Peer Review of Teaching at BYU:
Guidelines and Suggestions Pertaining to the Rank and Status Process
Why peer review?
Quality teaching that enhances student learning is an important expectation of all faculty who teach at BYU.
The University uses two primary evaluation tools to assess the quality of teaching: Student Ratings and Peer
Review. Students are asked to provide feedback on the teaching/learning process from their perspective as
learners. Peers are asked to assess teaching methods, materials, and outcomes from their perspective as
teachers and members of an academic discipline.
There are two distinct purposes for peer review of teaching. The first is to provide formative (developmental)
feedback to faculty members to help them improve their teaching. The second purpose is to provide a
summative (accountability) evaluation for making personnel decisions (i.e., rank and status). The same
criteria should be used for both formative and summative evaluations, even though the use of data is
different. In both cases the evaluation criteria should be generally known and widely accepted within a
department. (See Chism, Peer Review of Teaching, ch. 4)
When should peer reviews be conducted?
Summative peer reviews must be conducted in conjunction with the third- and sixth-year reviews for junior
faculty. Within the context of the rank and advancement process, formative evaluations should help junior
faculty improve their courses and prepare for summative evaluations. Therefore, they are most useful when
conducted during the 1st or 2nd and the 4th or 5th years. It is recommended that a given peer review should not
try to incorporate both formative and summative purposes.
Who conducts peer reviews?
Option A: If a department has organized a committee to conduct peer reviews (e.g., a Learning, Teaching and
Curriculum Committee), then members of this committee could conduct both formative and summative
reviews.
Option B: If a department does not use a standing committee for peer reviews, then a mentor could be
assigned to conduct the formative review and an ad hoc group of faculty (2-3) could be assigned to conduct
the summative review.
How should a summative peer review be conducted?
Section 3.3.2 of the University Rank and Status Policy provides the following direction.
Peer evaluation is as important for teaching as it is for scholarship. The department review committee will
obtain at least two substantive confidential peer evaluations of teaching from BYU faculty members
qualified to make evaluations of the faculty member's approach to pedagogy, teaching activities and
materials. The faculty member will assemble a teaching portfolio containing syllabi, textbooks, handouts,
multimedia materials, assignments, learning exercises, examinations, and other course materials. The peer
evaluations should concentrate on a review of the teaching portfolio, but should also include classroom
visits. Ideally, the classroom visits should be conducted over several semesters prior to the faculty member's
third- and sixth-year reviews. Peer evaluations might best assess such areas as:
1
1. Whether the course reflects the current state of the discipline.
2. The faculty member's mastery of the course content.
3. The course objectives, including whether the course meets the objectives of the curriculum of which
it is a part.
4. The course organization.
5. The methods used to foster and measure learning.
6. The materials in the teaching portfolio (syllabi, textbooks, handouts, multimedia materials,
assignments, learning exercises, examinations, and other course materials).
7. The faculty member's general concern for and interest in teaching.
8. The overall quality of teaching.
Other examples of meaningful peer evaluation of teaching might include reports from graduate schools or
employers regarding students' performance, and professional invitations based on a faculty member's
reputation as a teacher.
What is the department chair’s role?
1. Facilitate ongoing conversations within the department regarding a) the importance of high quality
teaching and learning, b) the value of peer review in facilitating continuous improvement (pre- and
post-continuing status), and c) the appropriate criteria for guiding summative peer reviews.
2. Make peer review assignments and provide reviewers with all information and tools necessary to
properly complete their assignments.
3. Ensure that the evaluation process is being conducted in a timely manner. A recommended timetable
has been included in Appendix A.
4. Check the peer review reports for completeness and include them in the candidate’s promotion file.
What resource materials are available to guide the peer review process?
To assist faculty members assigned to conduct peer reviews of teaching, the Faculty Center has prepared the
following supplemental materials. These should be treated as suggestions/recommendations based on study
of the relevant literature. The establishment of standards or expectations beyond those laid out in the rank
and status policy is the purview of colleges and departments.
A copy of the following book should be available in every department. It is the best source book on this
subject. It contains a wide range of practical suggestions as well as useful peer-review forms.
Peer Review of Teaching: A Sourcebook, Nancy Van Note Chism (Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing
Company), 1999.
We also recommend the following articles available from the Faculty Center:
Report of University Committee for the Study of Peer Evaluation (1999). (Proposals from a faculty
committee.)
Theall, Michael (2002). “Guidelines for Good Evaluation Practice.” Focus on Faculty, 10, 2-3 (part of
“Student Ratings: Myth vs. Research Evidence”). (Discusses elements of a good evaluation system,
especially how peer reviews and student ratings are complementary components of assessment.)
2
Sorenson, D. Lynn (1995). “Beware the N of One,” Focus on Faculty, 3, 6. (This short article warns of the
danger of using oneself (an “n of one”) as the measure of good teaching when observing colleagues’ classes.
The article also summarizes current research benchmarks of effective teaching as better criteria than the “n
of one.”)
Cunningham, Michael (2001). “Observations Beyond the Lecture: New Learning Models Require New
Evaluation Methods.” Teaching Professor, 15, 6. (Generally insightful suggestions)
Are there peer review tools we can use?
Experience has shown that the systematic application of standardized criteria significantly enhances the
quality of a peer review process. To stimulate conversations within departments regarding the evaluation
criteria and methods, the Faculty Center has provided some sample evaluation tools in Appendix B. Included
in these materials are review forms to help assess a) course design and b) classroom instruction.
What should be included in the summative peer review report?
The rank and status policy stipulates that a candidate’s teaching portfolio need not be included in the
materials sent forward to the college and university rank and advancement committees. Higher levels of the
review process will rely on a thorough and comprehensive peer review report provided by the department. In
light of this expectation, a recommended outline for this report is shown in Appendix C.
Appendix A: Recommended Timetable for Conducting Peer Reviews
Appendix B: Sample Evaluation Tools
Appendix C: Outline for Summative Peer Review-of-Teaching Report
3
APPENDIX A:
RECOMMENDED TIMETABLE FOR
CONDUCTING PEER REVIEWS.
(The Third Year Review is used for illustrative purposes)
Year
Semester/Month/Date
Task
Faculty member’s
first year
By the end of the
second semester
Make sure the new faculty member has a mentor and that the
mentor provides formative feedback on teaching to the new
faculty member (after reviewing materials and making
classroom visits).
Faculty member’s
second year
Fall Semester
The Review Committee should arrange for at least two
classroom visits during this year for summative purposes.
The Department Review Committee should have in place the
process by which faculty candidates for rank and status will
be evaluated for their teaching.
The Review Committee should arrange for a formal formative
evaluation.
Faculty member’s
third year
By [specify a month]
The Review Committee should arrange for at least two
classroom visits during this year for summative purposes.
By [specify a month]
The Department Review Committee should ask the faculty
candidate to prepare a teaching portfolio.
By [specify a date]
The faculty candidate should submit the teaching portfolio to
the Review Committee.
By [specify a date]
The Review Committee should arrange for at least two
classroom visits during this year for summative purposes.
By [specify a date]
The Review Committee should have completed its review of
the Teaching Portfolio, including all past evaluations based on
classroom observations.
By [specify a date]
The Review Committee should complete its peer review
report to be inserted into the candidate's dossier.
4
APPENDIX B:
SAMPLE EVALUATION TOOLS
Notes:
1. These forms can be used for both summative and formative reviews. The major difference is that for
summative reviews the comments section should be used to list specific examples or rationale supporting the
rater's scores, whereas the comments section for formative reviews should be used to record constructive
observations and suggestions for improvement.
2. These forms are provided as examples—their use is not required. Two different types of forms/approaches
are included: rating forms and guidelines for a narrative report. Peer Review of Teaching (Chism, 1999)
contains other examples of specific tools and evaluation criteria. Departments are encouraged to adapt these
examples so that they will reflect what the department generally considers to be effective teaching leading to
student learning, as well as department needs and circumstances.
Forms included:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Rating Form for Reviewing Course Design
Narrative Form for Reviewing Course Design
Rating Form for Reviewing Classroom Instruction
Narrative Form for Reviewing Classroom Instruction
5
RATING FORM FOR
REVIEWING COURSE DESIGN
(Adapted from Chism, 1999)
Course: _____________________ Teacher: _____________________ Reviewer: ____________________
A. Course Content
Course syllabus, textbook, readings, assignments, handouts and other relevant course materials
After examining the above materials, please answer the following questions:
Needs
Improvement
Satisfactory
Exemplary
1. Does the course content reflect the current state of the
discipline?
______
______
______
2. Is the course content appropriate for this level (e.g., student
preparation, sequence in the curriculum)?
______
______
______
3. Is the course content accurate?
______
______
______
To what extent . . .
Comments (Summative: rationale/evidence for ratings above; Formative: comments and suggestions for
improvements):
B. Teaching Materials
Course syllabus, textbook, readings, assignments, handouts, multi-media and other relevant course materials
After examining the above materials, please answer the following questions:
Needs
Improvement
To what extent…
1. Are the teaching materials of high quality?
Satisfactory
Exemplary
______ ______ ______
2. Are the teaching materials and the course organized in ways that foster
______ ______ ______
effective learning?
3. Is all relevant information provided and clearly presented?
______ ______ ______
Comments (Summative: rationale/evidence for ratings above; Formative: comments and suggestions for
improvements)
6
C. Instructional Design: Learning Goals
Syllabus and other relevant course materials
After examining the above materials, please answer the following questions:
Needs
Improvement
To what extent…
Satisfactory
Exemplary
1. Are the goals for student learning clear?
______ ______ ______
2. Do these goals focus on the most valuable/important learning
outcomes for students in this course?
______ ______ ______
3. Do course learning goals reflect other relevant goals (e.g., BYU
Aims, program/department goals, discipline/professional standards)?
______ ______ ______
Comments (Summative: rationale/evidence for ratings above; Formative: comments and suggestions for
improvements)
D. Instructional Design: Learning Activities
Syllabus, assignments, project descriptions, multi-media materials, learning exercises and other relevant
course materials
After examining the above materials, please answer the following questions:
Needs
Satisfactory
Improvement
To what extent…
Exemplary
1. Do the learning activities foster student achievement of the course
learning goals?
______ ______ ______
2. Do the learning activities engage students in the learning process?
______ ______ ______
3. Are students given ample opportunity to practice desired skills and
understanding prior to final assessments?
______ ______ ______
Comments (Summative: rationale/evidence for ratings above; Formative: comments and suggestions for
improvements)
7
E. Instructional Design: Learning Assessments
Syllabus, exams, quizzes, projects, performances, and other course assignments
After examining the above materials, please answer the following questions:
Needs
Improvement
Satisfactory
1. Are the assessments good measures of the learning goals for the course?
______
______ ______
2. Are the assessments aligned with the course learning activities?
______
______ ______
3. Are the performance expectations for course assessments clearly
communicated to students?
______
______ ______
4. Do exams ask for more than comprehension and recall (e.g., application,
analysis, evaluation, creative work)?
______
______ ______
5. Is the level of performance expected on assessments appropriate for this
course (i.e., not too easy; not to difficult)?
______
______ ______
6. Are grading criteria for exams, projects, performances, and other
assignments clearly specified and followed?
______
______ ______
To what extent…
Exemplary
Comments (Summative: rationale/evidence for ratings above; Formative: comments and suggestions for
improvements)
8
SAMPLE NARRATIVE OUTLINE
FOR REVIEWING COURSE MATERIALS
(Adapted from Chism, 1999)
Course: _____________________ Teacher: _____________________ Reviewer: ____________________
The candidate’s teaching portfolio should include the following materials for each course selected for
evaluation: course syllabus, textbooks, handouts, multimedia materials, assignments, learning exercises,
examinations, and other relevant course materials. The narrative summarizing the review of these
materials should address the following areas:
A. Course Content
To what extent do these materials show that the instructor has a broad, deep, and current knowledge of the
content he or she is teaching?
• Does the course content reflect the current state of the discipline?
• Is the course content appropriate for this level (e.g., student preparation, sequence in the curriculum)?
• Is the course content accurate?
B. Teaching Materials
Are the teaching materials likely to enhance student learning?
• Are the teaching materials of high quality?
• Are the teaching materials and the course organized in ways that foster effective learning?
• Is all relevant information provided and clearly presented?
C. Instructional Design
To what extent does the portfolio show that the instructor uses good design principles to facilitate learning?
1. Learning Goals
• Are the goals for student learning clear?
• Do these goals focus on the most valuable/important learning outcomes for students in this course?
• Do course learning goals reflect other relevant goals (e.g., BYU Aims, program/department goals,
discipline/professional standards)?
2. Learning Activities
• Do the learning activities foster student achievement of the course learning goals?
• Do the learning activities engage students in the learning process?
• Are students given ample opportunity to practice desired skills and understanding prior to final
assessments?
3. Learning Assessments:
• Are the assessments good measures of the learning goals for the course?
• Are the assessments aligned with the course learning activities?
• Are the performance expectations for course assessments clearly communicated to students?
• Do exams ask for more than comprehension and recall (e.g., application, analysis,
evaluation, creative work)?
• Is the level of performance expected on assessments appropriate for this course (not too easy; not to
difficult)?
• Are grading criteria for exams, projects, performances, and other assignments clearly specified and
followed?
9
RATING FORM FOR
REVIEWING CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION
(Adapted from Chism, 1999)
Course: __________________ Teacher: ____________________ Reviewer: _____________________
While observing the class, focus your attention on the following elements of effective teaching:
A. Organization
Please answer the following questions:
Needs
Improvement
Satisfactory
Exemplary
1. Is the teacher prepared for class (e.g., starts class promptly, has
materials ready)?
______
______
______
2. Does the teacher use class time effectively/efficiently?
______
______
______
3. Are learning activities well organized?
______
______
______
4. Are the learning activities consistent with the course
learning goals?
______
______
______
To what extent…
Comments (Summative: rationale/evidence for ratings above; Formative: comments and suggestions for
improvements)
10
B. Instructional Strategies
Needs
Improvement
Satisfactory
Exemplary
1. Are teaching strategies consistent with the course learning goals?
______
______
______
2. Does the teacher employ a variety of teaching methods?
______
______
______
3. Is pacing appropriate?
______
______
______
4. Does the teacher provide clear directions for learning activities?
______
______
______
5. Does the teacher effectively integrate in-class activities and out-ofclass activities (e.g. readings, lab assignments)?
______
______
______
6. Does the teacher facilitate effective class discussion?
______
______
______
7. Are students given an opportunity to learn from each other?
______
______
______
8. Are the board work, overheads, slides, etc. organized and helpful?
______
______
______
9. Does the teacher facilitate effective group work?
______
______
______
______
______
______
To what extent…
Rate the following if appropriate for this class session.
10. Is multi-media used effectively to promote learning?
Comments (Summative: rationale/evidence for ratings above; Formative: comments and suggestions for
improvements)
11
C. Presentation Skills
Needs
Improvement
Satisfactory
Exemplary
______
______
______
Does the teacher appear enthusiastic (e.g., about the course,
the particular subject, and the students)?
______
______
______
3. Does the teacher help make the subject relevant/interesting?
______
______
______
To what extent…
1. Is the teacher an effective presenter/facilitator?
2.
Comments (Summative: rationale/evidence for ratings above; Formative: comments and suggestions for
improvements)
D. Content Knowledge
To what extent does the teacher…
Needs
Improvement
Satisfactory
Exemplary
1.
Appear knowledgeable (e.g., confident about explanations and
answering questions)?
______
______
______
2.
Focus on the significant content of the field (e.g., uses
appropriate examples and illustrations, stays on topic)?
______
______
______
Comments (Summative: rationale/evidence for ratings above; Formative: comments and suggestions for
improvements)
12
E. Rapport with Students
Needs
Improvement
Satisfactory
Exemplary
1. Encourages student participation?
______
______
______
2. Model good listening skills?
______
______
______
3. Utilize good classroom management skills?
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
To what extent does the teacher…
4.
Demonstrate personal interest in students (e.g., call them by
name, respond respectfully, address questions and concerns)?
5. Respond to students’ needs and learning differences?
Comments (Summative: rationale/evidence for ratings above; Formative: comments and suggestions for
improvements)
F. Clarity
Needs
Improvement
Satisfactory
Exemplary
1. Provide clear explanations and examples?
______
______
______
2. Answer questions clearly and fully?
______
______
______
3. Emphasize the main points of the topic or lecture?
______
______
______
4. Relate subject matter to practical applications or relevant
situations?
______
______
______
To what extent does the teacher…
Comments (Summative: rationale/evidence for ratings above; Formative: comments and suggestions for
improvements)
13
SAMPLE NARRATIVE OUTLINE
FOR CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS
(Adapted from Chism, 1999)
Course: ____________________ Teacher: _____________________ Reviewer: ______________________
While observing the class, focus your attention on the following elements of effective teaching. (Note: not all
aspects of a course will be observable on any given day.) The narrative summarizing the classroom
observation should address the following areas:
A. Teacher Organization
• Is the teacher prepared for class? (e.g., starts class promptly, has materials ready)?
• Does the teacher use class time effectively/efficiently?
• Are learning activities well organized?
• Are the learning activities consistent with the course learning goals?
B. Instructional Strategies
• Are teaching strategies consistent with the course learning goals?
• Does the teacher employ a variety of teaching methods?
• Is pacing appropriate?
• Does the teacher provide clear directions for learning activities?
• Does the teacher effectively integrate in-class activities and out-of-class activities (e.g., readings, lab
assignments)?
Address the following if appropriate for this class session.
• Does the teacher facilitate effective class discussion?
• Are students given an opportunity to learn from each other?
• Are the board work, overheads, slides, etc. organized and helpful?
• Does the teacher facilitate effective group work?
• Is multi-media used effectively to promote learning?
C. Presentation Skills
• Is the teacher an effective presenter/facilitator?
• Does the teacher appear enthusiastic (about the course, the particular subject, and the students)?
• Does the teacher help make the subject relevant/interesting?
D. Content Knowledge
Does the teacher:
• Appear knowledgeable (e.g., confident in giving explanations and answering questions)?
• Focus on the significant content of the field (e.g., uses appropriate examples and illustrations, stays on
topic)?
E. Rapport with Students
Does the teacher:
• Encourage student participation?
• Model good listening skills?
• Utilize good classroom management skills?
• Demonstrate personal interest in students (e.g., call them by name, respond respectfully, address
14
questions and concerns)?
• Respond to students’ needs and learning differences?
F. Clarity
Does the teacher:
• Provide clear explanations and examples?
• Answer questions clearly and fully?
• Emphasize the main points of the topic or lecture?
• Relate subject matter to practical applications or relevant situations?
15
APPENDIX C:
OUTLINE FOR SUMMATIVE
PEER REVIEW-OF-TEACHING REPORT
Suggestions:







Use the section headings of the review forms as the outline for the peer review report. (The report
outline below corresponds to the section headings in Appendix 2.)
Follow the expectations agreed upon in the department. Avoid interjecting personal “pet theories” of
teaching or using one’s personal teaching practices as the department standard.
Focus on the effectiveness of the course design and classroom teaching in promoting student
learning.
Be familiar with the statement of university expectations in Section 3.3.2C of the University Rank
and Status Policy.
Support evaluative statements with specific evidence, rationale, and examples.
Include both positive and negative comments.
It is very helpful to use some type of peer review form. The department chair can determine whether
to attach these forms or report numeric averages from the forms.
I. Introduction (Peer Review Process)
• Who was involved?
• When did the review take place?
• What was evaluated?
• Course materials reviewed
• Classes observed
• What agreed-upon department evaluation criteria/standards were used?
II. Review of Course Design
• Course Content
• Teaching Materials
• Learning Goals
• Learning Activities
• Learning Assessments
III. Review of Classroom Instruction
• Organization
• Instructional Strategies
• Presentation Skills
• Content Knowledge
• Rapport with Students
• Clarity
IV. Conclusion (Overall Assessment)
• Summarize positive and negative assessments
16
• Express overall professional judgment
• How much are students learning from this teacher?
• How effective is this teacher in promoting student learning?
• What is the likelihood that this teacher will continue to improve?
• Possibly comment on patterns or trends observed in peer review results
17