Appendix A: Statement of Practices for the Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness for Promotion and Tenure
Last updated July 1, 2024
Introduction
Policy AC23 requires that the evaluation of teaching effectiveness for purposes of promotion and tenure be based on both peer and student input. This statement outlines the procedures for obtaining and reporting that input as endorsed by the University Faculty Senate.
A. Student Feedback
1. All units shall use the Student Educational Experiences Questionnaire(SEEQ) survey to gather student feedback about their educational experiences. This survey may be supplemented by other forms of student feedback at the discretion of the faculty of the unit.
2. The Office of the Executive Vice President and Provostwill be responsible for coordinating revisions to the SEEQ, in consultation with the Standing Advisory Committee on the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness. The Schreyer Institute for Teaching Excellence will be responsible for administrative procedures, scoring, and reporting in consultation with the faculty.
3. Results of student feedback surveys (e.g., the SEEQ) shall belong to the faculty of the unit which administers them, not to the individual faculty member who was rated. Results shall be accessible to the academic unithead for inclusion in promotion and tenure dossiers. The faculty member shall have access to their survey Appropriate controls for confidentiality of information shall be implemented by all units in distributing and storing the survey results.
a. In spring and summer of 2020 due to the global pandemic, results from the student feedback survey belonged to the individual faculty member. For formal reviews that took place in fall 2020 and in subsequent years, inclusion of spring and summer 2020 SRTEs were not required and were discouraged except in rare circumstances.
4. Administration of the SEEQ
a. Administration of the SEEQs is based on the guidelines listed below.
(1) Responses to survey items must remain anonymous.
(2) Directions to the students are uniform across administrations.
(3) The candidate shall not participate in the administration, collection, or compilation of the survey results.
(4) The candidate shall not be present while students complete the evaluation.
5. Administration of the m-SEEQ
a. Effective fall 2024, mid-semester SEEQs will be administered. Because feedback is formative, results will not be shared with administrators. Candidates will not be permitted to include information about their mid-semester feedback in their dossiers or supplemental materials. If the candidate wishes to discuss mid-semester feedback in their narrative, they may choose to do so. If unit guidelines reference the mid-semester SEEQ, they must be clear about how they may and may not be used.
B. Peer Review of Teaching
1. As part of the Faculty Assessment of Teaching Framework, all academic units are expected to develop peer review guidelines. All colleges are to have these guidelines in place by July 1, 2024 and academic units within the college are expected to have these guidelines in place no later than July 1, 2025. Below are the elements all units must include in their peer review guidelines.
a. Penn State’s research-based Elements of Effective Teaching should serve as a foundation for the peer review of teaching. Efforts to minimize bias should be reflected in the unit guidance (e.g., training, clear protocols, evidence-based note taking)
b. All full-time faculty (non-tenure-line and tenure-line) must receive a peer review of their teaching at least every five years.
c. The content of each evaluation should include only evidence-based observations. That is, the assessment(i.e., evaluations and conclusions) should be tied to corresponding evidence.
d. Summative peer review of teaching ideally consists of more than one source of assessmentthat may or may not include course observation.
e. The relevant administrator and the faculty member being reviewed should collaborate to choose reviewers.
(1) Final selection is up to the administrator, ensuring consistent application of guidelines within ranks and appointment types
f. This process should be clearly communicated to all faculty
g. Academic unit guidelines (department/campus/division/school) must not conflict with college guidelines.
h. Academic units’ peer review guidelines must be consistently applied across the academic unit and within ranks, and clearly communicated to faculty.
i. Academic units will determine which sources of evidence will be used and how these sources will be reviewed.
j. If course observation is an element of an academic unit’s peer review guidelines,
(1)academic units should have guidelines for reviewing courses in a variety of delivery modes (e.g., hybrid, in-person, online).
(2) academic units should make clear what constitutes a course observation.
2. The following elements of peer review guidelines can be left to the discretion of the unit. Units may incorporate both formative and summative peer reviews into their processes. However, summative peer review is the only form of peer review referenced in Penn State policy AC40 and the Administrative Guidelines for AC23.
a. Process for choosing peer reviewers
b. Sources of evidence (e.g., LMS content, observations, student advising, student mentoring, etc.)
c. How evidence will be reviewed
d. Who conducts peer reviews of teaching (e.g., some units may choose to not require reviewers to be of higher rank or a member of the unit)
e. Whether the process will vary for tenure-line, teaching, or clinical faculty
C. Review Committee Reports
1. It is the responsibility of the first level review committee (i.e., campus, department, division, or school) to make a judgment of the candidate’s teaching effectivenessbased on both peer and student reviews in terms of the following classifications: Excellent, very good, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory.
2. Reviewers should understand that unsatisfactory carries a negativeconnotation; satisfactory conveys a neutral evaluation; very good, a positive one; and excellent, a highly positive evaluation. The review committee must provide appropriate documentation for its judgment.