Acknowledgement: This is adopted from FSU's Department of Higher Education's Peer Evaluation Policy adopted March 24, 1998.

A formative process of peer evaluation of teaching offers the opportunity for faculty to learn more about the content and teaching approaches of other faculty and contributes to a process of continuous improvement. In arranging for a peer assessment of teaching, a faculty member (instructor) will invite a member of the FSUPC teaching faculty (observer) to observe in the classroom. Most observations will be a minimum of one hour. The peer evaluation will include:

• Pre-evaluation conference including the instructor and observer
• In-class evaluation including the instructor, observer, and students
• Post-evaluation conference including the instructor and observer
• Written Report to Instructor (for use at instructor's discretion)
• Peer-Evaluation Completion Affidavit (for instructor's annual evaluation binder)

Pre-evaluation Conference

In preparation for the observation, the instructor and observer should arrange a pre-observation conference at which they can discuss the appropriate date, time, and place for the observation. At this conference, instructor and observer should agree on what criteria will be used to assess performance in the lecture. A representative list of criteria and indicators is provided below. The instructor should provide the observer with a copy of the course syllabus and any other materials that stipulate the goals, objectives, outcomes, and methods of student evaluation used in the course. The date for a post-conference discussion of the observation and evaluation may also be arranged.

In-class Evaluation

At the beginning of the classroom observation the observer should be introduced to the students and her or his purpose for being present explained to the students. At the conclusion of the observation, when the instructor calls for a class break or is prepared to adjourn, the observer should be provided a period of about ten minutes in which to explain the purpose of the observation to the students. During this meeting with the observer, the instructor should not be present in the classroom. At this time, the observer should ask students whether the class observed was representative of the instructor’s previous instruction, and may solicit comment on (1) the student’s perceptions of what the instructor does well in teaching and (2) what areas of improvement in the instructor’s teaching they would recommend.

Post-evaluation Conference

Following the observation, a post-conference discussion should be held between instructor and observer. This observation should include an opportunity for the instructor to provide a self-assessment of his or her teaching performance, emphasizing what he or she believes was done well and what improvements can be made. After the instructor has had an opportunity to present the self-assessment, the observer should offer guidance based on the criteria that were agreed upon in the pre-conference, emphasizing what the observer believes was done well and what improvements are recommended. At the conclusion of this discussion, the observer should provide feedback on student perceptions (ensuring that student anonymity is preserved) and offer suggestions to the instructor on how the syllabus and related materials can be improved.

Written Report to Instructor

At the conclusion of the post-conference, the observer should prepare a letter to the instructor indicating when the observation took place, highlighting particular strengths of the instructor’s performance, and noting any recommendations for improvement. This letter should be based on the post-conference discussion. The letter should be completed within 30 days of the post-evaluation conference and given to the instructor as a follow-up to the observation.

Peer-Evaluation Completion Affidavit

The observer is responsible for providing a peer-evaluation completion affidavit for the instructor to include in his or her annual evaluation binder. The affidavit must include:

• Date criteria were agreed upon (pre-evaluation conference)
• Date of classroom observation
• Date of post-evaluation conference
• Date of written report

The purpose of the peer-evaluation completion affidavit is to verify that the peer evaluation took place. Whether to include portions or all of the written report in annual evaluation binders is up to the discretion of the instructor.

No additional documentation of the peer evaluation (besides the written report and affidavit) should be undertaken without the consent of the instructor.

Criteria and Indicators for Classroom Evaluation

The following criteria and indicators are recommended for the conduct of an observation, but are by no means inclusive. The observer and instructor should agree on the specific criteria that will be applied in any observation. In most cases, selected criteria should be limited in order to avoid making the observation too complicated for effective assessment.

Criteria: The instructor uses a variety of teaching and learning strategies that reflect the diversity of student learning styles, background, and experience.

Indicators:

• Provides a range of activities and assignments to meet the various students’ learning styles.
• Uses appropriate teaching techniques to effectively instruct students.
• Uses a range of materials, technology, and resources to assist all students to learn.
• Creates a climate of openness, mutual respect, and support for inquiry and discussion.

Criteria: The instructor uses assessment strategies to assist the continuous development of the learner.

Indicators:

• Uses a range of measures to assess student learning and design learning experiences.
• Plans and implements assessment consistent with desired performance outcomes and course objectives.
• Provides timely feedback to students on performance.

Criteria: The instructor plans and implements effective instruction in the classroom.

Indicators:

• Engages students in learning activities.
• Maintains academic focus of students by using verbal, nonverbal, and visual cues.
• Provides clear directions for instructional activities.
• Uses an interdisciplinary approach to learning and integrates multiple subject areas.
• Relates concepts through more than one method, such as analogies, metaphors, graphics, and models.
• Emphasizes links between theory and practice and connections to professional development.

Criteria: The instructor creates a positive learning environment.

Indicators:

• Stimulates student reflection on previously acquired knowledge.
• Links new knowledge and ideas to already familiar ideas.
• Uses classroom time efficiently.
• Presents concepts and principles at varying levels of complexity so that they are meaningful to students at varying levels of development.
• Organizes instruction to include cooperative, students directed groups.
• Monitors activities and provides feedback on student performance.
• Maintains instructional momentum with smooth and efficient transitions.
• Maximizes time-on-task in important learning activities.
• Demonstrates a positive attitude.
• Engages inattentive students.
• Models appropriate classroom behaviors.

Criteria: The instructor uses effective communication techniques.

Indicators:

• Establishes positive interactions with students that are focused upon learning.
• Communicates effectively with students of varying backgrounds and experiences.
• Challenges students in a positive and supportive manner.
• Promotes individual and group inquiry and discussion.
• Gives constructive feedback.
• Provides clear directions and explanations.
• Reinforces positive behavior.
• Praises when appropriate.
• Listens attentively and thoughtfully.
• Provides appropriate prompts and allots adequate time for student responses.

Criteria: The instructor encourages critical thinking.

Indicators:

• Chooses classroom activities and strategies that expand students’ critical thinking skills.
• Poses problems and asks questions that require students to analyze, synthesize and apply information.
• Assists students in applying standards of proof and critically appraising evidence for propositions.
• Introduces current research and assists students to evaluate and critically appraise that research.
• Constructs problem-solving exercises that enable students to apply knowledge and skills.
• Assists students in the conduct of reasoned and systematic inquiry.
• Encourages inquiry, creative thinking, group problem solving, and innovative solutions.

Criteria: The instructor uses appropriate technology in teaching and learning.

Indicators:

• Selects and utilizes appropriate learning media, computer applications, and other technology to enhance classroom instruction.
• Uses computer applications to prepare and deliver instructional presentations.
• Encourages student use of email and Internet resources available through Florida State University.
• Uses appropriate technologies to create and maintain data bases for monitoring student performance and progress.

Criteria: The instructor demonstrates knowledge of subject matter.

Indicators:

• Communicates information accurately and appropriately.
• Enables students to interrelate knowledge and information from a variety of perspectives.
• Maintains currency with regard to changes in subject field, as demonstrated through appropriate and timely syllabus revisions and updates.
• Uses a variety of reference materials.
• Effectively communicates course objectives, requirements, and evaluative standards.
• Links theory to the field of practice.
• Models required competencies.

Each faculty member will prepare their binder each year in the following format:

Tab I: Teaching (calendar year just completed)

• Brief statement of teaching philosophy
• Peer-Evaluation Completion Affidavit(s)
• Syllabus, course 1
• SPOTS summary, course 1
• Syllabus, course 2
• SPOTS summary, course 2
• (ETC., for each course taught)
• List of advisees and summary of advising activity
• Innovations in teaching
• Any other evidence of teaching effectiveness

Tab II: Recruiting

• Statement of recruiting strategy
• Recruiting activity report
• Any other evidence of recruiting activity/effectiveness

Tab III: Scholarly Activity/Professional Development

• Publications: journal articles, books, monographs, proceedings articles, paper presentations, other work(s) in progress
• Professional development: attendance at professional meetings, seminars, training courses, etc.
• Any other evidence of scholarly activity and/or professional development

Tab IV: Service

• Professional service: offices held in professional organizations, service as reviewer, panelist, other evidence of professional service
• University service: committee service, course/curriculum development, advisor to student organizations, etc.
• Community service: unpaid consulting to non-profit organizations, service as officer/board member in a community organization
• Guard/Reserve membership and service
• Any other evidence of volunteer activity or service to the community

Tab V: Merit Pay Consideration

• Any required documentation in accordance with the FSUPC Merit Pay Policy
• Any other evidence of going above and beyond the requirements of the AOR

Teaching faculty are required to complete a minimum of one peer evaluation per calendar year. Faculty will provide evidence (affidavit) of the completion of the peer evaluation with the faculty's annual evaluation binder. This evidence is called the "Peer Evaluation Completion Affidavit" and as a minimum will include:

• Date criteria were agreed upon (pre-evaluation conference)
• Date of classroom observation
• Date of post-evaluation conference
• Date of written report
• Signature of peer observer

The peer observer may be any faculty member at FSU. The instructor (being evaluated) and the observer will discuss the observation criteria beforehand and the results of the observation afterwards. The observer will provide a written report and the completion affidavit separately. The peer evaluation will include:

• Pre-evaluation conference including the instructor and observer
• In-class evaluation including the instructor, observer, and students
• Post-evaluation conference including the instructor and observer
• Written Report to Instructor (for use at instructor's discretion)
• Peer-Evaluation Completion Affidavit (for instructor's annual evaluation binder)

Further details are provided in the Peer Evaluation Component form

FSUPC faculty are evaluated every spring based on expectations outlined in each individual faculty’s Assignment of Responsibilities (AORs) and, for teaching faculty, the Student Perception of Teaching (SPOT) evaluations. Each AOR lists specific expectations in the areas of teaching, service, and research.

Each faculty member presents a binder compilation of evidence summarizing the activities during the performance period (calendar year) to the FSUPC administration at least two weeks before a scheduled interview. Also included in the binder is a draft AOR for the upcoming year. The same binder is used for merit pay considerations.

The interview gives administrators and faculty members the opportunity to discuss the faculty member’s performance for the previous year and expectations for the coming year and make adjustments as necessary. The administrators subsequently convene to determine the appropriate evaluation of the faculty member in the following areas:

• Teaching
• Research and other creative activity
• Service to the university and to the community
• Other university duties
• Overall Performance

The evaluation marks for each of these areas include:

• Satisfactory
• Official concern
• Inadequate
• Not Observed

The evaluation form is accompanied by a personalized letter expressing appreciation, encouragement, concern, etc. as deemed appropriate by the administrators.

The annual-evaluation binder will also be used for merit pay considerations. Any additional information required for merit pay considerations in accordance with the FSUPC Merit Pay Policy will be provided in the annual-evaluation binder.