Peer review is important to faculty members’ development as teachers. It is also a CBA- mandated part of the multi-faceted evaluation of teaching at the University of Oregon. Peer reviews are required for each faculty classification and rank on the following schedule:
- Career Instructional Faculty – once per contract period
- Assistant Professor – one peer review before the mid-term review, and one during each of the three years preceding the faculty member’s tenure review.
- Associate Professor – once every other year
- Full Professor – once every three years
Beginning fall 2020 teaching evaluation at the University of Oregon will be performed against criteria, including university-wide standards defining inclusive, engaged, research-informed and professional teaching (see 2019 Memorandum of Understanding between UO and United Academics), in addition to any standards departments adopt as part of their own policies. Peer review is an opportunity to help faculty develop their teaching in relation to these set standards and to gather crucial information to be used in evaluation information about the range of ways individual instructors enact these standards in their own contexts and courses. The Office of the Provost, TEP and UO Online recommend units use this template for Peer Review of Teaching to ensure alignment with the 2020 Teaching Evaluation Criteria as well as effective and efficient review teaching in remote, online or in-person environments.
We also present examples of procedures and documents provided by UO’s Department of Human Physiology, which has adopted nationally validated instruments for STEM teaching. Both models direct evaluators toward teaching practices linked to student learning and value and cultivate teaching development—engaging in reflection and informed experimentation/change—as characteristic of teaching excellence.
Peer Review of Teaching Example Documents
|TEP Recommended||Validated Instruments for STEM|
|Example Department: Human Physiology|
|Observation Instrument||TEP Peer Teaching Observation Guide (PDF File) (Word doc) (Excel version with point rubric)||Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (Excel file - Example COPUS file with dummy data)|
|Self-Assessment||TEP Faculty Self-Assessment Guide (PDF File)(Word Doc)||Teaching Practices Inventory|
|Report||TEP Recommended Report Content||HPHY Department Template(Word doc- PDF File)|
|Workload Expectation for Review||About 5 hours||5 – 6 hours|
|For more more information contact:||Julie Mueller||Sierra Dawson|
These peer review instruments draw the reviewer’s attention to specific, itemized "actions" of teachers and learners: they generate information about the class separate from a judgment of quality (though in these examples, quality is implied inasmuch as the actions on the list are linked to UO’s teaching quality standards and research on student learning). And, ideally, they give the reviewer a fresh, more objective way of looking at the class.
An annotated list of other available observation instruments, self-assessment tools, self-efficacy scales, and instruments for graduate student teacher development and self-efficacy can be found at the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology site. The instruments on the list have generally been extensively tested for reliability and validity.
N.B. These materials primarily focus on the review of face to face classes. To assess the quality of a fully online course, TEP recommends consultation with UO Online and directs colleagues to the Policy on Undergraduate Online and Hybrid Courses: Student Engagement.