University of Washington

Intranet Home 

Home >> APT Table of Contents

printable version

Appendix 3

Peer Teaching Evaluation Review Committee

The Peer Teaching Evaluation Review Committee (PTERC) will evaluate the applicant's teaching, and will forward a written evaluation of their findings to the applicant's Department Chair, who will forward them to the Chair of the APT Committee for consideration. This evaluation will be confidential to the APT Committee and will assist the Committee in preparing its recommendation to the Dean.

The PTERC will consist of three (3) UW faculty members at the rank of Associate or Full Professor. At least one faculty member must be from the Department in which the faculty member seeking promotion has his/her primary appointment, and that faculty member will chair the PTERC. At least one faculty member must have his/her primary appointment outside of the applicant's primary Department. The Department Chair, in consultation with the candidate, will select faculty members to complete peer teaching evaluations. Care must be taken in selecting Associate and Full Professors whose time availability is compatible with the faculty member's teaching schedule. In addition, the peer evaluators must be capable of making informed and objective evaluations in one or more of the four (4) possible teaching settings (lecture, small group seminar, clinical, and laboratory).

The actual selection of the three PTERC members will be made by the Department Chair in consultation with the candidate from the eligible pool of peer evaluators. Each PTERC member must have completed peer evaluation forms on a minimum of two (2) teaching sessions (e.g., lecture, seminar, lab, clinic) given by the faculty member seeking promotion since his/her previous appointment or promotion. The assortment of teaching sessions that are peer evaluated should reflect the candidate's teaching responsibilities. Additional faculty members may evaluate single teaching sessions, and these evaluations should be included in the teaching portfolio; but these faculty do not qualify to be members of the PTERC. Therefore, a minimum of three (3) faculty members must observe two (2) teaching sessions each before that faculty member can qualify for evaluation for promotion. Progress toward achieving the requisite peer evaluations to form a PTERC will be monitored during the annual faculty review.

The Department Chairman should officially inform the peer evaluators of their appointment to the
specific PTERC prior to June 15th of the year the candidate applies for promotion. The PTERC will be convened when the faculty member seeking promotion makes a formal request to the Chair of his/her PTERC. This should occur no later than July 1st.

The candidate should provide the PTERC with additional information as is needed to adequately
evaluate his/her teaching (e.g., syllabus, audiovisual materials). In addition, prior to transmitting their evaluation to the APT committee, the PTERC should meet with the faculty member to provide feedback and share observations which will enhance the applicant's teaching effectiveness. The PTERC evaluation letter must be received by the candidate's Department Chair by August 15th, who then forwards it to the Chair of the APT committee no later than September 25th for mandatory promotion and tenure decisions. For non-mandatory promotion decisions, The PTERC evaluation letter must be received by the candidate's Department Chair by November 1st. The Department Chair should include the PTERC report with his/her support letter to the Dean no later than December 1st.

The Peer Teaching Evaluation Review Committee (PTERC) evaluation report must contain the
following information:

  1. The names and departmental affiliations of the members of the PTERC.
  2. A composite summary statement of the Peer Evaluation Review Forms that have been completed. Comments should reflect the candidate's performance in the relevant teaching categories (i.e., lecture, small group, clinical teaching, laboratory teaching).
  3. Degree of improvement noted over the evaluation period.
  4. Evaluation of Supporting Material
    1. Assessment of teaching syllabi, classroom handouts and other appropriate teaching materials,
      e.g., videotapes, computer assisted instruction, etc.: Are any of the materials used at other
      schools? Is the material up to date
    2. Quality of Exams and Quizzes: Are the questions relevant to the course objectives?
    3. Student Performance in classes taught by the candidate.
  5. A summary statement of the overall assessment by the PTERC regarding the quality of the
    candidate's teaching.

Sample PTERC Evaluation Report

Date:

April 1, 20__

To:

Dr. ______________, Chair

Department of Restorative Dentistry

From:

PTERC for Dr. John Smith

Dr. ______________, Department of _______________
Dr. ______________, Department of _______________
Dr. ______________, Restorative Dentistry and Chair of the PTERC

RE:

PTERC REPORT FOR DR. JOHN SMITH

The above listed members of the Peer Teaching Evaluation Review Committee (PTERC) have met and reviewed the teaching performance of Dr. John Smith. Each of the three committee members had attended a minimum of two teaching sessions and had completed peer evaluation forms. Actually, the committee members had collectively completed eight evaluations. An additional three evaluations were completed by two other faculty. Copies of all eleven peer evaluations should be included in Dr. Smith's teaching portfolio.

A composite summary of Dr. Smith's Peer evaluation results are listed below:

RESD 528, 529 -- (3,3) A, W (highest score = 5)

Intro to Restorative Dentistry

4 Lecures -- Ave. Rating 4.7
4 Pre-clinical Lab -- Ave. Rating 4.5

RESD 534 -- 1 S

Restorative Dentistry

1 Lecture -- Ave. Rating 4.9

RESD 630 -- (2,2,2) A, W, Sp

1 Clinical -- Ave. Rating 4.0

RESD 586 -- (2) Sp

1 Small Group -- Ave. Rating 4.9

DEGREE OF IMPROVEMENT

A definite improvement was noted in Dr. Smith's teaching performance over the time that the PTERC members had been making peer evaluations.

The most dramatic improvement was noted in the RESD 528 and 529 courses. Initially, the projects assigned by Dr. Smith were overwhelming to the majority of the class. All students were forced to spend a substantial amount of outside time to complete the projects. As a result of student evaluations, Dr. Smith made major changes in the course. He reduced the number and complexity of the laboratory projects and improved his methods of classroom instruction which included a major syllabus modification. The PTERC noted that during this past academic year, Dr. Smith appears more relaxed and in command of the teaching environment. It was obvious to the committee members that the students and Dr. Smith were enjoying the course.

The least improvement was noted with Dr. Smith's clinical teaching in third year restorative. While clinical instruction is not the major responsibility for Dr. Smith, he needs to provide more critical feedback to the students during and after each clinical session. He also needs to give positive feedback as well as negative.

EVALUATION OF SUPPORTING MATERIALS

  1. Assessment of Teaching Syllabi and Additional Items: As noted previously, based on student critique, Dr. Smith completed a major revision of the syllabus for RESD 528 and 529. The members of this PTERC feel it is exceptionally well done. Dr. Smith was invited to present excerpts of the Syllabus and related teaching aids at a seminar conducted at
    the A.A.D.S. annual meeting at New Orleans. Dr. Smith has learned that 5 dental schools have adopted the ideas he
    presented and 2 schools have requested the opportunity to purchase copies of the syllabus to distribute to their students.

    Dr. Smith has developed 4 videotapes that he uses in teaching basic skills being taught in RESD 528 and 529. Eight dental schools have purchased copies of these tapes and are using them in their comparable courses.

  2. Quality of Exams and Quizzes: While the exams were initially criticized by the second year class in RESD 528 and 529, Dr. Smith has made dramatic improvements. Initially, the student critiques indicated that the questions were vague and tended to be "tricky." Dr. Smith currently tests students on material from his syllabus and lectures. The students
    currently rate the exams as being challenging but very fair. They particularly appreciate having the keys to the quizzes and exams being posted immediately.

    The members of the PTERC feel the exams are very well constructed. In addition, the methods of testing utilized in the pre-clinical laboratory are very effective. The student evaluations have indicated that they feel the laboratory exams test their abilities fairly. They appreciate the willingness of Dr. Smith to provide remedial assistance to anyone needing it.

  3. Student Performance: The students, in general, are able to master the skills being taught which has resulted in a high class performance. The grades given for RESD 528 range from 1.8 to 4.0 with a median of 3.2. The grades for RESD 529 range from 2.0 to 4.0 with a median of 3.3. Since Dr. Smith established an effective remedial component to these two courses, the overall class performance has improved.

SUMMARY

In summary, the PTERC members feel Dr. Smith is a very effective teacher, especially in the second year pre-clinical courses which constitute his major teaching responsibility. He has been judged by his peers at the University of Washington and other dental schools to be a very effective and innovative teacher. His students appreciate his willingness to help them and to
make the pre-clinical lab a friendly setting to work in. In addition, they feel he is a very talented and effective teacher.

In reviewing Dr. Smith's teaching performance over the past five years, this PTERC feels he has worked very hard to improve his teaching performance. To be judged by both his peers and his students as an outstanding teacher is a just reward for his hard work.

 

University of Washington
School of Dentistry
Peer Evaluation Forms

The purpose of the Peer Evaluation Forms is to collect information about faculty members’ teaching from their colleagues for use in reviews for tenure, promotion, and merit increases. It was designed to be used in the departments in the School of Dentistry. The system consists of four forms:

  1. PEER OBSERVATION FORM: LECTURE
  2. PEER OBSERVATION FORM: SMALL GROUP SEMINAR OR DISCUSSION
  3. PEER OBSERVATION FORM: CLINICAL TEACHING
  4. PEER OBSERVATION FORM: LABORATORY TEACHING

Please make the necessary copies from the four Peer Evaluation Forms on the following pages.

The department chairperson and the faculty member to be reviewed should determine the course(s) and the type(s) of teaching to be observed. It is suggested that the course(s) in which the faculty member holds major responsibilities be reviewed.

PEER OBSERVATION FORM:
LECTURE

OBSERVED: __________________________________________ DATE:__________
OBSERVER: __________________________________________SETTING:________

Directions: Components of teaching using the lecture format are listed below. Rate each component on the scale from 1 to 5 by placing a number next to the item. Comment based on your specific observations of each item, identifying areas for improvements. Use the bottom of page 2 to summarize strengths and recommendations.

Rating Scale:

 

5 = outstanding
4 = above average
3 = good, needs few improvements
2 = satisfactory, needs improvement in some areas
1 = poor, needs improvement in several areas

 

________________________________________________________________________________

CLARITY AND ORGANIZATION

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. Begins by stating importance
    of topic, objectives, and by
    previewing main points.
  2. Presents 2 to 5 main points
    clearly with supporting examples.
  3. Uses instructional resources
    (e.g. slides).
  4. Summarizes to achieve closure.

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________________________

PRESENTATION STYLE

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. Exhibits enthusiasm and
    stimulates interest in topic.
  2. Uses well-modulated, clearly
    articulated voice.
  3. Presents without disturbing
    mannerisms.
  4. Paces for note-taking.
    
________________________________________________________________________________

GROUP INTERACTION

RATING:

COMMENTS
  1. Encourages active participation.
  2. Uses questions to challenge
    thought and stimulate discussion.
  3. Responds to questions in clear and
    non-threatening way.

 

:

 

____________________________________________________________________________

CONTENT

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. Organizes content logically.
  2. Uses up-to-date materials and
    references.
  3. Presents content at appropriate
    level of complexity and quantity.

 

 

________________________________________________________________________________

HANDOUTS AND EXAMS

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. Prepares appropriate
    supplementary resources.
  2. Examines and grades fairly.

 

________________________________________________________________________________

STRENGTHS:

RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

PEER OBSERVATION FORM:
SMALL GROUP SEMINAR OR DISCUSSION

OBSERVED: __________________________________________ DATE:__________________
OBSERVER: __________________________________________SETTING:________________

Directions: Components of small group teaching are listed below. Rate each component on the scale
from 1 to 5 by placing a number next to the item. Comment based on your specific observations of each
item, identifying areas for improvements. Use the bottom of page 2 to summarize strengths and
recommendations.

Rating Scale:

5 = outstanding
4 = above average
3 = good, needs few improvements
2 = satisfactory, needs improvement in some areas
1 = poor, needs improvement in several areas
________________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. Introduced topic, stated
    objectives, created the agenda.
  2. Established climate of mutual respect.
  3. Gained attention and motivated learning.
________________________________________________________________________________

GROUP PROCESS MANAGEMENT

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. Exhibited enthusiasm and
    stimulated interest in learning.
  2. Encouraged active participation
    and group interaction.
  3. Used questions to clarify and
    stimulate thought.
  4. Recognized and reinforced
    student contributions.
  5. Listened attentively to what
    students were asking or telling.

Peer Observation Form: Small Group Seminar or Discussion Page 2
________________________________________________________________________________

GROUP PROCESS MANAGEMENT

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. Responded to questions raised by students or elicited response from group.
  2. Ensure that discussion kept
    on track.
  3. Summarized key ideas
    periodically.
________________________________________________________________________________

CONCLUSION

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. Summarized key concepts without
    introducing new material.
  2. Provided closure or stimulated
    further thought.
________________________________________________________________________________

STRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. Selected an appropriate group
    process to accomplish objectives.
  2. Used the appropriate size group
    for the learning task.
  3. Utilized resources (visuals, handouts,
    cases, demonstrations) to promote
    learning.
  4. Arranged physical environment to
    facilitate learning.
________________________________________________________________________________

STRENGTHS:

RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

PEER OBSERVATION FORM:
CLINICAL TEACHING

OBSERVED: __________________________________________ DATE:_____________
OBSERVER: __________________________________________SETTING:___________

Directions: Components of clinical teaching are listed below. Rate each component on the scale from
1 to 5 by placing a number next to the item. Comment based on your specific observations of each item,
identifying areas for improvements. Use the bottom of page 2 to summarize strengths and
recommendations.

Rating Scale:

5 = outstanding
4 = above average
3 = good, needs few improvements
2 = satisfactory, needs improvement in some areas
1 = poor, needs improvement in several areas
________________________________________________________________________________
 

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. KNOWLEDGE AND
    CLINICAL REASONING
    (decisive in formulating practical
    management plans)
________________________________________________________________________________
 

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVE
    TREATMENT PLANS
    (weighed advantages/disadvantages
    of alternatives)
________________________________________________________________________________
 

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. PROVIDED DIRECTION AND
    FEEDBACK
    (communicated expectations, observed
    performance, provided feedback)
________________________________________________________________________________
 

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. EFFECTIVELY USED
    AVAILABLE TIME
    (lesson organized; instructor
    accessible)
________________________________________________________________________________
 

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. DEMONSTRATED CLINICAL
    SKILLS AND PROCEDURES
    (utilized skill, judgment, and
    technique)
________________________________________________________________________________
 

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. ESTABLISHED RAPPORT
    (showed respect and personal
    interest in trainees and patients,
    listened, was supportive)
________________________________________________________________________________
 

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. WAS ENTHUSIASTIC AND
    STIMULATED INTEREST
    (enjoys teaching and profession,
    dynamic and energetic)
________________________________________________________________________________
 

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. PROFESSIONAL
    CHARACTERISTICS
    (displayed self confidence,
    openness, respect, responsibility)
________________________________________________________________________________
 

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. ACTIVELY INVOLVED LEARNERS
    (asked student plans before making
    recommendations, challenged thought,
    asked questions)
_______________________________________________________________________________

STRENGTHS:

RECOMMENDATIONS:

 


PEER OBSERVATION FORM:
LABORATORY TEACHING

OBSERVED: __________________________________________ DATE:_____________
OBSERVER: __________________________________________SETTING:___________

Directions: Components of laboratory teaching are listed below. Rate each component on the scale
from 1 to 5 by placing a number next to the item. Comment based on your specific observations of each
item, identifying areas for improvements. Use the bottom of page 2 to summarize strengths and
recommendations.

Rating Scale:

5 = outstanding
4 = above average
3 = good, needs few improvements
2 = satisfactory, needs improvement in some areas
1 = poor, needs improvement in several areas
________________________________________________________________________________
 

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. PROVIDED CLEAR
    EXPLANATIONS OF
    SKILL TO BE LEARNED
________________________________________________________________________________
 

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. CLEARLY EXPLAINED
    RATIONALE FOR SKILL
    OR PROCEDURE
________________________________________________________________________________
 

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. EFFECTIVELY USED
    AVAILABLE TIME
    (lesson was organized,
    instructor was available)
________________________________________________________________________________
 

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. PROVIDED DIRECTION AND
    FEEDBACK     (communicated expectations
    observed performance, provided feedback)
    ____________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
 

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. PROVIDED EXAMPLES OF
    EXPECTED RESULTS
________________________________________________________________________________
 

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. CREATED A SUPPORTIVE,
    NON-THREATENING
    LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
________________________________________________________________________________
 

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. PROFESSIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
    (displayed selfconfidence,
    openness,
    respect, responsibility)
________________________________________________________________________________
 

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. WAS ENTHUSIASTIC AND
    STIMULATED INTEREST
    (enjoys teaching and profession,
    dynamic and energetic)
________________________________________________________________________________
 

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. ESTABLISHED RAPPORT
    (showed respect and personal
    interest in students and patients)
_______________________________________________________________________________
 

RATING:

COMMENTS:

  1. PROVIDED REMEDIAL
    HELP WHEN NEEDED
_______________________________________________________________________________
 

RATING:

COMMENTS:
  1. ACTIVELY INVOLVED
    LEARNERS     (asked questions,
    challenged thought,
    asked about students’ plans)
_______________________________________________________________________________

STRENGTHS:

RECOMMENDATIONS:
 
Last Updated on 8/11/08 12:40 PM
©2003, University of Washington