Peer Review of Teaching Frequently Asked Questions

Previous efforts focused primarily on peer observations of classroom teaching, with less attention paid to the teaching portfolio. The current process differs in three ways:

1. It provides a framework for documenting evidence, based upon the Three Pillars of Effective Teaching:
   
   • Student Learning
   • Learning Environment
   • Processes of Improvement
2. The faculty member, rather than the reviewer, provides the bulk of the evidence, and includes this evidence in the teaching portfolio. 
3. It requires colleges to develop or adopt clear and standardized processes to evaluate teaching, based upon the Three Pillars of Effective Teaching as found in the 2022 Rank and Status Policy and Procedures documents.

At least three perspectives are required in faculty members’ rank and status file related to the quality of teaching:

1. Students
2. Faculty member whose teaching is being reviewed
3. At least two peer reviewers

Evaluators should review evidence from the perspectives of students, faculty, and peer reviewers related to the Three Pillars of Effective Teaching. This evidence should include

1. Student evaluations of teaching, including student ratings of teaching, and all student comments
2. Self-evaluation of teaching, including a summary of evidence from student evaluations, formative reviews, and self-reflection
3. Peer reviews of teaching, including classroom observations and review of materials (e.g., syllabi, exams, achievement of learning outcomes, student evaluations)

Regular self-evaluations and formative peer reviews are strongly encouraged prior to summative reviews. The 2022 BYU Rank and Status Procedures document indicates “Ideally, peer reviewers should conduct multiple classroom visits over several semesters” (see section 4.5, Peer Reviews of Teaching).

Formative reviews of teaching provide useful feedback to teachers as they improve their teaching. Summative reviews are used to make consequential decisions. They consist of a point-in-time (such as initial [3^rd-year] or final Continuing Faculty Status) review of teaching effectiveness by peers. When used in the rank and status process, summative reviews are substantive and confidential.

Typically, formative reviews are conducted by faculty, students, and peers, while summative reviews are conducted only by peer reviewers.

Currently, faculty conduct their own formative evaluations as they review their teaching methods and student achievement throughout each semester; they also conduct self-evaluations at the end of each semester, including a thorough analysis of student ratings, then adjust their teaching as necessary in subsequent semesters. Faculty report relevant results from these evaluations in the annual stewardship interview. The new framework for peer review of teaching places greater emphasis on the faculty member’s responsibility to self-evaluate, improve their teaching practices, and to compile relevant information for their teaching portfolio.

Students provide formative reviews by providing feedback at the end-of-semester student evaluations of teaching. Faculty may solicit feedback from students throughout the course and can use more formal processes such as those offered by the Center for Teaching & Learning (CTL) such as Students Consulting on Teaching (SCOT), Mid-course Evaluation, and more.

Peers also provide formative and summative reviews. Faculty members are encouraged to solicit formative reviews by peers and to discuss the content of these reviews as they seek to improve their teaching. For faculty members applying to advance in rank/status, the department chair ensures that substantive summative peer reviews from at least two qualified BYU faculty members are included in the rank and status file.

The summative evaluations of teaching conducted by peer reviewers remain confidential. However, a concise summary of evaluations from the various levels of review (e.g., peer evaluations, department rank and status committee, college rank and status committee) is given to the faculty member in the 3^rd year letter granting candidacy for rank and status. This feedback may include suggestions for improvement as the faculty member prepares for the final review for continuing faculty status.

The 2022 Rank and Status Procedures document states, “The department chair ensures that at least two peers evaluate the faculty member’s teaching and includes confidential written reports of those evaluations in the portfolio. The department chair may delegate this responsibility to an associate chair or to the department review committee” (see 4.5 Peer Reviews of Teaching).

A standard form is not required. Colleges and departments may develop their own forms, but they should still be built upon the Three Pillars of Effective Teaching: (1) Student Learning, (2) Learning Environment, and (3) Processes of Improvement. However, a general form for the Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness is available on the BYU Peer Review of Teaching website: https://ctl.byu.edu/teaching-portfolio-peer-review. This form may be customized for the unique needs of individual colleges and departments.

We will have samples available online in the near future.

The CTL provides formative support for faculty members who are applying for candidacy for continuing faculty status (initial review); continuing faculty status (final review); and rank advancement. This includes one-on-one consultations to improve teaching, Students Consulting on Teaching (SCOT) services, Mid-course Evaluation, Comment Classification, and more. In addition, the CTL is developing online tools to facilitate the gathering and review of evidence from various sources including the learning management system, the Learning Outcomes website, the Faculty Profile System, and Student Ratings and comments.

The work to maintain the teaching portfolio is already being done by faculty who strive to improve their teaching. The teaching portfolio formalizes the process and helps faculty to gather evidence in one place. In fact, it might alleviate some of the burden placed on faculty to prepare their rank and status file as it plainly scaffolds the whole process and spreads the work out over time.

Individual faculty members compile an electronic teaching portfolio, which is a real-time record of student achievement, teaching activities and effectiveness, and ongoing improvement efforts. Documentation can occur in small, easy increments after each semester to facilitate self-evaluation and improvement. Such documentation provides evidence for annual stewardship interviews and for use in rank and status reviews.

The teaching portfolio has two primary components: (1) a growing record that provides documentation for courses taught framed around the Three Pillars of Effective Teaching, and (2) an executive summary evaluating the evidence from all previous semesters under review.

The breadth and depth of the documentation are determined by individual colleges/departments, but will include

1. Student learning outcomes and evidence of their achievement,
2. Information about the learning environment and its effectiveness in inspiring learning, and
3. A record of the efforts by the faculty member to continuously improve as a teacher and to improve his or her courses. Faculty members can focus on as many or as few items as necessary to improve their teaching.

Every faculty member who is applying for candidacy for continuing faculty status (initial review), continuing faculty status (final review), or rank advancement should compile a teaching portfolio. Colleges may decide to have all faculty engage in the teaching portfolio review process.

Only as long as necessary to provide evidence of (1) student learning, (2) an effective learning environment, and (3) continuous processes of improvement. Individual colleges/departments set guidelines for the depth and breadth of the teaching portfolio.

The teaching portfolio is only one element within the teaching section of the rank and status portfolio. The faculty member provides the peer reviewer with a link to the teaching portfolio. This link provides reviewers access to evidence related to the Three Pillars of Effective Teaching (e.g., attainment of learning outcomes, student ratings of teaching, course materials). The evidence can be located in one place (e.g., faculty member’s hard drive or Box folder, departmental/college folder with access rights), or to Learning Suite or other repositories.

The teaching section of the rank and status file has five sub-sections:

1. Brief narrative (optional)
2. BYU Graduate and/or Honors Students Supervised (only required if not in CV)
3. Link to the Teaching Portfolio
4. Confidential Peer Reviews of Teaching (included by department)
5. Student Ratings Summary Report, including comments (included by department)

A standard template is not required. Colleges and departments may develop their own templates or guides, but they should still be built upon the Three Pillars of Effective Teaching. However, a general template for the teaching portfolio is available on the BYU Peer Review of Teaching website. See “Suggested Template for Teaching Portfolio” https://ctl.byu.edu/peer-review-of-teaching). This may be customized for the unique needs of individual colleges and departments.

Departments include the Student Ratings Summary Report in the rank and status file; in the teaching portfolio faculty should include relevant information from these reports as they document their teaching stewardship and efforts to improve.

Faculty members are responsible for demonstrating that they are fulfilling their teaching stewardship as a whole. Colleges/departments will determine the expectations for the depth and breadth of evidence to include in the teaching portfolio. It could be all courses, or it could be a sufficient subset to provide evidence of teaching effectiveness. However, any course would be improved through the teaching portfolio review process. Ideally, one course should be carefully documented over multiple semesters for rank and status purposes.

Yes, so the faculty member can document improvements to that particular course over time. But in the rare case where a faculty member has not taught the same course more than once, the teaching portfolio can still demonstrate how self-evaluation in one course was applied to improve teaching in different classes in subsequent semesters.

The scope of the teaching portfolio will be determined by colleges/departments. For faculty applying for initial candidacy, we recommend at least 2 years; for final review (CFS), we recommend a minimum of 3 years prior to application. For faculty applying for rank advancement to full professor, we recommend 3-5 years.

Beginning Fall 2022 faculty should use the teaching portfolio process based upon the Three Pillars of Effective Teaching. There is no expectation that this framework be used prior to this time.

The faculty member decides if and how to include formative peer reviews and/or a summary of these reviews. Formative reviews can provide evidence of successful improvements as well as feedback to guide future improvements. A consistent, conscientious effort to seek formative feedback provides evidence of engagement in processes of improvement.

Yes! Faculty may take the initiative to ask colleagues to observe their teaching, review their materials and other evidence of effective teaching and student learning. Departments/colleges may have standards for assigning formative evaluators. Engaging in discussions prior to a peer review helps the reviewer focus on items of interest (e.g., negative student comments, bias against certain students). Discussing the results of the review helps the faculty member improve; reviewers also learn new strategies and ideas from this process.

Peer reviewers no longer have the responsibility of providing primary evidence of effective teaching. The faculty member has the responsibility of demonstrating that they are fulfilling their teaching stewardship. In essence, peer reviewers evaluate the strength of the evidence presented and provide their conclusions regarding teaching effectiveness.

Individual colleges/departments determine how to select and train peer reviewers. The CTL provides support for peer reviewers and faculty members.

Teaching observations are an essential component of the “Learning Environment” evidence in this new framework. Both formative and summative peer review should include class observations.

Preferably, yes, so the peer reviewer can give feedback to the faculty member regarding changes made to that particular course over time. However, each college/department will determine how peer reviewers are assigned and what is required of them.

The evidence considered by a formative peer reviewer is at the discretion of the faculty member. A department chair may provide specific guidance for the review.

Summative peer reviewers will consider the faculty member’s teaching narrative, teaching portfolio, Student Ratings Summary Reports including comments, and classroom observations. Summative peer review should focus on evidence related to the Three Pillars of Effective Teaching.