Guidelines for Peer Review of Teaching Department of Psychology University of Wisconsin-Madison 1. During each of the two semesters of the first year and the first semester of the second year of an assistant professor's appointment, he or she will receive formative peer reviews of teaching. The peer review will be conducted by a tenured faculty member appointed by the department chair, in consultation with the associate chair for undergraduate studies. The class to be observed will be chosen from among several meeting times offered by the assistant professor. The assistant professor will provide the reviewer, in advance, with a copy of the syllabus and, optionally, other written materials from the course such as exams. Following the in-class observation and examination of the syllabus and other materials, the reviewer will complete a feedback form (attached) and return it to the department chair. The department chair will then meet with the assistant professor, provide him or her with a copy of the evaluation, and discuss the feedback. The emphasis in this process will be on providing feedback for improving teaching, rather than on evaluation. 2. Because evaluations for the first three semesters are intended to be formative, these evaluations will not be placed in the assistant professor's personnel folder unless he or she requests that they be. 3. If scheduling permits, the same reviewer will observe the assistant professor for the first two semesters. If feasible, a new reviewer will be appointed each year after so that, by the time the assistant professor is considered for tenure, a minimum of five tenured faculty have observed his or her teaching. 4. Beginning with the second semester of the second year, peer reviews of teaching will be summative, i.e., evaluative. The format will be as outlined in 1. above. These reviews will become part of the assistant professor's personnel records. 5. In the third, fourth, and fifth years of the probationary period, summative peer reviews must be conducted a minimum of once per year, but they may be conducted twice per year if requested by the assistant professor or if encouraged by the annual review committee. 6. Peer reviews of teaching are not intended to replace evaluation by students, but rather should be used in conjunction with them in evaluating teaching performance. 7. A copy of these guidelines will be placed in the assistant professor's personnel folder and will be forwarded to the Divisional Committee with other tenure materials.   EVALUATION OF TEACHING Name of Instructor Date Course number and name Name of evaluator 1. Please write a brief non-evaluative description of the class you visited. Was it a large lecture, a small class, or a discussion? What material was covered? What methods were used to present the material (e.g., lecture? slides? dialogue between instructor and students?) How was the time apportioned? 2. Please write an evaluation of this class session. Your evaluation should include responses to the following questions: a) How well was the material organized? b) How clearly was it presented? c) Did the instructor have a thorough knowledge of the material? d) Was the material presented up-to-date? e) Did the instructor encourage critical thinking? f) Was time well utilized? g) Did the instructor communicate enthusiasm and interest in the subject? h) If discussion took place, how well did the instructor moderate it? i) How did the instructor respond to students' questions and comments? j) Were faculty-student interactions lively and interesting? 3. Please write an evaluation of the syllabus and any other written materials (e.g., exams) that you considered. Your evaluation should include responses to the following questions: a) Does the syllabus set out clear learning objectives for the course? b) Is the syllabus well-organized and well-conceptualized? c) Is the instructor covering the major areas that should be covered in this course? d) Does the syllabus make clear the basis for grading?