Peer and Student Evaluation

Peer Observation


Revised (1/14; 10/13; 1/96; 12/77)

1. Department members under consideration for renewal, retention, or tenure will be observed by three tenured or effectively tenured members of the department, one the chair, one a Staff Committee member designated by the committee, and the other selected jointly by the chair and the department member to be visited.

2. Tenured Staff Committee members will observe tenured department members. The Staff Committee will appoint observers and divide observation duties as equally as possible.

3. Observers of recently hired department members will visit different courses or sections separately and at different times during the semester when possible.

4. Department members who are required to be observed more than once in a semester should be observed at least once during the first quarter.

5. All observers will review the course syllabus and other materials pertinent to the day's presentation.

6. A consultation between instructor and observer shall take place in the week before the observation.

7. The observer will write a report, using the approved departmental form (see below).

8. A copy of the completed form will be given to the instructor and the original filed in the department office within two class days of the observation. An informal follow-up mentoring session is encouraged.

9. The Staff Committee will have access to colleague evaluations in matters of retention, tenure, and performance ratings.

10. A record should be kept of Staff Committee members who have reviewed the evaluation  materials and what portion of the material they have reviewed.

 

English and Philosophy Department Member Peer Observation Forms

Form for In-Person Course Observation

Department Member Observed__________________________________
Date ___________
Course Title ________________________________________________
Hour ___________
Observer ___________________________________________________

1. State the purpose of the class hour you observed.

2. Describe the teaching techniques and the content of the class hour you observed.

3. Explain whether the class meeting was appropriate to the course’s overall purpose.

4. Did the instructor display on understanding of the subject? Please explain.

5. Did the students understand the material presented?

6. Did the instructor display an organized approach? Please explain.

7. Did the instructor involve the students in class activities?

8. Describe the rapport between the instructor and the students.

9. What areas of particular strength did you observe?

10. What areas for possible improvement did you observe?

11. Did you observe any serious problem or deficiency?

12. Comment on whether the approach and level of the observed instruction was appropriate for the composition/literature or philosophy program at Stout.


Form for Online Course Observation:

Department Member Observed______________________________________
Date______________________________
CourseTitle__________________________________
Observer_____________________________________

Note: In order to make online course observation as parallel as possible with face-to-face instructor classroom observation, the Staff Committee makes the following suggestions.

1. The observer should focus on one concept or lesson within the course shell.  Otherwise, the observer is evaluating an entire course whereas in face-to-face observation a single meeting is under review.

2. The observer should offer the instructor an opportunity to discuss the course shell with the observer. Alternatively, the instructor may decide simply to give the observer access to the shell – before, during, or after the observation– and recommend a focus or series of lessons to evaluate.
_________________________________________________________________

1. What components of D2L and/or non-D2L electronic services/applications are being used?  Please explain.

2. Do you feel these components are being used effectively to engage and instruct students?  Please explain.

3. What components, if any, are not being used that seem necessary?  Please explain.

4. Is the course content logically organized?

5. Are course materials clearly labeled?

6. Is the information in the course material you examined clear and understandable?

7. Does the instructor appear to be involved in the Discussion component or other interactive features of the course?

8. How would you evaluate the comments on student writing, if available?

9. Explain whether the content you examined is appropriate to the course's over all purpose.

10. What areas of particular strength did you observe in this instructor's course design?

11. What areas for possible improvement did you observe in this instructor's course design?

12. Did you observe any serious problem or deficiency?

13. Comment on whether the course content is appropriate in level and content for the composition/literature or philosophy program at Stout.


Guidelines for Using Student Evaluations in Decisions Regarding Renewal, Retention/Non-Retention, Tenure/Non-Tenure and Performance


(Revised 7/86; 4/84; 7/76; 3/74)

Recommendations:

1. that the student evaluation forms be used as part of the process of making decisions on renewal, retention, and tenure;

2. that the student evaluation forms be used as only one part of this process, specifically as part of the process of gathering data to be interpreted in light of the departmental criteria dealing with teaching competence and creativity; (however, see qualification to this listed in recommendation 6);

3. that the result of the student evaluations be recognized as being essentially "soft" data (even though they are quantifiable) as opposed to "hard" data;

4. that, consequently, the results of the student evaluations be used solely as one subordinate means of gathering data to be interpreted in terms of departmental criteria determining renewal, retention, tenure, and performance ratings;

5. that, consequently also, the results of the student evaluations be used solely in a confirmatory fashion in the deter­mining renewal, retention, tenure, and performance ratings in light of departmental criteria;

6. that it be clearly understood that these student evaluation forms do not measure teaching effectiveness (there is no existing student evaluation form that will measure that); rather they measure the extent to which students believe the professor in question is an "ideal" professor. From these results the evaluator might be able to infer that the pro­fessor provides an atmosphere more or less conducive to learning, and then from that he might be able to infer that the teaching is more or less effective, but he must realize that there are rather large inferential leaps from one inference to the next;

7. that the evaluated teachers have access to the results of the student evaluations;

8. that, in order to insure the department member's right to privacy, only the departmental chair, the Staff Committee and the evaluated department member have access to the results of the form. A record should be kept of both the names of Staff Committee members who have viewed the student evaluation materials and what portion of the materials they have viewed;

9. that although only the department evaluation form will be used in the evaluation process, individual faculty may develop and use other questions in conjunction with the core questions for their own purpose;

10. that during the first semester of every third year each full-time faculty/staff member and each academic staff person who has been in the English Department three years or more will be evaluated by three sections; department members teaching less than full-time will be evaluated by all of their sections.

11. that administration and collection of student observations of instruction will be by another department instructor or the department secretary and delivered in a sealed envelope to the department office immediately after the class.

Questionnaire On Teaching - Classroom sections

1. I took this course for the following reason:

1. To fulfill a requirement for graduation

2. Out of interest in the subject

3. My advisor encouraged me to take it

4. I have heard good things about the class from my peers

2. I  currently have the following grade in this course:

1. A

2. B

3. C

4. D

5. F

3. Please select your response for the following statements:  (Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)

1. As a result of taking this course, I am now more competent in the course material.

2. This course challenged me.

3.The tests, assignments, and project focused on the course objectives.

4. The instructor was enthusiastic about the course materials.

5. The instructor held class at scheduled times and was available for the full period.

If you disagree or strongly disagree with, "The instructor held class at scheduled times and was availablefor the full period," please provide details.

4. The instructor responded to short assignments such as paragraphs, quizzes, discussion posts, work sheets, short rough drafts, etc.

1. In a week or less

2. Between 2 and 3 weeks

3. More than 2 weeks

5. The instructor responded to longer papers, longer drafts and exams

               1.  In fewer than 2 weeks

               2.  Between 2 and 3 weeks

               3.  More than 3 weeks

6. Please select your response for the following statements: (Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)

1. The instructor made clear and helpful comments on paper and exams.

2. The instructor introduced a variety of learning activities in this course

3. The instructor was available to help with questions or homework outside of class.

4. Overall, the instructor was an effective teacher in this course.

7. What, if anything, can the instructor do to improve this course?

8. Did anything happen to prevent this course from providing a successful learning experience. 

9. What did the instructor do that  you found particularly valuable?

Questionnaire On Teaching - Online sections

Please fill out this form.