Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Contents

Table of Contents
minLevel1
maxLevel7

Being drafted as of April 2022.

Subpages

Child pages (Children Display)

Introduction and scope

Peer evaluation of teaching is required for personnel reviews, as per UCLA APO regulations (Appendix 3 of The CALL). Peer evaluation is also a means for instructors to reflect on and improve teaching practices, and in some cases may be helpful for program administrators.

Despite the UCLA requirement to have peer evaluation of teaching, there is no prescribed approach. The purpose of this policy is therefore to provide guidance to instructors in the School of Nursing as to how to request or perform peer evaluations.

Who, which, when?

Who should get a peer evaluation?

Every faculty in the School of Nursing needs peer evaluations. The Faculty includes instructors who are professors and lecturers, including instructors who are part-time or without salary. A faculty member who does not teach does not need a peer evaluation of teaching; examples may include some without-salary positions, or people in the Project Scientist or Researcher series.

Who can do a peer evaluation?

Any faculty can do a peer evaluation of teaching. Typically, the reviewer would be an experienced instructor familiar with teaching in the School of Nursing. However, it is possible to obtain evaluations from outside of the School, such as when giving a guest lecture.

What courses are suitable for peer evaluations?

Any formal instruction can be peer evaluated. However, for merit and promotion reviews, at least one School of Nursing course instruction should be reviewed. Ideally, the review would be for courses that the instructor is leading. Guest lectures can be included, but are not a substitute for School of Nursing courses

How often should an instructor get peer evaluations?

According to the UCLA regulations, at least one peer evaluation is needed for each merit (step) or promotion review.

How?

History

Prior to this policy, peer evaluations were ad hoc, consisting of either letters of support or short questionnaires handed out by an individual instructor to the peer reviewer.

Present approach

The aim is to 1) evaluate the quality of teaching and 2) provide feedback. The quality assessment is used for making merit and promotion decisions. The feedback allows the instructor to improve their teaching or help maintain an already high standard. The feedback in some cases may be relevant to the administration.

Proposed questionnaire

Text from Appendix 3 of The Call on Peer

Teaching

Evaluation

Peer evaluations of teaching are required and should be included in the dossier in a form which conforms to the established departmental specifications regarding peer review filed with the Council on Academic Personnel. Peer evaluation of teaching is required in all cases of formal review for merit advancement or promotion. The specification of the meaning of "peer review" varies by department, each department having established its own guidelines for developing the requisite peer review of teaching.

A. The Department (Chair’s Observations)

  1. The value of the candidate to the department’s teaching program; the contribution to the departmental responsibilities to majors, service courses, graduate students, etc.

  2. Supervision of graduate students. (Who are the degree-holders? Where are they now?)

  3. Effectiveness of the faculty member at the tasks of advising and counseling students.

B. Faculty Colleagues

Who of the faculty member’s colleagues has direct experience with the candidate’s teaching? What are the observations of other faculty about the teaching of the person under review?

C. Other Evidence

  1. Instructional materials prepared by the instructor, including such things as syllabi, course reading lists, sample examinations, slides, films, demonstrations. These should be cited and referred to in the departmental letter of recommendation and transmitted along with research publications when submission of the latter are required by policy.

  2. Formal awards and honors for teaching.