Tenure and Promotion Handbook

Item I: Peer Reviews of Teaching

See Faculty Manual §4.XI.4.(i).

1.   Individuals who have access to this item:

  • All those granted access to the dossier:
  • The initiator
  • The Associate Dean
  • Members of the Tenure and Promotion Committee
  • The Dean of the College
  • The President

2.   Participants in preparing this item, and the role of each participant:
      In most cases, there will be three peer reviewers:  the initiator and two tenured members of the department, selected as described below.  In cases of joint appointment, there may be as many as six peer reviewers, including the initiators from each department/program and up to two tenured members of each department/program.  The candidate and the initiators should confer to determine the appropriate number and affiliation of peer reviewers.

  • Candidate – Selects one tenured member of the department to serve as one of the three peer reviewers; in cases of a joint appointment, may select one tenured member of each department/program
  • Initiator –

·     Consults with tenured members of the department to select a second tenured member of the department (or, in cases of a small department or the candidate’s participation in interdisciplinary teaching, another appropriate faculty colleague) to serve as a peer reviewer
·     Assists candidate and peer reviewers in determining which reviewers should observe which course(s) [see guidelines and suggestions below]
·     Serves as a peer reviewer him- or herself; visits instructional sessions, reviews instructional materials, interviews candidate, and prepares letter/form for dossier.  The peer review of teaching should be provided as a separate document from the initiator’s recommendation and dossier summary.

  • Tenured member of the department selected by the candidate – Visits instructional sessions, reviews instructional materials, interviews candidate, and prepares letter/form for dossier
  • Tenured member of the department selected by the other tenured members of the department -- Visits instructional sessions, reviews instructional materials, interviews candidate, and prepares letter/form for dossier

Note:  An Associate Dean who is not the initiator should not do a peer review of teaching.  To add more points of view to the dossier, it is preferable to ask an experienced and respected faculty member from a different department to do the peer review.

3.   Guidelines and suggestions:

  • The arrangements for instructional observation should permit breadth in the reviewers’ collective observation of the candidate’s teaching, while allowing for depth in each reviewers’ observations, but without requiring too many visitors in any one course, lab, studio, or other setting.  It is often more helpful to observe a single course or other instructional setting two or three times than to visit all settings only once.  The initiator, candidate, and reviewers should consult to determine which course(s) and other instructional settings are most appropriate for which reviewers to observe, and then reviewers can schedule visits individually with the candidate.
  • Peer reviewers may prepare a narrative letter addressing the items for “Effective Teaching” in the Faculty Manual “Standards for Faculty Evaluation,” or may use a Peer Review of Teaching form provided by E&A which incorporates these standards, available on the E&A website. 
  • Peer reviewers who are also tenured members of the candidate’s department should prepare two separate items for the dossier:  the tenured member’s letter evaluating all three categories of faculty work, and the peer reviewer’s letter or form focusing on the candidate’s teaching alone.
  • Whether the reviewer prepares a letter or uses the E&A form, the reviewer should:

·     Provide concrete examples and illustrations to support the evaluation.
·     Include a variety of evidence, drawn not only from the observation of instruction but also from the examination of instructional materials, interviews and conversations with the candidate, presentations or publications on teaching which the candidate may have prepared, and any other direct observations of the candidate’s instructional behaviors.

  • Peer reviews of teaching are to be independent from student evaluations.

4.   Additional resources:

5.   Contact for questions or concerns: