Senate Homepage | Officers | Members | Meeting Dates | Agendas | Minutes | Committees | Documents

 

  Peer In Class Evaluation Report Amended
September 08, 2008

Guidelines for In-Class Peer Evaluation of Teaching

Introduction

Excellent teaching is central to our mission as a university, and the development and evaluation of teaching is an important aspect of the achieving of excellence. The CSU-AAUP Collective Bargaining Agreement acknowledges and institutionalizes this importance by noting that “Peer review through observation of load credit activity should normally be a part of evaluations [for renewal, tenure, and promotion], especially in pre-tenure evaluation” (4.11.7), but says nothing about how this evaluation should be carried out. In the wake of the controversy surrounding promotion and tenure in the spring of 2006 and the university-wide conversations that resulted, the Faculty Senate has concluded that the creation and promulgation of a single procedure and set of instruments for in-class peer evaluation of teaching would promote the interests of fairness and consistency in the promotion and tenure process in the following ways:  (1) protecting faculty from arbitrary, insufficient, inconsistent, or inequitable evaluations of their teaching; (2) helping DECs by providing a systematic and consistent means of evaluating and reporting on faculty teaching; and (3) aiding the P&T Committee, Deans, and Provost by offering reports on faculty teaching that are thorough and specific while facilitating consistency of evaluation between individuals, disciplines and schools.

In the service of these goals, the process described below is designed to reflect and respect the priorities and concerns of individual teachers and the departments for which they teach, while providing for thorough and consistent evaluation. The Faculty Senate thus requires all departments to adopt these guidelines and instruments, with any adaptations necessary for disciplinary specificity.  And finally, while the following guidelines are designed for a process of formal evaluation, it should be noted that they could also be used, or adapted for use, in a more informal developmental or mentoring process (for more on which, see the Recommendations section below).

1. Frequency of Evaluation

To ensure fairness and promote the improvement of teaching, evaluation of teaching must be an ongoing process rather than one initiated only before application for tenure and promotion. Consequently, in-class peer evaluation should take place, at a minimum, in a tenure-track faculty member’s second, fourth, and sixth years (or, if the faculty member applies for promotion or tenure before the sixth year, evaluation should take place in the year the application is made, prior to application). Tenured faculty should be evaluated, at a minimum, every three years, and always in a year in which they apply for promotion or undergo sexennial review. If a faculty member requests more frequent evaluation than provided for here, the department should comply with that request.

2. The Evaluators

Pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, “evaluations of teaching members shall be conducted by the Department Evaluation Committee” (4.11.1).  To help avoid conflicts of interest, untenured faculty members should be evaluated by tenured associate or full professors; associate professors should be evaluated by full professors; and full professors should evaluate each other.

3. The Evaluation Process

To balance workload concerns with concerns for thoroughness, faculty members who are to be evaluated should be assigned a single evaluator from the department’s DEC (or more if the department wishes), who should conduct at least two visits, each to a different class. If the faculty member being evaluated requests, in addition to the foregoing, a return visit to one of the classes visited, that request should be honored. Evaluators should, generally, visit classes that represent the faculty member’s chief teaching responsibilities: courses in the faculty member’s field of specialization, core courses in the discipline, and/or General Education courses regularly taught by the faculty member. The evaluation process should consist of three parts:

A. Before the Observation. After pairings of evaluator and faculty member to be evaluated have been established, they should do the following:

·         The evaluator and faculty member to be evaluated should agree on a date, or limited range of dates, for the class visits

·         The faculty member to be evaluated should fill out a pre-observation form (attached) for each visit, and submit it to the evaluator at least 24 hours prior to the observation

·         When submitting the pre-observation form, the faculty member to be evaluated should also supply the evaluator with any relevant materials for each visit, including syllabus, assignment sheets, handouts, and readings

·         If either the faculty member to be evaluated or the evaluator wish it, they should arrange a meeting to discuss the pre-observation form, relevant materials, or other concerns

B. During the Observation. The evaluator should arrive on time and should stay for the entire class, or for a period of no less than one hour agreed upon with the faculty member being evaluated. The evaluator should observe and take notes in anticipation of filling out the observation form (attached).

C. After the Observation. In order to preserve a complete and accurate memory of the visit, as soon as possible after the observation the evaluator and faculty member being evaluated should do the following:

·         The evaluator should complete the observation form and provide a copy to the faculty member being evaluated

·         After doing so, the evaluator should arrange to meet with the faculty member to discuss the observation and the completed observation form, answer questions, and offer suggestions

·         After the meeting, the evaluator should, if appropriate, fill in the section of the observation form for post-observation comments, reflecting the responses of the faculty member being evaluated and any information that might not have been known, or might not have been clear, during the observation

·         Copies of the finalized observation form should then be provided to the faculty member for inclusion in the relevant portfolio(s) (tenure, promotion, annual review, sexennial review). A copy of the pre-observation form and copies of any materials referenced on the observation form (assignments, handouts, etc.) should be attached to the copy of the form included in the portfolio

·         The faculty member may, if desired, attach a written response to the finalized observation form

Recommendations: Evaluation and Development

The process described above was designed to improve the thoroughness and consistency, and hence the utility, of the in-class peer evaluation of teaching at CCSU. In doing so, it may aid in, but certainly not replace, another equally vital process: the development of excellent teaching. While the feedback received through the evaluation process described above should prove useful to faculty members trying to enhance their teaching and to departments trying to help their teachers, the judgment required by the evaluative process may not in many cases be compatible with the mentoring, advising, experimentation, and recursivity associated with pedagogical faculty development. Consequently, the Faculty Senate would like to offer the following reminders and recommendations:

  1. Departments must establish mentoring programs for their tenure-track faculty (as currently required by the Senate’s Promotion and Tenure Policy for Tenure-track Teaching Faculty, adopted October 22, 2007)
     
  1. Departments should develop a system for developmental, rather than evaluative, peer in-class observations that could, as early as a faculty member’s first year, provide feedback for the improvement of teaching outside the necessarily judgmental framework of the evaluation process. That system might:
     
    1. use the forgoing procedures and accompanying forms as a feedback mechanism without making them part of a formal evaluation;
    2. adapt those procedures and forms for developmental use; or
    3. make use of another process in keeping with the department’s culture of faculty development and mentoring.
       
  1. Finally, the Senate recognizes that for this developmental process to be meaningful and successful, the devotion of appropriate resources by the university will be necessary. The Senate thus expects that the university’s administration will aid in this process of faculty development by:
     
    1. providing appropriate resources to the Center for Teaching Excellence and Leadership Development
    2. providing appropriate resources for training faculty mentors and conducting workshops on in-class observation as a part of faculty development as well as evaluation.
 

In-Class Peer Teaching Evaluation
Pre-Observation Form
(to be filled out by faculty member being observed)

 

Instructor’s Name_______________________  Observer’s Name__________________________

Name and Number of Class Being Observed___________________________________________

Bldg. & Room Where Class Meets___________________________________________________

Class Schedule Info (e.g. MWF 11:00-11:50)______________  Date of Observation_______________

Number of Students Enrolled______   Type(s) of Students (e.g. majors, gen ed, seniors) ____________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Topic of Class to be Observed_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Context of Class to be Observed in Course/Semester_____________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Goals of Class to be Observed_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Type of Instruction (e.g. lecture, discussion, group work)______________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Activities Planned (e.g in-class writing, use of instructional media, performance)______________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Other information instructor would like observer to know:

 

Questions/Issues instructor would like observer to focus on:

 

Instructor’s Signature___________________________________  Date______________________

Observer’s Signature____________________________________  Date_____________________

 

In-Class Peer Teaching Evaluation
Observation Form
(to be filled out by observer)

 

Instructor’s Name_______________________  Observer’s Name__________________________

Name and Number of Class Being Observed___________________________________________

Location of Observation_______________________ Date and Time of Observation____________

Number of Students Enrolled______________   Number of Students in Attendance____________

Did the class begin on time? If not, how early/late? _____________________________________

Did the class end on time? If not, how early/late? _______________________________________

Did the instructor meet the goals of the class as described in the pre-observation form? How?

(please describe, with examples if applicable) __________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Did the instructor make clear the goals of the class? How well did the students seem to understand those goals? How was this understanding demonstrated? ________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

What instructional methods were used? (e.g. lecture, discussion, group work; duration/% of each)  _______

_______________________________________________________________________________

Were those methods effective and appropriate to the topics and goals of the class? Why/how?____

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

What activities took place? (e.g. in-class writing, use of instructional media, performance) ______________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Were the activities effective and appropriate to the topic and goals of the class? Why/how? _____

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Did the class unfold in an organized fashion, as appropriate to the instructional methods and activities involved? How/why? ______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Was the instructor’s communication with the class (lecture, questions, guidance of discussion, instructions for activities) clear? Why/how? ___________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Was the instructor’s demeanor appropriate and effective for the type of class and the instructional methods and activities used? Why/how? ______________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

How engaged were the students? How was their engagement demonstrated? Was their engagement appropriate to the class’ instructional methods and activities? (e.g. participating in discussion, taking notes on lecture, taking part in group work) __________________________________­­­­___________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Other observations and comments (please note that observer may wish to append a narrative of the class that clarifies or elaborates on any of the above):

 

Feedback on questions/issues raised by the instructor in the pre-observation form:

 

Post-observation comments, reflecting the responses of the faculty member being evaluated and any information that might not have been known, or might not have been clear, during the observation:

 

Instructor’s Signature___________________________________  Date______________________

 Observer’s Signature____________________________________  Date_____________________

 

 

 

Senate Homepage | Officers | Members | Meeting Dates | Agendas | Minutes | Committees | Documents


page last updated: 10/30/2009


Copyright © 2008 [Central Connecticut State University]. All rights reserved.