FACULTY PEER REVIEW EVALUATION PROGRAM

[Note: This proposal is based on the existing policies for the evaluation of teaching (see the Faculty Handbook Ch. 5, pp.1-10), which include provisions for conducting peer evaluations (pp.3-4). First submitted to the Faculty Affairs Committee in 1994 as part of these larger policies, this proposal never advanced out of committee because it required a commitment for funding which was not forthcoming at the time. That funding is now available from the Office of the President.]

This is a proposal for a university-wide voluntary faculty peer review program. This program is premised on the following assumptions:

a. That good teaching is, regardless of discipline, a necessary goal for academics employed at an institution of higher education in which the primary mission is teaching;

b. That it is in the interest of all faculty that the faculty as a body serve as the prime mover in defining, promoting and maintaining the standards for excellent teaching;

c. That the best evaluators of teaching abilities may be members of the faculty identified as excellent teachers;

d. That all faculty, even excellent teachers, can learn ways to improve their teaching skills and/or new teaching technologies or skills;

e. That faculty may well accept from faculty peers a constructive critique which would appear negative coming from department chairpersons or students; and

f. That distinguishing between a "good" or "excellent" or "outstanding" teacher is difficult. At best, we might strive to distinguish clearly only between the very good and the very bad (the two polar ends of a continuum), while many faculty will probably fall into some mid-range of general "acceptability" within which further fine-tuned distinctions for the purpose of administrative evaluation are relatively meaningless.

Therefore, it is proposed that the UNF faculty create a university-wide voluntary peer evaluation process which would consist of the following provisions:

1. The creation of a panel of volunteer peer reviewers who are elected for two-year terms by the faculty on the basis of their having already been evaluated as excellent teachers and their willingness to participate in the program;

2. The creation of a voluntary peer evaluation process, which would enable individual faculty to contact the peer review panel and request a confidential evaluation;

3. A process which could consist of all the evaluative tools noted in the Procedures for Teaching Evaluation (Faculty Handbook, Ch. 5 pp.2-4), but which may especially focus on in-class observations and personal consultations;

4. That there would be a three-part possible evaluative outcome per course:

a. "inadequate" (or "poor" or "unacceptable"),

b. "fine" (or "good" or "acceptable"), and

c. "excellent" (or "very good" or "above normative").

[Note: the exact terminology to be used will be worked out by the first panel of peer reviewers so that it is consistent with other evaluative terminology used on this campus.]

5. That faculty participating in the peer review process will receive a list of suggestions for improvement of their teaching based on the reviewers' observations.

It is anticipated that faculty can be encouraged to participate in this process, both as rotating peer reviewers and as those seeking peer evaluation, by the following additional provisions:

6. That peer reviewers would be given an appropriate amount of release time up to a one-course release for each semester during which they function as reviewers, because of the time that would be required to serve in this function adequately;

7. That, in addition to the release time, peer reviewers would receive:

a. explicit training in teaching evaluation, which might be viewed as useful in preparing for their own summative evaluations relative to tenure or promotion applications; and

b. an opportunity to watch their colleagues in action in the classroom and thus to learn from that exposure themselves;

8. That the report of the content of the peer review will be released only to the faculty member requesting the review, who may not use that content in any evaluative processes nor be required to reveal that content by others;

It is anticipated that the advantages of this system will include the following:

a. That participation in this process should actually have beneficial effects for those who participate sincerely in it;

b. That sincere participation should be fostered by the knowledge that the content of evaluations will never be shared with administrators;

c. That participation in the process can, in itself, be used by individual faculty as tangible evidence to chairpersons of their efforts to enhance their teaching skills, even while the content of the peer review will remain confidential;

d. That the absence of content disclosure means that teaching evaluation will retain its purpose of fostering good teaching;

e. That the faculty-initiated nature of this process elevates the importance of excellent teaching as a value on this campus;

f. That such a voluntary system also elevates teaching evaluation to the level of peer critique and professional development, with which all scholars are familiar. Teaching evaluation may be viewed, therefore, as an appropriate part of professional enhancement and an on-going expression of commitment to the primary job of all faculty on this campus.

Finally, it is anticipated that academic administrators will be supportive of this process because providing the funding for the release time for peer reviewers would constitute a tangible commitment of the part of administrators to fostering the primary mission of the University.