Peer In Class Evaluation Report Amended
September 08, 2008Guidelines
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:
- 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)
- 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:
- use the forgoing procedures and accompanying
forms as a feedback mechanism without making them part of a formal
evaluation;
- adapt those procedures and forms for
developmental use; or
- make use of another process in keeping with
the department’s culture of faculty development and mentoring.
- 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:
- providing appropriate resources to the Center
for Teaching Excellence and Leadership Development
- 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_____________________
|