To define expectations regarding evaluation of teaching by faculty peers at the University of Oregon, especially as they relate to annual faculty reviews and the promotion, tenure and post-tenure review process.

University teaching and student learning encompass much more than the hours faculty members spend in the classroom. Teaching also involves keeping up with the field, planning lectures, creating instructional materials, constructing tests, grading papers, advising students, participating in tutorials and formal teaching committees, working with graduate students, supervising graduate teaching fellows, conducting office hours, and participating in professional development programs. Because many aspects of teaching remain invisible to students, their evaluations alone are inadequate to provide comprehensive and convergent evidence of teaching effectiveness. In addition to student assessments, evaluations need to be obtained from individuals who both understand the subject matter and recognize the intellectual effort and pedagogical merit involved in various instructional activities. Thus, the evaluation process should include peer reviews from colleagues who are in a position to compare a particular teaching effort--content, methods, emphasis and so forth--with other possible ones. Classroom visitations or videotape reviews are encouraged as part of the peer review process.

I.    Establish a Policy Requiring Peer Reviews of Teaching.

1. Beginning with the 1996-97 Academic Year, each tenure-track faculty member shall have at least one course evaluated by a faculty peer during each of the three years preceding the faculty member's promotion/tenure review. In most cases, this shall be the third, fourth and fifth years of the probationary period.


2. Beginning with the 1996-97 Academic Year, each tenured faculty member with rank of Associate Professor shall have at least one course evaluated by a faculty peer every other year until promotion to Full Professor.

1. Peer reviewers shall approach teaching assessment with the same kind of open, reasoned discussion that reveals the quality of other scholarly endeavors. Specific criteria for peer reviews should reflect, but not be limited to, five important aspects of teaching:
• The intellectual content of the material taught, including relevancy, breadth, depth.
• The instructor's grasp of the material; ability to present course content clearly and logically, to place specific material within thematic contexts and to demonstrate the significance and relevancy of course content.
• The instructor's ability to engage and challenge students and to teach critical thinking and questioning skills.
• The instructor's ability to provide intellectual inspiration and leadership and to awaken new interests.
• The instructor's use of innovative approaches to teaching, and where appropriate, the use of instructional technology or other activities designed to enhance the learning process.

Courses to be evaluated shall be determined by the department head in consultation with the faculty member being evaluated. In selecting courses to be evaluated the department head shall plan to achieve a mixture of courses (lower division, upper division, and graduate-level courses).

1. Faculty chosen to conduct peer evaluations shall be tenured, and where reasonably possible, shall hold an academic rank higher than that of the faculty member being evaluated. Evaluators shall be selected by the department head in consultation with the faculty member being evaluated.
2. Evaluations shall include, but need not be limited to, teaching materials (syllabi, exams, student performance, etc.) and at least one classroom visit.
3. A written report, addressing the criteria outlined above (section II) shall be prepared and signed by the evaluator. The report shall indicate if the classroom visit(s) was spontaneous or arranged in advance with the faculty member being evaluated.
4. The department shall archive the written evaluations for use in future faculty evaluations.
5. One copy of the peer evaluation shall be placed in the permanent personnel file of the person being evaluated, and one copy shall be given to the faculty member.
6. All reports of peer evaluations shall be included in the faculty member's promotion and tenure file, and are to be carefully reviewed at the department and school/college level.