November 2005

END NOTE: Four facets of teaching for peer reviewers

Under the Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure Recommendations (2005-2006 Academic Year), faculty members who are completing peer reviews are encouraged to address the following four areas:

1. Quality of intellectual content

• Is the material in this course appropriate for the topic, appropriate for the curriculum and institution?

• Is the content related to current issues and developments in the field?

• Is there intellectual coherence to the course content?

• Are the intellectual goals for students well articulated and congruent with the course content and mission?

2. Quality of teaching practices

• Is the contact time with students well organized and planned, and if so, are the plans carried out?

• How much of the time are students actively engaged in the material?

• Are there opportunities (in or out of class) for students to practice the skills embedded in course goals?

• Are there particularly creative or effective uses of contact time that could improve student understanding?

• Are there any course structures or procedures that contribute especially to the likely achievement of understanding by students?

3. Quality of student understanding

• Is the performance asked of students appropriate for course goals, level of course, and for the institution?

• Does the performance requested include challenging levels of conceptual understanding and critical evaluation of the material appropriate to the level of the course and of the students?

• Are students being asked to demonstrate competence in the stated course goals? If not, is it possible to identify why?

• Are there obvious changes in the course that could improve performance?

• Are the forms of evaluation and assessment appropriate to the stated goals of the course?

• Are they particularly creative or do they provide students with opportunities to demonstrate their understanding using intellectual skills typical of the field?

• Is the weighting of course assignments in grade calculation coordinated with the relative importance of the course goals?

4. Summarizing the evidence of reflective consideration and development

• Has this faculty member made a sincere effort to insure that students achieve the goals for the course?

• Has the faculty member identified any meaningful relationship between what (s)he teaches and how students perform?

• Is there evidence the faculty member has changed teaching practices based on past teaching experiences?

• Is there evidence of insightful analysis of teaching practice that resulted from consideration of student performance?