|
Educational Research & Professional Development |
Peer Review Plan for Teaching
Approved - Fall 2000
General Information
Rationale
For several years, educational institutions have been reviewing the quality and character of faculty work, looking at the numerous roles faculty are expected to take on, and especially how to more appropriately evaluate the activities and tasks of teaching. Ernest Boyer of the Carnegie Foundation asked "just how are we to evaluate teaching, and how can we be sure that standards of excellence will be protected?" There is a general sense among faculty that student evaluations are not enough. Suggestions indicate that ways are needed for faculty to be professional colleagues to one another in teaching as they are in research such as in peer review. This suggestion focuses on the concepts put forth by Lee Schulman, former professor of psychology and education at Stanford, and current president of the Carnegie Foundation, who suggests that:
- To be a superior teacher, faculty must understand not only general methods of teaching, they must also understand how to transform the particular concepts in their field into terms that their particular students will understand.
Peer review is a professional responsibility; we owe it to ourselves and our students to ensure the quality of what we do as teachers. (AAHE Project Workbook, Jan. 1995).
The concept of peer review has been discussed on the Dental Branch campus as another means of documenting teaching excellence or the need for further improvement. Peer review should involve judgements about the quality of work for either promotion or tenure, but it should also focus upon ways that faculty can be more effective colleagues to one another in improving their work as teachers.
Peer review needs to be linked with additional activities such as a faculty member’s reflective commentary about one of their teaching artifacts or their teaching, peer mentoring, pedagogical colloquium where faculty can talk to other faculty about teaching, teaching libraries, making the peer review of teaching part of the department and school culture.
Peer review of all current teaching faculties may be implemented through the following means:
- In consultation with departmental faculty, department chairs will formulate a peer review schedule for all departmental faculties within the first month of the academic school year.
-
The faculty member may request peer review.
-
The department chair may request a specific peer review of a departmental faculty.
1.2 Appropriate Peer Evaluation forms will be given to the faculty members at that time.
- Faculty may volunteer to become reviewers and be approved by their department chair.
- Faculty may be nominated as reviewers by their department chairs.
- A departmental committee may select peer evaluators to represent their department.
- Peer evaluators must hold the rank of associate professor or above or be considered senior faculty within the department.
- Peer evaluators will be trained in programs provided by the Office of Professional Development in collaboration with personnel from the basic science and clinical departments.
Faculty
value, sometimes more than anything else, the regard of their scholarly
peers. Peer Review will assist in making teaching a more scholarly endeavor
and elevate the status of teaching in the Dental Branch.
The Peer Review System is structured to focus on strengths of the faculty
member and areas that could be enhanced. Therefore, the following
outcomes could be expected from the implementation of Peer Review:
- A description of the strengths and weaknesses observed by the Peer Reviewer.
- Recommendations for enhancing specific areas of teaching.
- Opportunities to participate in activities to encourage growth in teaching and the scholarship of teaching.
- Documentation for the annual evaluation of faculty.
- The discovery of faculty who could serve as exemplary role models for others pursuing teaching excellence.
- The enhancement of teaching to the level of a scholarly endeavor.
- Invoking standards of excellence in teaching.
The University
of Texas Dental Branch at Houston
Peer
Review/Evaluation Process for All Beginning and Current Faculty
- All beginning faculty members will undergo peer evaluation of their teaching during their first and second years of employment by the UTHSC-Houston Dental Branch and every third year thereafter. The dates on which the first, second, and third years begin are the dates in faculty member’s contracts that specify when they actually enter either the tenure or clinical educator track.
- A minimum of two (2) peer evaluations must be conducted during both the first and second years of each new faculty member’s employment.
- All current faculty at .5 FTE and above will be peer evaluated once annually when possible, and when not possible, every other year.
- If there is an indication of need from the department chair or faculty member requests a more frequent review, these reviews will also be undertaken.
- Each peer evaluation will be conducted by two (2) reviewers, one selected by the faculty member to be evaluated and the second by the department chair in consultation with the Office of Professional Development. In no case will both evaluators be from the same department.
- After reviewing the teaching schedule of the faculty member to be evaluated, the peer reviewer will determine the date and time of the evaluation and the teaching environment in which the evaluation will be conducted.
- A pre-evaluation conference during which the faculty member to be evaluated will orient both evaluators to the teaching/learning session. This conference will be held prior to the peer review.
- During the pre-evaluation conference, a copy of the Peer Evaluation form(s) the evaluators will use will be given to the faculty member to be evaluated. The faculty member will complete the form(s) after the teaching session as a personal evaluation/self assessment of his or her teaching during the session. Each department will use the form(s) recommended by the Peer Evaluation Task Force appropriate for the teaching environment in which the faculty member will be evaluated.
- A post-evaluation conference will be conducted within (10) working days of the observed teaching session. Copies of the forms completed by the evaluators and the faculty member’s personal evaluation will be distributed to all three participants before this conference. The contents of these forms will be used to guide a discussion of the faculty member’s teaching strengths, areas of his/her teaching that could be improved, and potential faculty development activities, and not on cumulative scores obtained during the Review.
- If there is a concern on the part of the peer evaluator/s or the faculty member, another peer evaluation session may be requested by either party. Two different peer reviewers will do this evaluation.
- If there is an indication of the need to enhance teaching skills, the faculty member will be encouraged to participate in additional faculty development activities.
- Following the post-evaluation conference, the evaluators have the option of completing individual reports or a joint report. These reports will include copies of the evaluation forms completed during the observation and a summary of the discussion during the post-evaluation conference.
- Copies of the evaluators’ report (s) will be sent to the faculty member within ten (10) working days of the post-evaluation conference, and the original report (s) will be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file at the same time. The faculty member may place his/her self-evaluation in the personnel file. Rebuttal comments could also be appended to the peer reviewers’ comments.
- Reports from all formal peer evaluations must be included in any personnel action dossier (PAD) submitted by a faculty member in an application for reappointment or in an application for tenure or promotion or both and as part of the Six Year Review process.
- Implementation of the peer evaluation process in the Dental Branch is the responsibility of the Office of Professional Development and the department chairs.
A copy of the Department of Peer Evaluation plan has been given to me, and its provisions have been explained to me.
___________________________
__________________________
Faculty Signature
Department Chair Signature
___/___/___
___/___/___
Original
to applicant’s personnel file
Copy to applicantOPD/UTH-DB
The University
of Texas Dental Branch at Houston
Peer Evaluation Form for Large
Group Presentations (Lectures)
(Generally more than Twelve People)
Faculty Member Observed _____________________________________________________
Course Title: __________________ Course Number: __________ Title/Subject: ___________
Pre-meeting Date: ___________ Date Observed: ___________ Length of Observation _____
Observer: __________________ Date Reviewed with Faculty Member _________________
Response Scale:
OUTSTANDING = met all or virtually all of the criteria
SATISFACTORY = met most of the criteria
MARGINAL = met some of the criteria
UNSATISFACTORY = met few or none of the criteria
NA = not applicable
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
Strengths
Recommendations
adad
adf
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
Strengths
Recommendations
adad
adf
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
Strengths
Recommendations
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
Strengths
Recommendations
Overall Comments: _________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Peer
Review Form
Large Group Lecture
The
University of Texas Dental Branch at Houston
Peer Evaluation Form for Small
Group Presentations
(Generally Four - Twelve People)
Faculty Member Observed _____________________________________________________
Course Title: __________________ Course Number: __________ Title/Subject: ___________
Pre-meeting Date: ___________ Date Observed: __________ Length of Observation: _____
Observer: __________________ Date Reviewed with Faculty Member: ________________
Response Scale:
OUTSTANDING = met all or virtually all of the criteria
SATISFACTORY = met most of the criteria
MARGINAL = met some of the criteria
UNSATISFACTORY = met few or none of the criteria
NA = not applicable
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
Strengths
Recommendations
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
Strengths
Recommendations
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
Strengths
Recommendations
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
Strengths
Recommendations
Overall Comments: ___________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Peer
Review Form
Small Group
The
University of Texas Dental Branch at Houston
Peer Evaluation Form for Pre-Clinical
Laboratory Teaching
(Example: Generally One on One)
Faculty Member Observed ______________________________________________________
Course Title: __________________ Course Number: __________ Title/Subject: ____________
Pre-meeting Date: ___________ Date Observed: __________ Length of Observation: ______
Observer: ___________ Date Reviewed with Faculty Member: ___________
Response Scale:
OUTSTANDING = met all or virtually all of the criteria
SATISFACTORY = met most of the criteria
MARGINAL = met some of the criteria
UNSATISFACTORY = met few or none of the criteria
NA = not applicable
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
Strengths
Recommendations
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
Strengths
Recommendations
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
Strengths
Recommendations
Overall Comments: ___________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Peer
Evaluation Form
Pre Clinical Laboratory
The
University of Texas Dental Branch at Houston
Peer Evaluation Form
for Unstructured Clinical Teaching
(Example: Generally One on One)
Faculty Member Observed ______________________________________________________
Course Title: __________________ Course Number: __________ Title/Subject: ____________
Pre-meeting Date: ___________ Date Observed: ___________ Length of Observation ______
Observer: ___________ Date Reviewed with Faculty Member: ___________
Response Scale:
OUTSTANDING = met all or virtually all of the criteria
SATISFACTORY = met most of the criteria
MARGINAL = met some of the criteria
UNSATISFACTORY = met few or none of the criteria
NA = not applicable
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
Strengths
Recommendations
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
Strengths
Recommendations
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
O
S
M
U
NA
Strengths
Recommendations
Overall Comments: ___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Peer
Evaluation Form Clinical
DB
Last Modified: |