suggest that teachers who identify with, and are committed or bonded to their institutions and those people that comprise them, encourage workplace well-being if teachers identify with institutional goals. Institutional ethos is mediated by the cultural mixes of teachers and students (Smith, 2003), and influences how students respond to the teaching climate. If evaluation is seen as an ongoing needs assessment, we need to understand students’ expectations. This suggests that a reliance on SETs as the sole evaluation tool is insufficient. There is a need for less of an evaluative emphasis on mechanical processes in the classroom, and more of an emphasis on discovering the influence of the institutional environment which shapes the dispositions, virtues, character and practical judgments of persons (McLaughlin, 2005). Should teachers passively accept evaluation through SET as a prescribed, bureaucratic procedure, or question whether institutions are working with teachers on an individual basis, or working against teachers who somehow failed to meet mandated conditions? We need to look at evaluation feedback as support for implementing teacher development to enhance understanding and improve practice.
The declining birthrate in Japan means there is a near universalization of access (Huang, 2012) in which a “space in the higher education system exists for every person who wants one” (Laurence, 2016, p. 263) and the vacant seats in universities has greatly influenced Japanese government policy decisions. The introduction of evaluation can be seen as a result of the mass popularization of education (MEXT, 2004) and universities and teaching are facing strong criticism that the content of instruction and teachers’ abilities do not reflect the changes in the student population including their diversified needs and abilities. MEXT has initiated a rush for reform to “revitalize” (MEXT, 2004) tertiary education. While there are many strands to the complex web of educational change, there has been a wide expansion of university reforms including the introduction of student evaluation of teaching surveys (SETs). Also, MEXT (2009) established quality assurance and the university accreditation system to improve the characteristics of academic activities. All universities are expected to conduct self-examination and use “evaluation results positively in order to improve educational quality” (MEXT, 2009, p. 5) to meet diverse learning needs.