MEMO FROM: Peter Gilkey (UO Senator 2007/8)
MEMO TO: Members of the UO Senate
MEMO RE: Peer review of teaching
MEMO CC: Office of academic affairs
DATE: 30 January 2008
Dear fellow Senators:
My subject is "peer review of teaching" which is a companion to "student
review of teaching". I am bringing this matter to the attention of the
UO Senate for several reasons.
-
1. I wish to update the members of the UO Senate on what is actually being
done to implement 1996 Senate Legislation concerning peer review of teaching.
-
2. peer review of teaching is an integral part of the evaluation of teaching
at the UO. As we are examining the student component extensively at present,
it seemed worthwhile to touch, at least in passing, on the peer component.
-
3. I wish to encourage the UO Senators to read the legislation in question
and to suggest it might be worthwhile revisiting the legislation in question
-- just as we are revisiting the student component of the evaluation
of teaching.
The legislation in question is available on the web: http://academicaffairs.uoregon.edu/tenureguide/dossier/peereval.html
Now let me explain matters in a bit more detail. On 10 May 1996, the
UO Senate took up the question of evaluating teaching at the University
of Oregon. The minutes of the Senate discussion are on the web and are
worth perusing: http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen956/5_8_minutes.html
The legislation in question arose out of discussions in the Faculty Advisory
Committee in previous years -- see, for example, http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen/FAC-Rep-956.html
One motion dealt with by the Senate on 10 May 1996 concerned "Student Evaluation
of Teaching and Learning". The purpose of this legislation was "to define
expectations regarding student course evaluations at the University of
Oregon, especially as they relate to annual faculty reviews and the promotion,
tenure and post-tenure review process." This dealt with the so called "bubble"
forms which we used until relatively recently and which we are now replacing
with an on line system of course evaluations. We have discussed this facet
of the evaluation process at some length in recent Senate meetings and
will revisit it again in the future. A companion piece of legislation which
was passed at this Senate meeting dealt with "Peer Evaluation of Teaching
and Learning". The purpose of this legislation was "to define expectations
regarding evaluation of teaching by faculty peers at the University of
Oregon, especially as they relate to annual faculty reviews and the promotion,
tenure and post-tenure review process". The Legislation noted:
-
University teaching and student learning encompass much more than the hours
faculty members spend in the classroom. Teaching also involves keeping
up with the field, planning lectures, creating instructional materials,
constructing tests, grading papers, advising students, participating in
tutorials and formal teaching committees, working with graduate students,
supervising graduate teaching fellows, conducting office hours, and participating
in professional development programs. Because many aspects of teaching
remain invisible to students, their evaluations alone are inadequate to
provide comprehensive and convergent evidence of teaching effectiveness.
In addition to student assessments, evaluations need to be obtained from
individuals who both understand the subject matter and recognize the intellectual
effort and pedagogical merit involved in various instructional activities.
Thus, the evaluation process should include peer reviews from colleagues
who are in a position to compare a particular teaching effort--content,
methods, emphasis and so forth--with other possible ones. Classroom visitations
or videotape reviews are encouraged as part of the peer review process.
In keeping with this observation, the policy in this legislation provides
that:
-
Beginning with the 1996-97 Academic Year, each tenure-track faculty member
shall have at least one course evaluated by a faculty peer during each
of the three years preceding the faculty member's promotion/tenure review.
In most cases, this shall be the third, fourth and fifth years of the probationary
period.
-
Beginning with the 1996-97 Academic Year, each tenured faculty member with
rank of Associate Professor shall have at least one course evaluated by
a faculty peer every other year until promotion to Full Professor.
The relevant legislation can be found on the website cited above. It outlines
methods for conducting the required peer evaluations, criteria to be used,
etc. I commend it to your attention -- it can also be located on the OAA
website at the location cited above: http://academicaffairs.uoregon.edu/tenureguide/dossier/peereval.html
The two processes -- student evaluation of teaching and peer evaluation
of teaching were intended by the UO Senate to be two linked portions of
a whole. The student evaluations are performed in a way consistent with
this and subsequent Senate legislation on the subject. On the other hand,
I regret to inform you, that the peer evaluations of teaching have not
been performed faithfully in the past. The annual reports of the Faculty
Personnel Committees document this problem. There is a discussion of the
failure to perform the required peer evaluations available in the reports
of the 1999/2000, 2000/2001, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006, and 2006/2007
University Faculty Personnel Committees:
Furthermore, a recent report by the Office of Academic Affairs indicated
that only 25% of the 2006/7 Promotion and Tenure cases were compliant with
the 1996 Senate legislation..
Peer reviews of teaching are important not only in Promotion and Tenure
Cases. They are important in salary discussions and in 3rd reviews. And
their role in faculty development can not be overstated.
Fortunately, this is one of those perhaps rare cases when one can make
a very favorable report to the UO Senate. The Office of Academic Affairs
is moving aggressively to deal with this problem. I attended a workshop
organized by the OAA that deals with this problem 16 January 2008 --
and there are subsequent workshops being organized. The Council of Deans
has been contacted and departments heads have been alerted. And the OAA
has taken the following steps:
-
1. Promotion and Tenure Cases 2007-08. Cases that come forward that lack
peer reviews consistent with Senate legislation will be moved forward with
two constraints:
-
a. Academic Affairs will request peer reviews to be completed Winter term
to be added to the file.
-
b. Academic Affairs will require a statement on how the department wi II
ensure compliance with Senate legislation in the future.
-
2. Promotion and Tenure Cases 2008-09. Given the head's up this January
of the need for peer review, we can expect that all cases in 2008-09 will
include at least one timely peer review of teaching.
-
a. If this one timely review is missing, such a review must be completed
Fall 2008 or Winter 2009.
-
b. For earlier missing peer reviews we will expect both additional reviews
completed Fall 2008 or Winter 2009 along with a plan for mitigation.
-
3. Promotion and Tenure Cases 2009-10. Given timely notice, and some reminders,
we can expect that all cases in 2009-2010 will include at least two required
peer reviews of teaching. Lacking both required timely reviews:
-
a. A promotion to Professor willbe remanded to the dean for completion
before it can come forward.
-
b. A promotion to Associate Professor with tenure will require both additional
reviews completed Fall 2009 or Winter 2010 along with a plan for mitigation.
-
4. Promotion and Tenure Cases 201 0-11. By this point in time there will
have been sufficient time for all conventional Promotion and Tenure to
include a minimum set of peer reviews of teaching.
I expect that interested Senators seeking further information on current
OAA guidlines can contact Vice Provost Russ Tomlin
(email:tomlin@uoregon.edu).
Respectfully submitted Peter B Gilkey Member UO Senate 2007/8 Mathematics
Department University of Oregon Eugene Or 97403