Teaching Stewardship Evaluation — Summative Peer Review of Teaching
“Peer reviews that are thorough and balanced are an essential tool for understanding the faculty member’s effectiveness as a teacher." (BYU R&S Review Procedures Policy 4.5)
“Individual faculty members are responsible for presenting persuasive evidence to the university that they qualify for CFS candidacy, CFS, or rank advancement.” (BYU Rank and Status Policy 1.2)
QUICK LINKS
These two template files can be modified to fit your department specifications:
If you are comfortable with a form as is, these versions make it easier to simply fill in the necessary information.
Peer Review of Teaching
The purpose of summative peer review of teaching is “to ensure that a faculty member’s present qualifications and future promise” (BYU Rank & Status Policy 5.1) warrant granting Continuing Faculty Status (CFS) and/or rank advancement. “Peer reviews that are thorough and balanced are an essential tool for understanding the faculty member’s effectiveness as a teacher” (BYU R&S Review Procedures Policy 4.5).
The peer reviewer is not the primary source of evidence. “Individual faculty members are responsible for presenting persuasive evidence that they qualify for CFS candidacy, CFS, or rank advancement” (BYU Rank and Status Policy 1.2). Thus, the role of the peer reviewer is to evaluate the claims and evidence presented in the faculty member’s Teaching Portfolio, and to triangulate those claims with Student Ratings and Comments and classroom visits. The Three Pillars of Effective Teaching (summarized below) are the common criteria to guide all review activities and reflect in more detail the performance standards described in BYU Rank & Status Policy 3.2.
Best practice is to begin with the Teaching Portfolio. That context should guide other evaluation activities. When reviewing Student Ratings and Comments, look for trends and patterns. Consider whether the faculty member has identified similar patterns or trends and whether they are engaged in efforts to improve in that area if necessary. Individual derogatory or laudatory comments may catch our attention and, while they should not be ignored, they may also not present a “thorough” and “balanced” picture. Additional verification may be required. The reviewer should also be attuned to those elements that are within the faculty member’s purview and those that are not. For example, some course elements or assessments may be required by the program.
If possible, classroom visits should be conducted after the examination of the other two sources. With this sequence, classroom visits can provide first-hand corroboration of assertions in the Teaching Portfolio and/or Student Ratings and Comments. However, a single classroom visit is unlikely to provide an accurate picture of teaching and learning. “Ideally, peer reviewers should conduct multiple classroom visits over several semesters” (BYU R&S Review Procedures Policy 4.5).
In short, the peer reviewer determines whether the faculty member has presented persuasive evidence that they are fulfilling their teaching stewardship. In their recommendations, the reviewer should cite the evidence that supports their conclusions. The summative recommendation should not be based on clearing a minimal bar of acceptable teaching but should reflect their current ability as well as their commitment to continual improvement in teaching and learning (see BYU Rank & Status Policy 5.1).
See also: