Development and Implementation of a Peer Evaluation Teaching Protocol in a Large Animal Science Program

Over time and with enough semesters and students, student course evaluations can provide valuable information about instructor effectiveness and course organization. However, student evaluations are anonymous, and responses often lack accountability and constructive comments for improvement. The student point of view, while important, may lack perspective that faculty assessment is able to provide. Additionally, as promotion documents increasingly require more documentation of teaching effectiveness, a consistent, fair, summative peer evaluation of teaching can add breadth and depth to the assessment while strengthening the departmental curriculum. Therefore, a protocol was developed to provide guidance and continuity in the peer evaluation of teaching process.

Peer evaluation of teaching includes all materials and assessments from the course as well as classroom presentation and delivery. The undergraduate teaching coordinator accepts requests from faculty who wish to have their course reviewed at the beginning of each semester and then assigns two peer reviewers. The three faculty then meet to discuss course objectives and learning outcomes. The instructor also shares their teaching philosophy for the course, and the syllabus, handouts, assignments, quizzes and exams. Some instructors also choose to add the reviewers to the learning management platform for the class. The reviewers plan to attend the class (and/or laboratory) at least two different times (not necessarily together) throughout the semester and record their observations. If at all possible, it is advised that the instructor and reviewer meet immediately after class to discuss initial thoughts, reactions and questions. Both evaluators then meet together with the instructor to visit about their evaluation and then draft a letter with their assessment. The peer evaluation document is then shared with the instructor.

Informal feedback from instructors includes the fact that many faculty enjoy talking about teaching, but that these conversations are preempted by daily activities and duties unless given a specific reason. The evaluation process gives a platform to visit about pedagogy, course content and teaching techniques. Outcomes and impacts of implementation of this protocol have not only yielded improvement of classroom teaching practices (via student course evaluation improvement) and exchange of ideas, but also increased faculty relationships and collaboration. Additionally, anecdotal improvement of overall course content, especially amongst related courses or courses within a series or sequence was mentioned. A coordinated, transparent protocol that assesses not only classroom performance but course content can be an effective tool for both class delivery and instruction as well as curricular improvements.