Peer Evaluation of Teaching
Department of Chemistry
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Missouri Western State University
Philosophy: The faculty of Department of Chemistry at Missouri Western hold ourselves to a
high standard of instruction in the classroom and laboratory. The purpose of the following
process is to provide the faculty member, the Chairperson, and those University members
associated with the Promotion, Tenure, and Performance review process with an accurate and
detailed assessment of the reviewed faculty member’s teaching. This peer evaluation will serve
as an additional perspective (beyond that of the student evaluation process) of a faculty
member’s teaching. With that in mind, we establish the following procedures for tenured and
tenure-track faculty to review the instruction of our peers.
Formative and Summative Evaluation: The purpose of formative evaluations are to provide
advice and feedback for the purposes of improving instruction. Formative evaluations must
remain confidential and remain the property of the evaluated faculty member. As a consequence
they may not, and will not, be included in any evaluation process. The purpose of summative
evaluations are to provide an assessment of the effectiveness of a faculty member’s teaching and,
by nature and necessity, contain a comparative dimension. The summative evaluation will be
and must be included in any relevant evaluation process, though the results of the evaluation will
remain confidential within the evaluation chain of custody.
Frequency: Untenured faculty members will receive a summative peer-review of their teaching
at least three times before their application for promotion and tenure. At least one of these
reviews should occur before the mid-tenure review process. To meet these requirements faculty
members at the rank of Assistant Professor will be reviewed in their 2nd year, 4th year and 5th
year. The Department Chairperson may assign more frequent reviews or off cycle reviews as
necessary. Following tenure and promotion to Associate Professor, faculty will be reviewed at
least twice prior to promotion to Professor. To meet these requirements faculty members at the
rank of Associate Professor will be reviewed every two years following their promotion to
Associate. Following promotion to Professor, faculty may still request peer reviews for
inclusion in Faculty Performance Review applications. Any faculty member at any rank may
request additional summative peer review for inclusion in their promotion/tenure materials in any
year. All summative reviews must be included in promotion/tenure/performance review
materials.
In addition to the summative process described above, any faculty member may request a
formative review of their teaching at any time. All faculty members will receive a formative
review during the Spring semester of their first year in the Department. While using the same
process and evaluating the same items, formative evaluations will not be included in the faculty
member’s annual evaluations or in future promotion/tenure/performance review materials.
What is Evaluated: Research in peer review of teaching indicates that to be reliable and valid,
an instructor must be assessed on multiple sources of information including collections of
documents, interviews, and classroom observation. A list of characteristics of good teaching are
included in Appendix A of this document. The following items will be considered in the
evaluation:
- Written Statement of Teaching Philosophy
- Course Syllabi
- Classroom/laboratory observation
- Examples of course materials (homework, exams, worksheets, etc.)
- Samples of student work
Reviewing Faculty: Peer review of teaching will be conducted by a tenured faculty member,
unless extenuating circumstances arise that prevent it. Only under unusual conditions will a
faculty member outside the Department of Chemistry be assigned to conduct a summative
review. No more than one peer review for any application shall come from the Department
Chairperson. In cases of summative evaluations, the Department Chairperson will assign a
reviewer. Assignments will be distributed on or before the first day of classes in the Fall
semester. Both the reviewer and the reviewed will be notified of the assignments.
Review Process and Timeline:
- Both the reviewing faculty member and the faculty member to be reviewed will be
notified of the need for a summative review on or before the first day of Fall term classes.
- The reviewing faculty member and the faculty member to be reviewed will meet within
the first two weeks of the Fall term to determine when the review will take place and in
what course(s). Reviews should occur during the Fall semester, though may occur in the
Spring term following consultation with the Chairperson.
- The review process should consist of a minimum of three meetings and a
classroom/laboratory observation.
o Meeting 1: The faculty member will identify what course(s) they would prefer to
have reviewed and will share general course philosophy, syllabi, and sample
assessment components with the reviewer. An agreement must be made on what
date the class(s) will be observed. The faculty member should describe what the
goals and activities of the reviewed class period will be. If a faculty member is
teaching in a variety of formats (lecture, laboratory, on-line, etc.) each format
should be evaluated over the course of a promotion period. Ideally these would
be evaluated in total each time to provide a more complete picture of the faculty
members teaching skill set. That is, if a faculty member is teaching both lectures
and labs in the same term then one lecture section would be observed and one lab
section would be observed in the same term.
o Classroom Observation: On the agreed upon date the reviewing faculty member
will attend a lecture/laboratory period to observe classroom related skills. The
Classroom Observation Form (Appendix B) will be completed during/
immediately after the observation.
o Meeting 2: Within one week of the classroom/laboratory observation the
reviewer and reviewed will meet to discuss how the observed period went. The
faculty member will have the opportunity to describe what went well and what
challenges were experienced. They should also identify what they might change
to improve the lesson for the next iteration.
o Meeting 3: Within 3-weeks of the observation the reviewer and reviewed should
meet to discuss the evaluation. A copy of the evaluation will be submitted to the
Department Chairperson for inclusion in the Faculty Members permanent record.
If desired the reviewed faculty member may file a letter of clarification/rebuttal
with the Department Chairperson. This letter will be attached to the review and
will move forward as part of the document for any review purposes (i.e., Annual
Evaluation, Promotion, FPR, etc.)
Observation Rubric:
The in class observation of faculty members will be recorded using the form found in Appendix
B of this document. While this form may be referred to during meetings with the faculty
member, the form will not be forwarded as part of the formal written summative review. Rather
it is to serve as a tool to guide and provide a record of the observation.
Review/Evaluation: Prior to the third meeting, the reviewer will write a narrative describing the
meetings, review of materials, and classroom/laboratory observations. The review must provide
positive feedback as well as suggestions for improvement. Emphasis should be placed on the
positive aspects of the faculty member’s teaching. The reviewer will consider the following
criteria at a minimum: clarity, organization, preparedness, and appropriate breadth/depth, balance
of theory and practice, student engagement. Specific examples of each of these items must be
presented. The reviewer will also complete Appendix C: Missouri Western State University
Peer Evaluation of Teaching matrix. The completed matrix and the written review will
constitute the complete summative evaluation. Two copies of the evaluation should be prepared.
Submission: One copy of the evaluation will be returned to the reviewed faculty member and a
second copy sent to the Chairperson. Reviews will be submitted to the Department Chairperson
and the reviewed faculty member within 2 weeks third meeting. The reviewed faculty member
will then have a three week window in which to submit a letter of clarification/rebuttal if they so
desire.
Appendix A: Characteristics of Effective Teaching (http:www.celt.iastate.edu/pet/)
Person as Teacher
- Is skilled at communicating
- Has a positive attitude toward students
- Exhibits respect for all students
Content Knowledge Expert
- Is capable of using relevant information from literature in teaching
- Has thorough knowledge of subject
- Has knowledge of new developments/advanced in subject
Facilitator of learning processes
- Places the student at the center when designing educational material
- Is capable of designing activating educational materials
- Is capable of building education in such a way that students gradually learn to learn in a
self-directed manner.
- Is capable of giving feedback
- Places the student at the center of his/her teaching
- Is capable of activating students
- Is capable or assessing student’s learning results
- Is capable of re-adjusting his/her practice on the basis of evaluations
- Is capable of designing tests that are appropriate for the desired learning results.
Organizer
- Is capable of cooperating with colleagues.
- Is communicative when cooperating with colleagues.
- Is capable of contributing to the curriculum.
Scholar/lifelong learner
- Is capable of reflecting on his/her teaching performance.
- Is capable of drawing conclusions form reflection on his/her teaching performance.
- Is open to innovation.
Appendix B: Department of Chemistry Peer Evaluation Classroom Observation Form
Name of Observed Faculty Member
Name of Observer:
Observation Date:
Location:
Number of Students in Room:
Observation Time:
Course:
Course Content
Demonstrates command of subject matter.
Content reflects current research/knowledge of discipline.
Purpose of class session is evident.
Content is consistent with course syllabus.
Comments:
Teaching Skills
Transitions between ideas are smooth.
Relevant examples are given and used to clarify concepts.
Presentation is organized.
Instructor is enthusiastic about subject.
Material is adapted to needs of the students.
Supplemental materials/visual aids/ technology are used effectively.
Instructor makes note of and adapts to student feedback
accordingly.
The teaching methods are appropriate to the type and size of the
class.
An assessment tool/strategy was integrated into the lesson.
Answered questions clearly.
Established a rapport with students.
Asked questions that led students to think critically.
Comments:
NA
SD
D
A
SA
Classroom Environment
The students participated in the lesson.
Students were engaged in the topic.
The instructor encouraged questions and periodically checked
student understanding.
The instructor was attentive to cues of boredom and confusion.
The session was thought provoking and stimulating.
The classroom environment was conducive to critical thinking and
student-centered learning.
The instructor was sensitive to issues of diversity and inclusiveness.
Comments:
Personal Skills
The instructor communicated a personal enthusiasm for teaching.
The instructor demonstrated professional/ethical behavior.
The instructor was self-confident.
The instructor demonstrated a sense of humor.
Comments:
Organizational Skills
Used total teaching time effectively.
Organized presentation well and in a logical manner.
Demonstrated ability to work with individuals/groups.
Comments:
NA – Not Applicable, SD – Strongly Disagree, D – Disagree, A – Agree, SA – Strongly Agree
What went and worked well:
Questions and/or suggestions of things to consider:
Other comments:
Adapted from materials used by:
Ohio State University http://extensionstaff.osu.edu/policy-and-procedures-handbook/vii-promotion-and-tenure/peerevaluation-teaching-faculty
West Virginia University http://anr.ext.wvu.edu/r/download/59796
Iowa State University http://www.celt.iastate.edu/pet/
Oregon State University http://oregonstate.edu/cla/sites/default/files/mentoring/peer-evaluation.pdf
Appendix C: Missouri Western State University
Peer Evaluation of Teaching
HE – Highly Effective
E – Effective
IN- Improvement Necessary
Evaluation Criteria
HE E IN U N/O
U – Unacceptable
N/O Not Observed
Comments
(Additional Comments may be attached.)
Knowledge of Subject Matter (Uses theory, research and
evidenced-based practice in presentation of material)
Preparation and Organization of Material/Knowledge for
Teaching and Learning
Communication and Presentation of Material/Knowledge
for Teaching and Learning (Uses examples to clarify
points, questions to enhance clarity, and technology to
enhance learning)
Analysis of Material/Knowledge for Teaching and
Learning (includes logical synthesis of information)
(Enables students to apply knowledge to real-world
situations)
Engagement of Students in the Learning Process
Appropriate Level of Rigor
Overall Effectiveness
Professor:_____________________________________________ Evaluator:__________________________________________
Course:________________________ Section:__________ Date:____________ Time of Class:_________________________
Evaluator’s Signature:_________________________________ Professor’s Signature:__________________________________
Evaluation Criteria
HE
Knowledge of Subject Matter
(Uses theory, research and
evidenced-based practice in
presentation of material)
Is expert in the subject area
and has an excellent grasp of
how students learn and
develop.
Plans the instructional
material for all classes
embedding big ideas,
essential questions,
knowledge, and skill goals.
Preparation and Organization
of Material/Knowledge for
Teaching and Learning
Communication and
Presentation of
Material/Knowledge for
Teaching and Learning (Uses
examples to clarify points,
questions to enhance clarity,
and technology to enhance
learning)
Analysis of
Material/Knowledge for
Teaching and Learning
(includes logical synthesis of
information) (Enables
students to apply knowledge
to real-world situations)
Engagement of Students in
the Learning Process
Appropriate Level of Rigor
Overall Effectiveness
E
IN
U
Knows the subject matter and
has a good grasp of how
students learn and develop.
Is somewhat familiar with the
subject and has a few ideas
on how students learn and
develop.
Has little familiarity with the
subject matter and few ideas
on how to teach it and how
students learn and develop.
Plans the instructional
material for most classes
embedding big ideas,
essential questions,
knowledge, and skill goals.
Plans the instructional
material with some though to
larger goals and high-level
thinking skills.
Teaches on an ad hoc basis
with little or no consideration
for larger goals and
objectives.
Always presents
material/knowledge clearly
and explicitly, with wellchosen examples and vivid
and appropriate language.
Uses clear explanations,
appropriate language, and
examples to present
material/knowledge.
Sometimes uses language and
explanations that are fuzzy,
confusing, or inappropriate.
Often presents material in a
confusing way, using
language that is
inappropriate.
Consistently has all students
summarize and internalize
what they learn and apply it
to real-world situations.
Has students sum up what
they have learned and apply it
in a different context.
Sometimes brings closure to
lessons and asks students to
think about applications.
Moves on at the end of each
lesson without closure or
application to other contexts.
Has students actively think
about, discuss, and use the
ideas and skills being taught.
Attempts to get students
involved but some students
remain disengaged.
Classroom instruction,
instructional materials,
syllabi, assignments, tests,
and grades reflect high
standards.
Classroom instruction,
instructional materials,
syllabi, assignments, tests,
and grades reflect average
standards.
Mostly lectures passively to
students or has them plod
through textbooks and
worksheets.
Classroom instruction,
instructional materials,
syllabi, assignments, tests,
and grades reflect below
average standards.
Exceeds the standards.
Just meets the standards.
Does not meet the standards.
Gets all students highly
involved in focused work in
which they are active learners
and problem solvers.
Classroom instruction,
instructional materials,
syllabi, assignments, tests,
and grades reflect very high
standards.
Far exceeds the standards.