OSU Extension

Connecting The Ohio State University to Ohioans Ohio State University Extension OSU Extension [https://extension.osu.edu]

Peer Evaluation of Teaching for Faculty

Department of Extension Peer Evaluation of Teaching for Faculty

Effective 2/1/04 -- faculty should use this approach for the EEET Peer Evaluations

Goals:

  1. The primary objective of peer evaluation of teaching is to provide information to improve a faculty member’s teaching effectiveness on a continuous basis. This is particularly true for untenured faculty. A meaningful body of evidence should be provided early enough in a career to provide feedback for improvement. It is the teacher who must make the improvement. The evaluations do not improve anything if poorly done or ignored by the teacher.
  2. At least one and preferably two peer evaluations of teaching should be arranged each year. Peer evaluations of teaching are helpful for all faculty. For those anticipating a promotion or tenure application, peer evaluations should be by individuals who are at or above the rank the faculty member would apply for in a promotion application.
  3. The procedures of peer evaluation of teaching will be consistent across the Department of Extension for all faculty. These guidelines and approach replace the EEET Peer evaluation of teaching effective 2/1/04.

Guidelines:

  1. Peer evaluations of teaching identify teaching quality characteristics that cannot be obtained from students.
  2. Responsibility for peer evaluation of teaching lies with all faculty within the Department. By improving each faculty member’s teaching effectiveness, the quality of the Department as a whole will be enhanced.
  3. A faculty member must make sure that peer evaluation of his or her own teaching is adequately documented. It is the responsibility of the teacher to have regularly scheduled peer evaluation of teaching by other faculty.
  4. Course materials (syllabi, teaching outlines, handouts, projects, audio/visuals, web sites, outcome evaluations) should be included in the process.
  5. Peer evaluation of teaching focuses on only one thing – teaching. The personal characteristics of the teacher and the importance of the subject matter are relevant only to the extent that they impact quality of teaching.

Dimensions:

  1. The approach to peer evaluation of teaching in the Department of Extension will be primarily narrative, with qualitative data the foundation for improvement of a faculty member’s teaching. Narrative reports will take the form of a letter to the reviewed faculty member by the reviewer. The reviewer under no circumstances should provide copies of the letter to others.
  2. The areas to be addressed within these narrative reports include:
    1. Curriculum choice and development
    2. How faculty member promotes learning
    3. Faculty member preparedness
    4. Methods of/approaches to/strategies for/instructions; use of teaching aids
    5. Student evaluation
  • The product will be a narrative report/letter by the evaluator that the instructor will request be received within threes weeks after the observation. Ideally the reviewer would provide an oral preliminary report within hours of observing the teaching.

Other Considerations:

  1. The faculty member should select the peer evaluator.
  2. Peer evaluators should be volunteers.
  3. At least one peer evaluator should make an evaluation the following year of the same faculty member to assess progress since the previous peer evaluation of teaching.
  4. The faculty member being evaluated may chose to submit 3-5 specific questions to the peer evaluator prior to the evaluation, e.g., “How can my PowerPoint slides be improved? Do I move about the room too much or too little? Did I time breaks appropriately given my need to maintain a high level of energy in the classroom?” This can be helpful addition to the other feedback received from the evaluator.
  5. Mentor evaluations will be less formal than a peer evaluation and are valuable. They can address the same areas. Choose non-mentor faculty members to provide peer evaluations.
  6. The following guidelines are designed to be given to the evaluator to guide the process.

Developed by: Tom Archer, Bernie Erven,Linda Kutilek November 2003 Approved Administrative Cabinet 11/03 Edited by B. Ludwig

Guide for Peer Evaluation of Teaching for Faculty

Effective 2/1/04 -- faculty should use this approach for the EEET Peer Evaluations

Goal:

The primary objective of peer evaluation of teaching is to provide information to improve a faculty member’s teaching effectiveness. Peer evaluations of teaching identify teaching quality characteristics that cannot be obtained from students.

Guidelines:

The approach to peer evaluation of teaching will be narrative, with qualitative data the foundation for improvement of a faculty member’s teaching. Narrative reports will take the form of a confidential letter to the faculty member by the reviewer. If possible, provide verbal feedback to the faculty member within hours and written feedback within three weeks.

Review of materials (syllabi, teaching outlines, PowerPoint presentations, handouts, projects, audio/visuals, web sites, outcome evaluations) should be included in the peer evaluation process.

Describe the teaching observations including the following dimensions:

  1. Date(s) of observations
  2. Audience: description, number, special circumstances
  3. Location and setting
  4. Length of presentation
  5. Other basis for review (syllabi, session outline, assignments, handouts, audiovisuals, projects, examinations, outcome evaluations, web sites)

Address the six areas identified on the reverse side in your report:

  1. Curriculum Choice and Development
  2. How Faculty Member Promotes Learning
  3. Faculty Member Preparedness
  4. Strategies for Instruction
  5. Evaluation of Learning
  6. Summary Comments

The areas to be addressed within your narrative reports should include the following six general areas. The bulleted areas are illustrative.

  1. Curriculum Choice and Development
    • Appropriateness for audience
    • Specific course/workshop objectives
    • Supporting materials, current and well chosen
    • Rigorous
  2. How Faculty Member Promotes Learning
    • Learning objectives clearly stated and developed
    • Teaching materials useful to learners in their own situations
    • Provides class members with opportunities for participating
    • Summarizes/clearly identifies key points
    • Personal Characteristics: enthusiasm: genuine interest in student success; selfconfidence; ethical behavior
    • Task oriented and/or businesslike behavior
    • Answers questions clearly
    • Approachable and accessible to participants
  3. Faculty Member Preparedness
    • Significant disciplinary knowledge; technically accurate
    • Logical organization of class time and presentation
    • Mastery of a variety of teaching methods
    • Accommodates differences among learners
    • Keeps the class members focused on the objectives
  4. Strategies for Instruction
    • Effective use of a variety of methods and materials
    • Appropriate instructional materials selected for topic(s)
    • Uses questioning to enable critical thinking by learners
    • Quality of session materials such as handouts, audio-visual aids and web sites
    • Uses class time effectively
  5. Evaluation of Learning
    • Evaluation materials appropriate to the objectives
    • Feedback on how activities/projects/assignments contribute to learning
    • Documentation of learning outcomes by participants
  6. Summary Comments
    • General comments
    • Strengths/things that worked
    • Areas for improvement. Include a specific list of suggestions for addressing problems observed
    • Comparison to last review by this observer (if appropriate)