Composition of the Peer Review of Teaching Committee
Committee Size: Each faculty member under review shall have a Committee of at least three (3) members and must be an odd number.
Eligibility: Eligible peer reviewers shall be full-time faculty members with teaching as a significant responsibility, regardless of contact type, who have three or more continuous years of university teaching experience and who are currently employed by the Pennsylvania State University.
Disciplinary Representation: The Committee shall include members with relevant disciplinary expertise. Members may be drawn from within the division, the College, or the broader University to ensure adequate representation of disciplinary knowledge.
Procedure for Establishing a Peer Review of Teaching Committee
Early in the semester in which the peer review will take place, the Division Head or an entity working on their behalf, shall work collaboratively with the faculty member under review to establish the committee by recommending potential committee members. The faculty member under review may also decline a suggested reviewer in consultation with the administrator or delegated entity. In the case of formal Promotion & Tenure reviews, the faculty member under review shall recommend six faculty members to serve on the committee. The Division Head holds final authority for the composition of the Peer Review of Teaching Committees, ensuring that the following guidelines are applied consistently:
- At least one member of the Committee must represent the faculty member’s discipline area, which is defined as the current program or a program the faculty member teaches and resides in.
- At least one member of the Committee must be tenured or second rank (including NTL).
- No more than one member of the Committee may have reviewed the faculty member’s teaching within the last two years.
- At least two members of the Committee must be from the BHHSS Division.
- Faculty members on leave of absence, including sabbatical leave, at the time of the review of teaching are prohibited from participating on Peer Review of Teaching Committees.
For formative reviews, the faculty member under review shall work collaboratively with the Division Head or delegated entity to identify a suitable committee according to the guidelines above.
Review Process and Criteria
Committee Leadership: Once constituted, the review Committee for each faculty member shall choose its Chair from among the members. The Chair must be from the candidate’s division and, when possible, the discipline.
Process: The peer review process should include a pre-review consultation with the faculty member, observations (in-person or the virtual/asynchronous environment), and a post review conversation to discuss the observations and review. The content of the discussion should include only evidence-based observations and action-oriented recommendations.
Elements of Effective Teaching: Reviews shall follow Penn State’s Elements of Effective Teaching, ensuring that assessments are evidence-based and follow best practice guidelines. To this end, the candidate under review shall provide the committee with a list of the courses to be reviewed, including their meeting times and locations, and provide access to relevant course materials (i.e. syllabi, handouts, exams, teaching philosophy, and other relevant documents). It is advisable that the faculty member under review provide the committee with a short narrative that provides a context for the review by explaining how choices in teaching methods and assessments reflect the faculty member’s goals for the course.
Before classroom visits begin, it is recommended that the candidate under review and the committee meet to discuss these materials.
Classroom Observations: At least two classroom visits by all Committee members are required for in- person, hybrid, and remote synchronous courses. Observations should occur across different courses when possible. During the classroom visit, committee members should refrain from talking with students about the candidate’s teaching practices. Peer-review of remote asynchronous courses includes (but is not limited to) review of artifacts representative of the faculty member’s instructional actions, such as course materials (i.e. syllabi, readings, assignments), exams/assessments, instructional strategies (tools and strategies that support learning), and interactions between students and faculty (i.e. faculty online presence, communication and messaging, responsiveness to students, performance-based feedback, etc.).
Observation Forms: If a specific focused observation form is to be used, it must be developed and approved by the division and used consistently across all committees. Any focused observation forms must be shared with the faculty member under review, prior to its use in the peer review process.
Reporting: Following observation and deliberation, the Committee members shall write a summary letter that consolidates feedback and assessments. All committee members’ names should be listed, but only the Chair must sign the document. If there are significant disagreements within the committee about any aspect of the review, the letter will include separate majority and minority opinions to clarify those differences.
Submission: This peer review letter is addressed to the Division Head and sent before the end of the semester in which the peer review takes place (spring for 4th-year reviews and beyond and NTL reviews; fall for 2nd-year reviews). The Division Head will place the letter in the faculty member’s dossier when the peer review is part of a promotion and tenure (tenure-line faculty) or promotion review (non-tenure-line faculty). For formative reviews, the letter will be given only to the faculty member under review.
Consultative Feedback: At the faculty member’s discretion (and after the formal review of the dossier in the case of P&T reviews), a candidate may consult with the committee and/or the Division Head and any delegated entities in a manner that will help the faculty member improve their teaching effectiveness.
Procedures for Summarizing Student Comments
Summary of Student Comments: In accordance with AC23, the evaluation of teaching effectiveness for promotion and tenure must include two types of student input. A minimum of two individuals will be selected to serve as student feedback reviewers. At least one will be selected from a list of two or more faculty members nominated by the candidate. Another will be a member of the Divisional Promotion and Tenure committee. Student feedback from the on-line Student Educational Experience Questionnaires (SEEQs) and the SRTE form (used prior to 2023) will be provided from available courses for the period since the candidate’s last formal review and/or covered by the review (whichever is shortest). For candidates undergoing the second-year review, two semesters of student written comments from the online SEEQs will be included. All candidates have the option of including raw data student feedback from the SEEQ/SRTE in their supplemental materials.
Optional Secondary Student Evaluations: Additionally, if the candidate desires, other forms of student evaluation may be requested. Evidence may include (but is not limited to) feedback from the faculty member’s current students. If additional evidence is to be included, the committee, the faculty member, and the Division Head shall work together to arrange a system/process for the anonymous collection of evidence. Then, the committee shall arrange with the faculty member a suitable time to collect said evidence using the agreed upon process.
Balanced Reporting: The Committee will attempt to provide a balanced summary of student comments. A “balanced” summary would include ensuring that excerpted student comments are representative and accurately framed and weighed in light of other available evidence about the faculty member under review (e.g., SEEQ comments, classroom observations). The Chair will provide the summary letter, which should list all committee members and be signed by the Chair, to the Division Head by the designated deadline for the promotion and tenure (tenure-line faculty) and promotion review (non-tenure- line faculty).
For formative reviews, use of student feedback is optional.
- Approved by Division (4/15/14)
- Revised and Approved by Division (9/23/19)
- Updated 5/25/23
- Update 12/9/24
- Revised and Approved April 21, 2025