Guidelines for Peer Review of Teaching

 

Frequently Asked Questions and Answers

 

The University Task Force Report on the Assessment of Teaching and Learning has constructed these guidelines to assist departments in conducting peer reviews of teaching. The guidelines are intended to orient faculty members to new expectations for peer reviews of teaching and to help expedite the review process.

 

Q: What should a peer review reflect?

 

Peer review of teaching should reflect multiple sources of information, including course materials and student work as well as observations of contact time with students. Reviews of materials and in-class practices should include a variety of class sizes and instructional levels (e.g., undergraduate, graduate, survey, upper division course, etc.) as appropriate to the faculty member’s instructional responsibilities. The resulting evaluations should address both strengths and areas to target for improvement.

 

Q: Who should conduct peer reviews of teaching?

 

Peer reviews of teaching are most effective when they are conducted by more than one individual over multiple periods. Because best teaching practices differ across disciplines, it is strongly recommended that peer reviews are conducted by faculty members from the same department, preferably by different reviewers each year. Peer reviewers need not be at an equivalent or higher rank to the person being reviewed. At the request of a faculty member, a reviewer external to the department or the University could be solicited to provide a reference on the quality of the content, instructional design, or student work evident in the faculty member’s course or teaching portfolio.

 

Q: How often should we conduct peer reviews of teaching?

 

There are no definitive rules regarding how often peer reviews are conducted, other than prior to third-year reviews and tenure decisions for tenure-track faculty and prior to decisions for associate professors being considered for promotion to full professor. Peer review in any given year may focus on class materials, class observations, or other documentation. The review prior to the third-year review, the pre-tenure review, and review for promotion to full professor should consider the entire portfolio.

 

Q: What materials should be provided by the faculty member under review?

 

1.   Teaching materials to demonstrate the intellectual content of teaching:

• Syllabi, preferably annotated to highlight decisions made in including material and choosing aspects of the field to include, exclude, or emphasize in the course.
• Selected course materials (readings, demonstrations, grading standards/rubrics).
• Evidence of innovative techniques or materials used in teaching.

2.   Student voice and evidence of student learning:

• Midterm and end-of-the-semester student feedback forms, both quantitative and optional qualitative comments.
• Samples of assignments students use to demonstrate their understanding of key course goals. For each assignment chosen for review, reviewees should provide two A papers (or equivalent category of judgment), two B papers, and two C papers, along with the distribution of performance for the entire class.

3.   Teaching narrative: This is a short statement (one to two pages) that is the faculty member’s own account of how his or her teaching has developed over time. The teacher should pay particular attention to articulating how he or she defines course goals and assesses student learning. The statement should also include reflection on how the faculty member’s teaching experiences have shaped his or her goals and practices as a teacher.

           

Q: What are the responsibilities of peer reviewers?

 

1.     Interaction. After reviewing the materials provided by the reviewee, the peer reviewer and the reviewee should engage in a conversation about the faculty member’s teaching practices. The four-point, CTE guideline to peer reviews of teaching can serve as a useful framework for this conversation (see attached).

2.     Documentation: The peer reviewer prepares comments regarding the faculty member’s teaching practices, including preparation for courses, conduct in and outside of class, and methods of assessing teaching effectiveness and student learning. The recommended organization of these comments would reflect the four key facets of teaching described in CTE’s guideline to peer reviews of teaching: quality of intellectual content, quality of teaching practices, quality of student understanding, and evidence of reflective consideration and development.

3.     Classroom observations: The peer reviewer may find it useful to visit the faculty member’s class to see how ideas and objectives are put into practice, how the faculty member engages with students, and how students respond and engage with the instructor and with class material. Peer reviewers may also observe contact time with students outside of the classroom. Please note that, contrary to prior norms, these observation should NOT be the sole or even primary focus of peer evaluations.

 

Q: Where can I find additional resources on teaching and peer evaluations?

 

1. Task Force Report on the Assessment of Teaching and Learning (http://www2.ku.edu/~unigov/TFATL08FR.shtml)
2. University of Kansas Documents for Promotion and Tenure

(http://www.provost.ku.edu/policy/faculty/evaluation.shtml)

3. Samples of Documentation:

a.     Peer review letters

(http://www.cte.ku.edu/knowingGoodTeaching/peerReview/letters.shtml)

b.     Teaching Reflection Statements (http://www.cte.ku.edu/knowingGoodTeaching/reflectivePractice)

c.     Course Portfolios (http://www.cte.ku.edu/teachingInnovations/gallery)