Resources for Teaching Evaluation

Purpose | Summative Review | Formative Review | Resources

Purpose

Teaching is central to the role of faculty in the College of Arts and Science, integral to the mission of the college, and a practice we all pursue as a community. It is therefore essential that we ensure excellence and equity in teaching. Regular evaluation of teaching provides data and dedicated time for essential reflection and self-improvement (formative review) as well as for reappointment, promotion, and tenure decisions (summative review). The process of discussing, creating, and implementing evaluation criteria and processes creates critical opportunities for departments and programs to build a shared set of values around teaching and enhances our community around teaching practices.

To ensure a holistic evaluation of teaching for all faculty in the College of Arts and Science, three sources of information are required, recognizing that insights from each facet inform and enrich the overall assessment of teaching effectiveness:

Peer review of teaching;
Student reviews from online course evaluations; and
Self-assessment of the faculty member through a letter or personal statement.

As teaching is a shared practice among all faculty, the principles and processes for teaching evaluation of faculty of all ranks should be similar, though the summative review, final documents, and eligibility for serving as a reviewer may vary depending on the rank of the faculty (see below). Note that while teaching evaluation is required for reappointment, promotion, and tenure, it is also encouraged more regularly as a formative process.

Below are recommendations for best practices in the assessment of teaching in the college.

Return to top

Summative Review (for Reappointment and Promotion)

While evaluating teaching, departments and programs are encouraged to use templates and practices, developed in consultation with Faculty Council, and available through the A&S Office of Undergraduate Education. However, departments and programs may employ and/or adapt their specific forms and criteria as they elect. In either case, it is essential that this process employ clearly and transparently defined templates, practices, and criteria agreed upon by department/program faculty, and that this information is readily available to all faculty.
The following components are required for summative evaluation of teaching:

Chair’s memo: This should describe the chair’s overall evaluation of the candidate’s role in the undergraduate mission of the department. Topics that should be assessed in chair’s memo can include, but are not limited to, curriculum development, internship and independent study supervision, student advising, and undergraduate education leadership. Unit leaders should read all components of the teaching evaluation package before writing the overall memo, including the faculty member’s self-assessment, peer letters or report, and student reviews.
Self-assessments: These letters or statements (as dictated by the re-appointment, promotion, and tenure guidelines) should be reflective, discussing strengths and weaknesses in the context of both student and peer review. Faculty should also discuss their professional goals and other activities at the department, college, or university level that contribute to the undergraduate mission, including but not limited to curriculum development, internship and independent study supervision, and undergraduate education leadership. The teaching summary report and student reviews should be supplied as a PDF to the candidate by the department/program in advance of writing their self-assessment.
Peer review of teaching: Note the rank and title limitations described in the reappointment, promotion, and tenure guidelines. Departments and programs should adopt and implement processes, templates, and tools for peer review of teaching that adhere to best practices (see Resources below). Peer review of teaching should be arranged no later than the start of the semester in which it will occur, allowing time for a thorough and participatory process. While there is flexibility in processes, some components are required to ensure equity, transparency, and effectiveness:
- Documented and easily available criteria, procedures, and tools/templates so that all faculty are aware of the processes in advance.
- Debrief meetings between observer and candidate before and after any peer observation of teaching.
- Candidates should share appropriate course materials with reviewers to provide context for the observation, which could include syllabi, Brightspace access, assignments, and student work.
Student reviews from online course evaluations. These will be prepared by departments for review by the candidate and by unit leaders. As these data are critical to an informed self-assessment, this data will be compiled and provided to candidates in advance of writing their personal statements or letters. Departments and the college recognize the limits of these data for critically evaluating teaching but also recognize the importance of understanding the student experience through their own perceptions and identifying patterns of concern that should be discussed with faculty.

Return to top

Formative Review

In addition to the required, summative review at the time of reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure, which is a piece of the official record of candidate review provided to the college and the university as part of decision-making processes, departments and programs are also strongly encouraged to develop and regularly implement internal processes of formative review for all faculty in the years between the required, summative reviews. While the data from evaluation of teaching is essential for reappointment and promotion decisions, its true value lies in its formative improvement purposes. Without formative processes in place, this value is lost. Formative processes may be more informal than summative processes with little or no permanent record, may involve peers of all ranks, and may hold perhaps the most promise for growing a culture and community of teaching excellence in the college.

If adopted, formative review processes should include the following components:

Unit leaders should read evaluations of their colleagues every semester to identify and address any concerning patterns before summative review.
Formative peer review is strongly encouraged, possibly of a more informal nature than the summative review. However, as with summative peer review, this should at a minimum include a meeting before the observation, some protocol or template for observations, and a debrief conversation after the observation. Note that because these aren’t considered for reappointment and promotion decisions, formative peer review can be carried out by faculty of any rank for faculty of any rank—teaching experience, content expertise, and collegial relationships may be as important as rank or title. There may be little or no permanent documentation of this review, as it is intended solely to support the growth of faculty, though this decision is left to the department/program. While at least one formative review between summative reviews is critical, departments are also welcome to conduct formative peer reviews more frequently if they choose.
Faculty should read student reviews of their courses through the university online course evaluations every semester.
Faculty should reflect on the positive and constructive feedback provided by their peers, students, and/or unit leader each semester to identify strengths and weaknesses. In addition to driving continuous growth, these reflections and changes that come from them can provide excellent, time-integrated content to build the required self-assessment pieces at the time of summative review.

Return to top

Resources

The principles and practices outlined below are offered as a resource, not a requirement, for programs and departments as they pursue reappointment, tenure, and promotion processes requiring peer review of teaching. Departments and programs are encouraged to collectively discuss and adopt criteria for peer review that are appropriate for the culture and context of their discipline(s) and community.

Principles for Effective Peer Review of Teaching

Departments and programs are encouraged to involve all faculty who have a teaching role in their unit* in a collaborative process of designing and choosing practices for peer review that center on the following principles:

Collaborative design of procedures, including all faculty with teaching appointments who wish to participate.
An element of choice by reviewee, possibly including who will perform observations and reviews.
Formative and summative elements, including processes (however informal) that provide feedback on faculty’s teaching before final reviews for reappointment, allowing for growth.
Dual goals of professional development and review for reappointment or promotion, which requires dialogue with the reviewee before and after observations and reviews.

*Note that these reviews can be performed by faculty of equal or higher rank outside a reviewee’s department or program. Small departments and programs, or faculty who find building pedagogical communities in their programs difficult, are encouraged to work with their chair to build these partnerships including faculty outside their own department/program.

Best Practices in Peer Review of Teaching

We encourage all departments and programs that don’t currently have these processes in place to work with AdvancED: The Institute for the Advancement of Higher Education to design and adopt peer review practices. Set up a consult by completing the partner intake form, or call (615) 322-7290.
Practices that center discussions of teaching beyond peer review can result in more efficient and effective peer review, including teaching colloquia, regular open classroom practices, department/program pedagogical learning communities, etc.
The NSF-funded Teaching Quality Framework Initiative has excellent templates and guidelines for peer-observation, writing letters for peers, and self-evaluation of teaching, which may be useful to departments as they adopt their own practices.
University of Pittsburg has compiled a quality set of resources on self-assessment of teaching, which may help faculty as their write letters for their own re-appointment and promotion.

Return to top