Purpose
This policy outlines procedures by which the Department collects and utilizes data on formative peer evaluation of teaching involving faculty members of PHS. Existence of this policy was announced in consultation with the chair and division chiefs at a PHS Executive Committee and Graduate Program Directors meeting in May 2017, and introduced to faculty members at the retreat in July 2017.
Background
Peer review of teaching involves evaluation and feedback to instructors about their teaching methods from the perspective of a faculty peer. Findings from peer review may be used to aid faculty members to improve teaching (formative review), or it may be part of a formal evaluation system used in tenure and pay decisions (summative review). The different purposes of the evaluations require independent processes.
This policy addresses several techniques of peer review teaching, including classroom presentation, comment on student evaluations, consultations on course materials, student focus groups, and other activities which may be appropriate.
For formative reviews of teaching, the peer reviewers may be colleagues of any rank but mutually agreed upon by the peer review committee. The reviewers will be selected from within the Peer Review Task Force but in future may include all departmental faculty or non-departmental faculty who are faculty development specialists. Two peer reviewers are required, potentially from any division including from the reviewed faculty member’s division.
Key Features
- There will be one evaluation per semester per selected course/instructor(s).
- The criteria for selection of the course and instructor(s) may include: 1) a request from the instructor or division chief; 2) additional documentation for a P&T portfolio; 3) preliminary review of SRTE’s from prior semesters; 4) support for the continuation of approval to teach; and/or, 5) for CEPH documentation.
- A review of the syllabus and training materials will occur in conjunction with schedule the evaluation.
- The evaluations will be completed using a standard reporting form with a standard set of definitions and grading rubric.
- The individual being reviewed will have the responsibility to arrange the review sessions in conjunction with the evaluators.
- If applicable, evaluations will be discussed in a meeting with the reviewed faculty member’s division chief and both evaluators, prior to reviewing the data with the faculty member.
- All data will be documented using the Peer Review Activity Guide.
- The Peer Review Activity Guide will be the joint property of the peer review committee and the individual reviewed.
- Courses which are not permanently listed in the PHS course bulletin will not be subject to peer evaluation; i.e., courses offered as Special Topics.
Procedures
At the beginning of the academic year, every active faculty member should be notified of their responsibilities under this policy. Division chiefs should be notified and reminded of their responsibilities at that time, as well.
Active faculty member means all Graduate Faculty members. Faculty members whose teaching is being reviewed are “instructors”. Instructors will be selected and informed of the peer review process. At a minimum, one core and one elective can be chosen for review in a given semester. Reviewers will contact instructors in consultation with the division chief to set dates and times for the evaluation. This contact should include a pre-evaluation meeting to discuss the syllabus and any issues of concern to the individual being reviewed and to set ground rules for the classroom interaction. Students enrolled in the course will be informed prior to the in-class interaction to solicit input from a student focus group session.
A pre-observation peer review assessment will be performed using past SRTE’s, a syllabus review and a pre-observation questionnaire for the instructor.
A post-observation questionnaire will be completed by the instructor immediately following the observation. A student focus group session will also be conducted in the immediate post-observation time frame.
The process is divided into 5 (five) distinct phases with select activities.
PHS Peer Review Activity Guide Flowchart
Click on each title or (+) to expand.
Phase 1 - Selection and Scheduling
The Peer Review Committee will select the course(s) for peer review in the preceding semester. A select member of the committee will meet with the individual course instructor to explain the process in detail including the various forms that will become part of the permanent record. This is also the best time to determine the dates most appropriate for the in-class observation. The selected observation should be before the mid-semester date. Selecting a date early in the semester allows some time to complete the pre-observation assessment tasks. The observation must be performed during a regular lecture-type session, not during a student presentation or guest lecturer scenario.
If for any reason the observation needs to be postponed, the instructor should make alternate arrangements as quickly as possible. However, the timing of this process doesn’t lend itself to lengthy postponements.
- Peer Review Task Force selects course(s)
- Peer reviewers identified Reviewer
- Vice-chair sends letters to instructors
- Peer reviewers schedule a pre-observation meeting [1.1]
Resources:
Phase 2 - Pre-Observation
The instructor must complete the questionnaire and return to the committee 2 weeks prior to the observation. The committee is tasked with reviewing the questionnaire responses, the most current syllabus for the selected course, and the prior 3 instances of the SRTE documents. The syllabus will be reviewed using a checklist instrument developed by the Schreyer Institute.
The class members need to be informed about the observation during class the week prior to the observation visit. The student focus group occurring during the last 30 minutes of class should also be explained.
- Reviewer completes the SRTE and Syllabus Review [2.1]
- Task Force reviews SRTE and syllabus
- Reviewers meet with instructor for explanatory meeting
- Date for observation selected [2.2]
- Instructor given/emailed the Pre-Observation Questionnaire to complete [2.3]
- Reviewers collect and review instructor questionnaire
Resources:
2.1. SRTE and Syllabus Review [fillable]
2.2. Scheduled Observation [fillable]
2.3. Pre-Observation Questionnaire [fillable]
Phase 3 - Observation
The observation should be conducted with as little interference as possible with the normal flow of the class.
Resources:
3.1. Reviewer Notes [fillable]
3.2. Student Focus Group
3.3. Instructor Post-Observation Assessment [fillable]
Phase 4 - Post-Observation
The post observation questionnaire must be returned within 48 hours of the observation. Other forms must be completed within 2 weeks after the review. All original forms are returned to the peer review committee and copies can be sent to the appropriate individuals. The student focus group may also use the feedback portal for private comments.
- Reviewers meet to discuss observation and focus group.
- Reviewers review instructor reflection.
- Reviewers develop an improvement plan.
- Committee reviews improvement plan.
- Post-observation meeting scheduled with instructor. [4.1]
Resources:
Phase 5 - Discussion and Improvement Plan
- Select committee member meets again with instructor
- Post-observation Results and Improvement plan is discussed:
- Completed Peer Review Activity Guide is shared with division chief
- An improvement plan can be recommended by the committee with a suggestion to follow up by the end of the subsequent semester. Otherwise, the instructor can be advised to heed the recommendations based on informal observations from the reviewer or the students.
The details of each peer review will be shared and reviewed as requested on a semester basis with the Vice Chair for Education and the Department Chair.
- Reviewers meets with the instructor.
- Share observation results and proposed improvement plan.
- Reviewers write Peer Review letter. [5.1]
- Reviewers share letter and completed guide with Division Chief. [5.2]
- Results and proposed improvement plan discussed with instructor.
- Completed Peer Review Guide posted to drive.
Resources:
5.1. Example Letter
5.2. List of PHS Division Chiefs
You can obtain a complete guide by using the download button below.
PHS Peer Review Activity Guide (Rev. Sept. 2018)
Resources
- A Peer Review Guide for Teaching at Penn State – Instructor Input Form (Penn State John A. Dutton e-Education Institute)
- Checklist for Syllabus Content (Schreyer Institute for Teaching Excellence)
- Faculty Peer Review of Online Teaching (Penn State John A. Dutton e-Education Institute)
- Peer Review Rating Scale adapted from: Harris, Arlene H. and Monica Farmer Cox. “Developing an Observation System to Capture Instructional Differences in Engineering Classrooms.” Journal of Engineering Education 92 (2003): 329-336.
Additional Questions
Please contact
Mardi Sawyer
Educational Program Associate, Department of Public Health Sciences
msawyer@phs.psu.edu.
There are also various teaching resources available that you can access at your own convenience.
Visit Resources page.