Page Comparison

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.

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.

How?

Present approach

The aims are to 1) evaluate the quality of teaching, 2) provide feedback to faculty, and 3) strengthen the academic mission of the School of Nursing. 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 - description and notes (actual survey will be online)

Thank you for participating in a peer teaching evaluation. Your feedback is used by the School in decisions on promotion, administration of programs, and counselling of instructors. Peer evaluations also help guide instructors to improve or maintain high teaching standards, and keep up with the latest teaching approaches.

Your answers will be provided to the instructor, program administrators, and faculty committees for promotion (CAPA, MAC), program evaluation (FEC subcommittee on evaluation), and possible curriculum and student affairs.

1. Your name [person filling out the questionnaire]

2. Name of instructor [person being evaluated]

3. Describe what you based your evaluation on, including any of the following:

• Course number and title

• Attended lecture (one or more)

• Discussion with instructor (reviewing syllabus, teaching methods)

• Reviewed student evaluations

• Talked with students

4. What do you think students would give as an overall rating of the instructor’s teaching performance, based on your observations described above?

• Rate on a scale of 1 to 9 (“Very Low” to “Very High”)

• Consider your recent observations, not your past experience of the instructor

• Note: matches CAT course evaluations completed by students; used to provide a grade of the perceived effectiveness of the instructor. Wording is intended to help give clear feedback, as opposed to asking the evaluator to rate the teacher.

5. Were there any unusual circumstances that may have affected the rating in either a positive or negative way?

• The peer-professor relationship that may introduce a conflict of interest in the evaluative process, change in the teaching milieu based on observer presence, cohort issues, pandemic, school events or climate at the time, TA issues, last minute teaching assignment

6. What feedback do you have for the instructor? What worked well? What did not work? What suggestions do you have?

• Consider new teaching methods, resources, technologies etc. that may benefit the instructor.

• Note: focus is constructive feedback the instructor can use to improve, or to validate existing methods.

7. What feedback or suggestions do you have for the administration or faculty body?

• In light of your assessment of this instructor, do you have any suggestions related to this course for the program administration (program directors, associate dean for academic affairs), faculty including curriculum committee, or student affairs?

  • Example areas:

    • Mis-match between the content and instructional goals given the delivery platform (in-person, online asynchronous, remote synchronous)

    • Content overload for credits assigned

    • Content and lesson plans mis-aligned with course outcome competencies

    • Challenges in course delivery linked to solo teaching, co-teaching, or teaching team constitution

    • Space or technology or other infrastructure limitations observed that affected teaching/learning environment

• Note: the purpose of this question is to acknowledge other factors that could influence teaching performance, and that are important for administrators and committees to consider.

Text from Appendix 3 of The Call on Peer 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.