Required student evaluation of teaching is a tool for developing your pedagogical skills from semester to semester. It is integral to promotion, tenure, and annual review, as well as some awards.

Teaching and learning are at the heart of Duquesne. In order to assure quality and provide regular feedback to instructors on their teaching, Duquesne uses two kinds of teaching evaluation: student and peer. Both student and faculty peer perspectives on teaching and course design are helpful - each in its own way. Evaluation of teaching findings are useful both for improving one's teaching (formative evaluation), as well as for hiring, promotion and tenure decisions (summative evaluation).

Students complete the Student Perception of Teaching (SPOT) to provide feedback about their instructor's teaching and the course's design. This survey is used in face-to-face, hybrid and online courses. Clinical courses use a different evaluation of teaching.

If you'd like to review the questions that are utilized in the SPOT form, please review our SPOT handout (Box Link).

Increasing response rates is one important action to take in order to alleviate concerns about the generalizability of the student perceptions of teaching (Goodman, Anson, & Belcheir, 2015). In a study at Brigham Young University, Johnson (2003) found that the way faculty communicate with students about the online survey influences the response rate:

Type of Faculty Communication	Average Response Rate
Assigned students to complete online rating forms but did not give them points	77%
Encouraged students to complete the online forms but did not make it a formal assignment	32%
Did not mention the online student-rating forms to students	20%

Effective strategies include:

1. Work towards creating a climate of mutual respect, one where student opinions are respected and addressed and instructor needs are taken into consideration (Chapman & Joines, 2017)
2. Discussing the importance of student ratings to the faculty member and their efforts to improve the course (Ballantyne, 2003; Linse, 2016),
3. Noting that their feedback will likely benefit future students (Linse, 2016),
4. Start your next semester by discussing what you learned from the surveys and how you are adjusting your teaching or something about the course as a result,
5. Provide non-point incentives (e.g. class treat for reaching a certain completion percentage) to complete the evaluation (Goodman et al., 2015),
6. Giving time in class to complete the evaluation (Goodman et al., 2015). For example, allow time during class for students to complete the SPOT, either using their own devices or holding the class in a computer lab. The course instructor needs to be absent during the completion of SPOT. Alternatively, make the completion of the online ratings a course assignment (e.g. "Tonight, as part of your homework, please complete the online course evaluation on Canvas."). This would be part of routine homework, not for points toward the final grade.
7. Multiple reminders from the faculty (Linse, 2016).

In the spirit of supporting faculty, CTE has worked with Duquesne faculty to create a resource that explains the University's procedures and goals for peer evaluation, as well as provide a resource that may be useful for faculty to consult with their colleagues when being evaluated or when carrying out an evaluation.

While CTE does not have the capacity to set university policy, our goals are to:

• Explain the guidelines found in the Faculty Handbook and the policies and procedures put forth by Academic Affairs. 
• Offer recommendations and/or food for thought to discuss with your colleagues.
• Foster a culture where teaching and learning is valued as a skill that grows over time

CTE is incredibly thankful to our Faculty Focus Group on Peer Evaluation (Spring 2022) for all the feedback and input they provided in shaping the support and guidance this page and its resources provides. Thank you.

Below you'll find links to two guides related to Peer Evaluation. The first is a guide for pre-observation that begins by covering policies from Duquesne University's Academic Affairs relative to the evaluation process then moves on to addressing important concepts and discussions for evaluators and evaluatees to engage. The second guide examines how learning is defined and evaluated at Duquesne University with in-depth analyses of 'rigor' and 'engagement' -- the two main evaluated qualities of learning at Duquesne. This second guide also provides multiple discussion questions for evaluators and evaluatees to consider together expectations of how 'rigor' and 'engagement' function and appear in their specific discipline and courses.

Pre-Observation Guide and Recommendations (Box Link)

Evaluating Learning, Rigor, and Engagement at Duquesne (Box Link)

There is no official standardized form of peer evaluation at Duquesne University. However, it is always useful to have some samples to review and consult for ideas. The following are some evaluation tools from scholars and other institutions that are excellent in their own right but also have areas that could be strengthened. Along with links to these documents, we are providing commentary on the standout excellences and the areas that could be strengthened in each resource. These evaluations are based on our own views and the views of faculty who participated in our focus group on peer evaluation in the Spring of 2022.

Note: To access the documents below, you'll need to sign-in to Box with your DORI credentials.

University of Toronto Peer Evaluation Rubric (Box Link)

Standout strengths: Thorough, multiple evaluation rubrics, tools for self-evaluation, helpful set of "questions to avoid" for evaluators. Great questions to consider using for an observation starting on page 16 of the document.

Aspects to be aware of: Toronto's guide is understandably dense and takes some time to get through (but the content is worthwhile!).   

University of Kansas Peer Evaluation Rubric (Box Link)

Standouts: straightforward, strong rubric categories, good language for categories ('developing', 'proficient', and 'excellent'), concise (the rubric itself is only one page), checklist style evaluation which is helpful as a way to take notes to jog memory later.

Aspects to be aware of: The rubric categories are strong, but there is limited exegesis about the categories. If unfamiliar with the teaching approaches, language, or rubric categories, then this rubric will require further external reading to be fruitfully usable. Given this, it's important to review the rubric and its content with your peer to establish shared understanding if you plan on using it or borrowing elements from it in your evaluation. Also important to keep in mind that a filled out checklist does not constitute a peer evaluation of teaching at Duquesne.

UCLA Peer Evaluation Rubric (Box Link)

Standouts: Procedural evaluation approach that enforces reflective writing around each evaluated category, offers strong framing questions to keep in mind during the evaluation, segments class evaluation into 5-10 minute sections.

Aspects to be aware of: Similar to the rubric from University of Kansas, UCLA's document expects users to already possess fairly well-developed teaching knowledge. If considering using this resource or borrowing elements from it for your evaluation, make sure to establish shared understanding of those elements with your peer prior to the observation.

Mansfield Library Pre-Observation Questions (Box Link)

Standouts: Specialized in the specific, and important, area of the pre-observation part of the process. University of Toronto's guide also offers some insight on this, but Mansfield Library's approach is easy to adapt to your specific needs.

Aspects to be aware of: While this document can help frame the actual observation, it does not provide insight into how to proceed with the actual evaluation. Additionally, make sure you take the time to reflect on whether the questions work as they are or if they would benefit from being slightly modified/adapted to your specific concerns relative to your discipline and/or teaching and learning context.

Receiving student feedback early in the semester helps you examine your teaching, implement strategies for better student learning and potentially improve scores on Student Evaluation Surveys. And you get to ask for the particular feedback that you're seeking.

Impact of Early Course Evaluation on End of Semester Evaluations:

Peter Cohen's meta-analysis of studies on the impact of early-course evaluations on end of term evaluations concludes, "Instructors receiving mid-semester feedback averaged .16 of a rating point higher on end-of-semester overall ratings than did instructors receiving no mid-semester feed- back" (Cohen, 1980).  In a more recent study at Brigham Young University, the authors show that the impact of midcourse feedback on end-of-term feedback depends on what instructors do with the early course evaluation: "Student ratings showed improvement in proportion to the extent to which the faculty member engaged with the mid-course evaluation. Faculty who read the student feedback and did not discuss it with their students saw a 2 percent improvement in their online student rating scores. Faculty who read the feedback, discussed it with students, and did not make changes saw a 5 percent improvement. Finally, faculty who conducted the mid-course evaluation, read the feedback, discussed it with their students, and made changes saw a 9 percent improvement" (McGowan & Osguthorpe, 2011).

Processing the Feedback from Your Evaluations:

The table is adapted from an article by Buskit and Hogan (2010).

Throw out the off-the-wall comments that do not provide you with useful information and forget about them.	"She needs a haircut and a new pair of shoes."
Set aside the positive comments that don't tell you anything specific.	"Best class ever"
Divide the negative comments into two groups: those you can change and those that you cannot change.	Can Change: ... redistributing the points for different assignments because of the amount of work that they perceived were required for each assignment. Cannot Change: ... let students out of class early rather than keeping them the entire class period.
Work on perceptions and learn to be explicit.	As we look at our evaluations, we often think, "But I do that!" If we feel we are doing the things that students say we are not doing, then it may be that we need to address students' perceptions.
Savor the comments that are meant to be negative, but let you know you are doing your Job.	"She made us think." "Dr. S. is a very influential teacher, but I didn't come to college to be influenced."

Discussing the Feedback with your Students:

Karen Lewis (2001) says, "Perhaps the most important part of conducting a mid-semester feedback session is your response to the students. In your response, you need to let them know what you learned from their information and what differences it will make. "

For more information and sample Informal Evaluations/Surveys, follow the link below.

 

Learn More