NCSU CBE Peer-Review of Teaching Process
Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering
Peer Review of Teaching Procedure
Motivation for Formalized Peer Review
Teaching is one of the paramount responsibilities of any faculty member at an institution of higher learning. With its long and rich history of successful textbooks, innovative pedagogy and individual/departmental teaching awards, the Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering remains a strong College- and University-wide proponent of effective teaching. In accord with Memorandum #338 issued by the University of North Carolina (UNC) General Administration in 1993, each UNC campus is required to follow certain procedures to evaluate the quality of teaching provided to its students. Among other aspects aimed at improving teaching effectiveness, the memorandum explicitly states that (i) peer review must be included in teaching evaluations and (ii) direct observation of classroom performance must be included in peer review. A full description of peer review at North CarolinaStateUniversity can be found at
Peer review serves two separate functions: formative (to improve the quality of teaching) and summative (to provide objective assessment for use in contract renewal-promotion-tenure [RPT] decisions or teaching award nominations both in and out of the University). The premise underpinning formative evaluations is that constructive feedback provided to junior faculty members will increase the likelihood of their meeting or exceeding departmental standards for teaching when they are formally reviewed for RPT purposes. In addition, continued improvement in the quality of departmental teaching is reasonably expected to result from peer assessment.
Department Peer Review Protocol
For faculty members being considered for RPT purposes, post-tenure review or an award in which teaching constitutes an important, if not exclusive, consideration, the rating forms and summative procedure outlined below will be followed. The reviewers selected for the peer-evaluation procedure must be faculty members who are formally acknowledged to be excellent teachers. The results of each assessment should be included in a teaching portfolio, along with a statement of the faculty member’s teaching philosophy and a summary of student ratings for the preceding 3 years. The portfolio should also include any other teaching-related materials that the faculty member wishes to submit. Examples of such materials might include descriptions of courses developed or redesigned, teaching-related awards/honors, innovative instructional methods (with assessments), publications and innovative course materials (including courseware), information regarding effective colleague/student mentoring, and relevant statements from graduating seniors and alumni.
The Department head will appoint, or request volunteers to comprise, three to four senior faculty members to serve as the peer-review committee (PRC) for a term of 3 years. Members of the PRC should be elected to the North Carolina State University Academy of Outstanding Teachers, but this requirement is at the discretion of the Department head. The charge of the PRC is to coordinate the peer-review process and serve as the core group of faculty reviewers during peer assessment. The committee will assign a team of two faculty members (raters) to review each identified faculty (instructor) on a multi-year schedule generated by the Department head to meet the following requirements:
- Assistant professors will be evaluated once per year.
- Associate professors will be evaluated once every 3 years.
- Full professors will be evaluated once every 5 years.
More frequent evaluations are at the discretion of the Department head on an as-needed basis. To more evenly distribute the workload associated with this endeavor, the first rater on a review team will be a member of the PRC, while the other rater will be a member of the faculty who has been previously elected to the North Carolina State University Academy of Outstanding Teachers. Care will be taken to ensure that faculty rank does not constitute a possible conflict of interest, especially for junior faculty at the assistant and associate professor levels.
Research-based peer-review procedures have been shown[1],[2] to provide valid and reliable measures of teaching quality by professional educators. Of particular interest in this vein is the tested protocol of Brent and Felder,[3] which was previously implemented in the Department. It can be found at
www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/ASEE04(Peer-Review).pdf
The Department has elected to adopt and implement the protocol of Brent and Felder, which begins by developing two rating forms (rubrics) for classroom observation and course material evaluation.3 The Peer-Review of Teaching Checklists are displayed in Tables 1 and 2.
Once a faculty member is identified for peer-review of teaching and is notified no later than the first day of the semester in which the review is to be conducted, the following process is followed:
- The two raters informally meet with the instructor to
- arrange two dates on which classes will be observed,
- discuss the instructor’s teaching philosophy and how the instructor's methods are employed to achieve course learning objectives,
- request course materials from the most recent offering of the course by the instructor being reviewed, and
- review the checklists provided in Tables 1 and 2.
- The raters observe the class at the designated times and independently complete the Class Observation Checklist (Table 1). Immediately after each visit, the raters meet to reconcile, not average, their ratings of each of the items on the form and enter the final reconciled ratings on a consensus form. Summary comments are recorded.
- The raters independently or together review the course materials and complete the Course Material Checklist (Table 2).
- The raters compile a summary of the two class observations and record the reconciled ratings and comments on the Class Observation Checklist (Table 1). They then meet with the instructor to review the summary evaluation.
- The chair of the PRC drafts a letter that summarizes and discusses the instructor’s strengths and areas for improvement. The letter, which does not include numerical ratings from the checklists, and the summary checklists are reviewed by both raters for accuracy and are then sent to the Department head with a copy to the instructor, who is invited to submit a dissenting report if (s)he disagrees with any of the raters' findings.
- All reviewed instructors are invited to meet with the raters to discuss the evaluations and formulate measures that they might take to improve their teaching.
Time Commitment
Each rater spends about 7 h on this process: 2 h meeting with the faculty member, 2 h observing classes, and 3 h reviewing course materials, reconciling forms, and preparing or proofreading a report. This is approximately the same amount of time spent in a semester on a College or University committee that meets once a month for 2 h.
Table 1
Class Observation Checklist
Course: ______Instructor: ______Date: ______
“X” your responses to each of the 12 questions and then add comments below the table.
The instructor / Extremely (5) / Very well (4) / Adequately (3) / Inadequately (2) / Not at all (1) / Footnote #1 – was well prepared for class
2 – was knowledgeable about the subject matter
3 – stated learning objectives and student expectations
4 – was enthusiastic about the subject matter
5 – spoke clearly, audibly, and confidently
6 – used a variety of relevant illustrations/examples
7 – made effective use of the board and/or visual aids
8 – asked stimulating and challenging questions
9 – encouraged and achieved active student involvement
10 – connected with student’s prerequisite knowledge
11 – ended lesson with connection to future learning objectives
12 – treated students impartially and with respect
Overall rating: ______
Strong points of the instructor (continue on back if necessary)
Opportunities for improving teaching (continue on back if necessary)
Numbered footnotes (continue on back if necessary)
Rater: ______
Table 2
Course Material Checklist
Course: ______Instructor: ______Date: ______
“X” your responses to each of the 12 questions and then add comments below the table.
In the course materials, the instructor / Extremely (5) / Very well (4) / Adequately (3) / Inadequately (2) / Not at all (1) / Footnote #1 – provided a complete course syllabus
2 – clearly presented course policies and rules
3 – clearly presented learning objectives
4 – provided opportunities to meet with students
5 – organized clearly written lecture notes
6 – incorporated relevant and timely examples
7 – provided consistent, clear and challenging assignments
8 – organized clearly written supplementary handouts/websites
9 – administered consistent, clear and challenging examinations
10 – instituted assessment tools to ensure student learning
11 – instituted methods to improve "soft" professional skills[a]
12 – developed new courseware/website (if applicable)
Overall rating: ______
Strong points of the course materials (continue on back if necessary)
Opportunities for improving course materials (continue on back if necessary)
Numbered footnotes (continue on back if necessary)
Rater: ______
- 1-
[1] N. Van Note Chism, Peer Review of Teaching, Bolton, MA, Anker Publishing, 1999.
[2] M. Weimer, J.L. Parrett, and M. Kerns, How am I Teaching? Madison, WI, Magna Publications, 1988.
[3]R. Brent and R.M. Felder, "A Protocol for Peer Review of Teaching," ASEE Proceedings, 2004.
[a]Includes, but is not limited to, presentation, time/project management and writing skills.