| Title | PSLA Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness Beyond SET |
| Policy Owner | Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture (PSLA) |
| Applies to | All full-time faculty members in the Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture |
| Unit Applicability | College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources |
| Effective Date | January 1, 2023 |
| For More Information Contact | Department Head |
| Contact Information | Sydney Everhart, everhart@uconn.edu |
| Official Website/ Venue Link | https://psla.uconn.edu/teaching-eval |
Developed: 2/11/2019. Revised: 11/1/2021; 12/16/2022
Approved by majority faculty vote on 12/31/2022.
Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) Scores are not to be used as the sole criterion of teaching proficiency, Promotion, Tenure, and Reappointment (PTR), or for non-reappointment with respect to full-time faculty, and adjunct faculty who have been employed for at least five semesters over a five-calendar year period.
Objectives:
- Develop a process for assessing teaching proficiency for PTR in addition to the SET.
- Provide opportunity for self-reflectance, feedback, documentation, and improvement.
Documentation:
- Develop and maintain a teaching portfolio to include, but not limited to:
- Professional development in teaching.
- Proof of participation in Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) workshops, seminars, and teaching talks; or other professional opportunities for improving pedagogy.
- Documentation of CETL personal consultations to improve teaching, course development, integrating technology, formative assessment. CETL SET + would be an ideal program for this activity.
- Professional development in teaching.
- Other documents that indicate professional development in pedagogy.
- Novel or unique teaching approaches.
- Peer review of teaching reports.
- Example lectures.
- SET summaries by semester/year (CETL report on SET data).
- Student comment summaries.
- Advising and mentoring of undergraduate and graduate students.
- Honors, awards, and achievements of mentoring undergraduate and/or graduate advisees.
- Examples or documentation of student advisee or mentee projects, internships, or products directly associated with your teaching.
- Instruments for assessment of student learning and relevant examples.
- Mid-Semester SET (optional, but recommended and viewed as critical to improve SET scores).
- In addition to the semester-end SET, this allows students the opportunity for a mid-semester evaluation and enables instructors to make a mid-course correction of their teaching based on those comments.
- Peer-Review of Teaching:
It is the responsibility of the instructor to solicit peer reviews of teaching. Peer reviewers must be at the Associate Professor or Full Professor level with teaching experience.
During the observation session, the reviewer(s) will use the PSLA Peer-Review Teaching Observation Rating Form (see below) as the instrument to document the instructor’s teaching proficiency. The instructor is strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves and address all criteria included in the Teaching Observation Rating Form. After the session, the reviewer(s) will tally the ratings and also provide a short descriptive summary of the instructor’s teaching proficiency based on their observations and rating results. For multiple reviewers at one time, it is recommended that the reviewers reconcile their responses into a single report. The reviewer(s) will meet with the instructor to discuss the evaluation with emphasis on areas for improvement and/or to reinforce a continuance of good performance.
For Formative evaluations, the evaluations and feedback need only involve the reviewer(s) and instructor. However, the instructor may submit the formative evaluations into their PTR teaching portfolio if they think it beneficial.
For Summative evaluations, the instructor must include these into their teaching portfolio for PTR reviews.
CATEGORIES FOR PEER-REVIEW OF TEACHING:
- Tenure-Track Position Prior to Tenure. Peer review of teaching prior to PTR packet being submitted for evaluation in a position leading to tenure.
- Minimum of three evaluations: Two formative evaluations are to occur within the first 3 years, and one summative evaluation shall be made by year 4 of the start date. The instructor may request additional formative or summative evaluations at their discretion.
- Formative Evaluation (by end of Year 3) – minimum of two evaluations with a minimum of one reviewer per evaluation, but the instructor may request more reviewers.
- Summative Evaluation (by end of Year 4) – minimum of one evaluation with a minimum of two reviewers per session, but the instructor may request more reviewers.
- Minimum of three evaluations: Two formative evaluations are to occur within the first 3 years, and one summative evaluation shall be made by year 4 of the start date. The instructor may request additional formative or summative evaluations at their discretion.
- Tenure-Track Position Post Tenure. Peer review of teaching within 2 years of PTR packet being submitted for evaluation in a tenure-track position leading to promotion after tenure.
- Summative Evaluation – minimum of two raters per evaluation, but the instructor may request more reviewers.
- CIRE Faculty Prior to Multi-Year Contract. Peer review of teaching in a non-tenure track position leading to retention.
- Minimum of three evaluations: Two formative evaluations and one summative evaluation. Instructor may request additional formative or summative evaluations at their discretion.
- Formative Evaluation (first evaluation by end of Year 2 and second by end of Year 4) – minimum of two evaluations with a least one reviewer per evaluation, but the instructor may request more reviewers.
- Summative Evaluation (by end of Year 6, or prior to multi-year contract offer) – minimum of one evaluation with a least two reviewers at each session, but the instructor may request more reviewers.
- Minimum of three evaluations: Two formative evaluations and one summative evaluation. Instructor may request additional formative or summative evaluations at their discretion.
- CIRE Faculty Post Multi-Year Appointment. Peer review of teaching within 2 years of PTR packet being submitted for evaluation prior to promotion.
- Summative Evaluation – at least two raters per evaluation, but the instructor may request more reviewers.
- Optional Review of Course Materials and Assessments of Learning
The instructor may also request periodic in-depth reviews of their course materials by a reviewer who is a subject-matter expert in the course topics. The review results may be included in the Teaching Portfolio for review during the PTR process, but is not mandatory. It is suggested that reviewers use the PSLA Peer-Review of Course Materials Rating Form (see below). The instructor is strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves and address all criteria included in the Course Materials Rating Form. Instructors should provide a comprehensive portfolio of course materials sufficient for reviewers to assess and comment on all criteria outlined in the rating form.
PSLA Peer-Review Teaching Observation Rating Form
Course: ____________________________________________________
Instructor: ____________________________________________________
Date: ____________________________________________________
Circle your responses to each of the 10 questions and then add comments below the table.
| The instructor | Extremely | Very well | Adequately | Inadequately | Not at all | Could not assess |
| 1—was well prepared for class | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 2—was knowledgeable about the subject matter | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 3—was enthusiastic about the subject matter | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 4—spoke clearly, audibly, and confidently | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 5—used a variety of relevant illustrations/examples | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 6—made effective use of the board and/or visual aids | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 7—asked stimulating and challenging questions | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 8—effectively held class’s attention | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 9—achieved active student involvement | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 10—treated students with respect | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
Overall rating (average of column scores): _______
What worked well in the class? (Continue on back if necessary)
What could have been improved? (Continue on back if necessary)
Rater(s):___________________________________________________________________________________
PSLA Peer-Review of Course Materials Rating Form
Course: ____________________________________________________
Instructor: ____________________________________________________
Date: ____________________________________________________
Circle your responses to each of the 10 questions and then add comments below the table.
| Extremely | Very well | Adequately | Inadequately | Not at all | |
| 1. Course content includes the appropriate topics | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 2. Course content reflects the current state of the field | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 3. Course learning objectives are clear and appropriate | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 4. Course policies and rules are clear and appropriate | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 5. Lecture notes are well organized and clearly written | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 6. Handouts and web pages are well organized and clearly written | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 7. Assignments consistent with objectives and appropriately challenging | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 8. Tests consistent with objectives and appropriately challenging | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 9. Tests clearly written and reasonable in length | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 10. Student products demonstrate satisfaction of learning objectives | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
Overall rating (average of column scores): _______
What are the strengths of the course materials? (Continue on back if necessary)
What could have been improved? (Continue on back if necessary)
Rater(s)________________________________________________________________________________________