Teaching Stewardship Evaluation — Administrator Considerations

VIDEO - Introduction to Peer Review of Teaching at BYU, 2022 by AAVP Faculty Development

Excellent teaching is a central pursuit of BYU. Peer review of teaching can play a vital role in helping individual faculty and the university achieve this goal. In addition, important decisions regarding continuing faculty status (CFS) and rank advancement must be made, and peer review of teaching can provide valuable information to guide those decisions. Thus, peer review of teaching at BYU has two purposes:

1. First, to provide actionable feedback to help faculty members improve teaching and learning. (Formative Purpose)
2. Second, “to ensure that a faculty member’s present qualifications and future promise” (BYU Rank & Status Policy 5.1) warrant granting CFS and/or rank advancement.  (Summative Purpose) 

Both formative and summative purposes can be served as faculty members regularly evaluate and document evidence of effective teaching, student learning, and results of their efforts to refine elements of teaching and learning in a teaching portfolio. Departments and colleagues play an important role in both formative activities and summative reviews.

Formative Activities

Faculty members within the rank and status process are encouraged to seek out formative opportunities and feedback on their own. However, department leadership and peer mentors should take an active role in guiding formative activities. Some possible formative activities include:

Peer Mentoring—It is recommended that departments work with the faculty member and the Faculty Center to designate a peer mentor that can counsel the faculty member in all facets of their stewardship equally.

Annual Stewardship Interviews—Department chairs are encouraged to review the current year’s Teaching Portfolio and to use that as a basis for conversation on teaching during the Annual Stewardship Interview.

Formative Peer Review of Teaching—Faculty are encouraged to seek out peer feedback. Departments are also encouraged to develop programs of peer interaction around teaching for the benefit of all faculty.

Professional Development Opportunities—Chairs and mentors may suggest professional development opportunities to the faculty member. Colleges and departments are encouraged to offer professional development events.

Student Feedback—Chairs and mentors may also encourage the faculty member to gather student feedback prior to end-of-semester student ratings through Mid-Course Evaluation or SCOT (Students Consulting on Teaching) services.

The inclusion of information from formative activities in the Teaching Portfolio is at the discretion of the faculty member.

Summative Review Process

Department Chair or designee assigns at least two summative peer reviewers. Ideally, summative peer reviewers are assigned early in the process to enable “multiple classroom visits over several semesters” (BYU R&S Review Procedures Policy 4.5). The faculty member should provide their Teaching Portfolio while the department provides the Student Ratings Summary Report for the review period to peer reviewers.

The summative review process is intended to be adaptable to the needs of the college or department. Colleges (who may delegate to departments) determine the depth and breadth of the Teaching Portfolio, including elements such as the following:

• Format of Teaching Portfolio (e.g., link to document(s) in a secure online folder; link to Learning Suite/Canvas)
• Length of Teaching Portfolio

• Required content, such as 

  • Summary narrative written by the faculty member
  • Frequency and format of self-evaluations
  • Frequency and format of formative reviews (e.g., summary written by faculty member; university/college/department form)
  • Selected course materials (e.g., course assignments; quizzes, exams; feedback provided to students; syllabi)
  • Student achievement of the learning outcomes
• How many and/or which types of courses (e.g., graduate/undergraduate, lecture/lab) should be reported in the Teaching Portfolio, over a specified period of time (e.g., every class each semester; one class over several semesters) 

While colleges and departments may adapt format and methods to their unique needs, the Three Pillars of Effective Teaching (summarized below) are the common criteria to guide all review activities.

While it is ultimately the responsibility of the faculty member to demonstrate that they qualify for CFS and rank advancement, it should also be the case that colleges, departments, and colleagues have made every reasonable effort to help the faculty member succeed.

For additional details, see Department-Level Review and College-Level Review.

See also:

• BYU Rank & Status Policy
• BYU Professorial Faculty Review Policy
• BYU Professional Faculty Review Policy
• Evaluation of Teaching: The Reviewer's Role