Guidelines and Procedures for the Conduct of
Peer Review of Teaching at Penn State DuBois
A. Goal of Peer Review
The goal of peer review is to generate impartial documentation of faculty members'
teaching ability and effectiveness. This documentation shall become part of faculty
members' promotion and tenure dossier in combination with SRTEs and other relevant
evidence provided by the faculty member, by students, or by the DAA. Also, the result of
the review may be used as part of recommending faculty for awards or for teaching
development as deemed appropriate by the DAA.
Peer review documents shall remain confidential but may be examined by the faculty
member under review in the DAA’s Office.
B. Conduct of Reviews
1. Reviews are required in support of formal evaluation by the Campus Promotion and
Tenure Committee for:
(a) All untenured tenure track faculty; and
(b) All tenure track faculty being considered for promotion.
2. Reviews may be performed in support of teaching development for:
(a) All faculty interested in peer review as part of teaching development; and
(b) All faculty in order to prepare award dossiers.
C. Selection and Training of Peer Reviewers
1. All Penn State DuBois tenured and tenure-line faculty members who have successfully
completed their fourth-year review, and those who have held Fixed Term 1, Fixed Term
Multi-year, or Instructor-level positions at Penn State DuBois for at least four
consecutive years will be eligible to serve as peer reviewers.
2. A slate of ten faculty reviewers will be selected at the beginning of each academic year
by the Faculty Affairs Committee from a list of volunteers solicited by the Faculty
Congress Chair. Faculty will be strongly encouraged to serve as peer reviewers so as to
provide sufficient representation. Reviewers should represent as many different
disciplines as possible and be drawn from faculty of all eligible ranks. Peer reviewers
may serve no more than two consecutive years and must wait a year before serving again.
1
3. The DAA will be responsible for organizing an orientation session for peer reviewers.
The orientation session will include a discussion of such topics as:






the purpose of peer review,
the criteria to be used during review,
the proper use of the checklists,
behavior to be avoided in reviewing,
writing evaluation letters, and
any other important considerations for those conducting peer reviews.
4. Orientation sessions will be open to all faculty members, whether they have been
chosen as peer reviewers or not. Faculty members undergoing review will be especially
urged to attend.
D. Process of Peer Review
1. Once selected, the slate of peer reviewers will be circulated to all faculty.
2. From the list of eligible peer reviewers, the faculty member being reviewed will select
at least five names, and the DAA will select the reviewer(s) from this slate. Whenever
possible, the reviewer(s) will be from the same discipline as the faculty member.
3. The DAA may invite a peer reviewer from another campus, provided that this reviewer
has been oriented in a way similar to reviewers from Penn State DuBois and the faculty
member agrees to the choice. Similarly, peer reviewers trained at Penn State DuBois
may be invited to review colleagues at other campuses, provided this is agreeable to the
reviewer and the faculty member reviewed.
4. Peer review will consist of five basic elements, conducted in the following order:
a) Review of Course Materials
I. Within one week after the peer reviewer is selected, the faculty member
under review will provide a copy of the syllabi for courses taught that
semester and a set of the major tests and/or other assignments
administered in the courses for that semester as available.
II. If the faculty member wishes, he/she may supply to the reviewer a copy
of his/her teaching portfolio containing additional course materials, such
as course objectives, textbooks, handouts, etc. (see attached "Guidelines
and Procedures for Teaching Portfolio").
III. The reviewer will use the attached "Checklist for Evaluation of Course
Materials" as a guide for evaluating the instructor's course materials.
2
b) First Consultation
I. Prior to the teaching observation, the reviewer will schedule a meeting
with the instructor at which the following points may be discussed:
i) Overall course objectives.
ii) Objectives for the specific learning event to be observed.
iii) Teaching method for the learning event.
iv) Course materials.
v) Other topics considered important by either party, e.g.





mode of instruction to be used
anticipated student reaction to the material
overall ability/interest of students
difficulty of material to be presented
overall teaching philosophy/teaching methods
II. In conducting the interview, the reviewer will be guided by the specific
suggestions provided on the attached "Checklist for Pre-Observation
Consultation."
c. Teaching Observation
I. Observations are mandatory.
II. Whenever possible, the choice of what class or teaching event is
observed should be fixed by mutual agreement between reviewer and
faculty member. In particular, the faculty member may request the mode
of instruction to be observed, whether lecture, discussion, workshop,
tutorial, or laboratory. Care should be taken to observe the primary
teaching mode used in the class.
III. The reviewer will make one observation; however, if the reviewer or
the faculty member so desires a second observation will be made.
IV. The reviewer will use the attached Penn State DuBois Peer Review
Classroom Visitation Report form as a guide for evaluating the faculty
member's performance.
d. Second Consultation
I. Within one week of the observation, the reviewer will schedule a
meeting with the faculty member at which the following points may be
discussed:
3
i) Performance in the thirteen categories listed on the Report
ii) Most and least effective elements of the teaching observed
iii) Suggestions on how to improve performance
iv) Clarification of any elements of the mode of teaching
unfamiliar to the reviewer
v) Other topics considered important by either party
II. If the reviewer plans to make any serious criticisms of the faculty
member's performance, these shall first be presented informally to the
faculty member during the second consultation, who shall have the
opportunity to give an explanation before any written evaluation is
drafted.
e. Review of Written Evaluation
I. Within one week of the post-consultation, the reviewer(s) will prepare a
written evaluation of the faculty member's teaching and supply the
evaluation to the DAA. The DAA will supply the faculty member with a
copy of the evaluation within two weeks of receiving it from the
reviewer(s).
II. The faculty member may request an additional peer review and the
DAA will initiate this process as soon as possible.
E. Monitoring the Peer Review Procedure
The Faculty Affairs Committee, in consultation with the DAA, shall reevaluate this peer
review procedure every five years, or whenever charged to do so by a majority vote of
the Penn State DuBois Faculty Congress. The results of this review shall be presented to
the Faculty Congress in writing, along with any recommendations on how the procedures
should be amended. No changes shall be made in this process as a result of the review
unless approved by the Faculty Congress.
4
Checklist For Evaluation of Course Materials
Rate the faculty member in each of the categories below. Indicate areas you are unable to
evaluate or which are not applicable. Use the questions following each heading as
suggestions.
1. Course Syllabus
Is the syllabus current or consistent with the contemporary knowledge of the subject?
Is the syllabus consistent with the course description?
Is the syllabus well organized and complete?
Does the course cover the material thoroughly?
Is the course syllabus at an appropriate difficulty level?
Are readings and/or assignments relevant and appropriate?
2. Homework Assignments
Are they effectively coordinated with the syllabus?
Are they challenging for students?
Do they include opportunities for active learning or collaboration?
Are they appropriate in frequency and length?
3. Course Objectives (this category to be addressed after the pre-observation
consultation)
Are the course objectives educationally appropriate and important?
Are they consistent with other sections of the same course at DuBois?
Has the faculty member clearly communicated the objectives to the students?
Will course completion logically prepare students for more complex courses on the
subject if the course is a prerequisite for subsequent courses?
4. Examinations
Are the exams consistent with the course objectives and do they demonstrate student
learning?
Do they reflect the important aspects of the subject?
Are they challenging to students?
Are standards equivalent to other sections of the same course at DuBois?
5. Textbooks and Handouts
Are they appropriate to the course level?
Do they support the course objectives?
Are they in general agreement with the department's standards in the College?
Do the handouts abide by standards of copyrighted materials?
6. Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes
Are courses continuously improved based on feedback and experience?
Are a variety of methods used to assess student learning?
Does the assessment reflect course content and objectives?
5
7. Overview
What is your overall judgment on how thoroughly these materials reflect the faculty
member's preparation for his/her teaching work?
6
Checklist for First Consultation
Prior to the time of the teaching event to be observed, the reviewer should consult with
the instructor to be observed. During this consultation, the following topics should be
discussed after the course to be observed is agreed upon:
1. Overall course objectives
2. Objectives for the specific learning event to be observed. Include a discussion of how
this specific learning event fits into the overall course
3. Teaching method to be used for the learning event
4. Discussion of course materials (made available to the reviewer prior to the interview)
Did the instructor add anything verbally to the course syllabus after handing it out?
How does the instructor handle the grading and return of tests and homework?
5. Discussion of any other topics that might be considered important by either the
instructor or reviewer, e.g.,
a) mode of instruction to be used
b) anticipated student reaction to the material
c) overall ability/interest of students
d) difficulty of material to be presented
e) overall teaching philosophy/teaching methods
7
PENN STATE DUBOIS PEER REVIEW CLASSROOM VISITATION REPORT
Instructor Evaluated ____________________________ Course _________________
Date ____________________ Evaluator(s)__________________________________
Number of students enrolled___________ Number of students present____________
(At time of review)
(At time of review)
Instructions: Although most questions can be answered briefly, space is provided for
comment. Such comments are preferred, particularly in areas of weakness.
Note: Pre-and post-visitation meetings between reviewer and reviewee are required. The
pre-visitation meeting is designed to allow the reviewer to obtain an outline of the
material presented during class. The post-visitation meeting, to be conducted within one
week of the visit, is designed to provide constructive feedback to the instructor.
1. Are the objectives of the presentation well defined?
2. Is the presentation clear and well-organized?
3. Does the instructor use vocabulary, examples, and instructional materials, which
suit the students’ level of understanding as well as provide suitable challenges for
learning?
4. Are important points emphasized and explained simply and clearly?
5. Does the instructor demonstrate knowledge of and enthusiasm for the subject
matter?
6. Do students show signs of attention, interest, and understanding?
8
PEER REVIEW: page 2
7. Is class time used effectively?
8. Is the instructional method appropriate for the type of presentation?
9. Does the instructor respond directly and with clarity to questions and comments?
10. How does the attitude of the instructor promote a positive learning attitude?
11. Is the instructor knowledgeable and flexible enough to pursue lines of thought not
on the outline but nonetheless relevant?
12. How is critical thinking encouraged?
13. Other remarks or observations:
9
Peer Review of Teaching Consultation Form
Observed Faculty Member (print) _________________________
Reviewer (print)_______________________________________
Date of pre-visitation conference __________________________
Observed Faculty Member Signature_______________________
Reviewer Signature _____________________________________
Date of post-visitation conference __________________________
Observed Faculty Member Signature________________________
Reviewer Signature _____________________________________
10
Guidelines and Procedures for Teaching Portfolios
All faculty will be advised to compile and maintain a teaching portfolio for every
course they teach. The DAA will provide a session to facilitate this process.
A. Goals of Portfolio Development
The goals of developing and maintaining portfolios will be to


Report the content and teaching methods used in these courses, and
Record evidence of student responses to these methods.
B. Rationale
The peer review process encourages faculty to compile in a single place information
about courses taught and teaching procedures used. The faculty collaboration
procedures being recommended also suggest compiling and sharing such information.
A teaching portfolio is the logical method of doing this in an organized and sharable
way.
In addition, many programs offered by the Commonwealth College are accredited
every three to six years. Teaching portfolios are helpful in this accreditation process.
Portfolios would also be helpful in orienting newly hired instructors as well as
substitutes in case the regular instructor for any reason is unable to complete a course.
C. Principles
1. All faculty would maintain a teaching portfolio including information on each
course that they teach.
2. These may contain information from the faculty member, from students, and from
faculty colleagues. Typical contents of portfolios may include, but need not be
limited to:









Philosophy of teaching
Course outline
Description of changes made in courses
Examinations and quizzes
Homework assignments
Project/Report assignments
Handouts
Descriptions of independent courses or research projects
Videotapes of classes
11
From Students:



Examples of student work, including excellent, average, and poor
samples
Open-ended course evaluations
Any feedback on course changes or experiments
From Other Faculty:



Teaching awards
Accounts of collaboration with other instructors
Participation in workshops or other means of sharing teaching
expertise
D. Ownership
These portfolios will be owned and housed by the faculty member, who alone will
have the right to add and remove materials from them and to allow others to review
them. Portfolios may be reviewed by colleagues, with the faculty member’s
permission, during faculty collaboration or peer review. However, no formal
assessment of portfolios will be required.
12