Iranian Higher Education
1- Department of Educational Governance and Human Resources, NT.C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Higher Education, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran ,z-sabbaghian@sbu.ac.ir
3- Department of Assessment and Measurement, University of Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Higher Education, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran ,
3- Department of Assessment and Measurement, University of Tehran, Iran.
Abstract: (20 Views)
Objective: Despite importance of Faculty evaluation, previous studies in Iran indicate a lack of comprehensive research on the objectives, methods, and challenges of faculty evaluation. This study sought to address 5 questions: What are the objectives of faculty evaluation? What methods are used? Who are the target groups? What are the challenges? What are the related topics?
Method: This study was conducted through a systematic review of articles from 1381 to early Bahman 1402 (2002 to January 2024). The search was in databases including Irandoc, Civilica, NoorMags, Magiran, SID, and Google Scholar using keywords such as "faculty performance evaluation", "faculty performance assessment", "professor performance evaluation", and "professor performance assessment." A total of 684 articles were identified. The screening stages: initially, duplicate, review, and non-original articles were removed. The quality of 34 original research articles was assessed by four researchers specializing in higher education. The validity of the article selection process was confirmed with an inter-rater agreement coefficient of 0.98 (p<0.05). Qualitative content analysis was employed to extract themes related to objectives, methods, target groups, challenges, and research topics from texts of the articles.
Findings: The systematic analysis of the articles revealed that research on faculty performance evaluation in Iran has continued with high frequency and similar topics since 1381 (2002). Among the evaluation objectives, 14 articles focused on formative objectives (such as professional development and improving teaching performance), while only 3 articles addressed summative objectives (such as decision-making for promotion or rewards). This imbalance indicates a lack of unified policy frameworks and transparency in defining faculty role expectations. Evaluation methods were predominantly reliant on researcher-developed questionnaires, with no use of multi-source tools such as classroom observation or student outcome analysis.
Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate that the faculty performance evaluation system in Iran is still in its early stages. An overemphasis on formative objectives and student questionnaires, coupled with neglect of multi-source methods and individual faculty differences, highlights significant gaps in this field. To achieve effective evaluation, the establishment of specialized educational evaluation institutions is essential.
Method: This study was conducted through a systematic review of articles from 1381 to early Bahman 1402 (2002 to January 2024). The search was in databases including Irandoc, Civilica, NoorMags, Magiran, SID, and Google Scholar using keywords such as "faculty performance evaluation", "faculty performance assessment", "professor performance evaluation", and "professor performance assessment." A total of 684 articles were identified. The screening stages: initially, duplicate, review, and non-original articles were removed. The quality of 34 original research articles was assessed by four researchers specializing in higher education. The validity of the article selection process was confirmed with an inter-rater agreement coefficient of 0.98 (p<0.05). Qualitative content analysis was employed to extract themes related to objectives, methods, target groups, challenges, and research topics from texts of the articles.
Findings: The systematic analysis of the articles revealed that research on faculty performance evaluation in Iran has continued with high frequency and similar topics since 1381 (2002). Among the evaluation objectives, 14 articles focused on formative objectives (such as professional development and improving teaching performance), while only 3 articles addressed summative objectives (such as decision-making for promotion or rewards). This imbalance indicates a lack of unified policy frameworks and transparency in defining faculty role expectations. Evaluation methods were predominantly reliant on researcher-developed questionnaires, with no use of multi-source tools such as classroom observation or student outcome analysis.
Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate that the faculty performance evaluation system in Iran is still in its early stages. An overemphasis on formative objectives and student questionnaires, coupled with neglect of multi-source methods and individual faculty differences, highlights significant gaps in this field. To achieve effective evaluation, the establishment of specialized educational evaluation institutions is essential.
Type of article: Review |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2025/04/29 | Accepted: 2025/06/20 | ePublished ahead of print: 2025/09/19
Received: 2025/04/29 | Accepted: 2025/06/20 | ePublished ahead of print: 2025/09/19
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |