Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are a prevalent method for gauging teaching effectiveness, significantly influencing decisions on promotion, tenure, contract renewal, and merit-based pay. However, increasing research indicates that SETs often capture students’ perceptions and emotions rather than the actual quality of course design or instructional effectiveness, raising doubts about their objectivity as measures of teaching.
The article suggests that peer evaluations, especially a semester-long model of peer review, provide a more meaningful and constructive way to evaluate university instruction. Unlike sporadic classroom observations or end-of-term student feedback, a peer reviewer immersed in the course can offer deeper insights into course design, instructional choices, and student learning. The article aims to propose a practical framework for implementing peer evaluations that offer actionable feedback and support faculty development.
Students hold a vital role in the educational system, and their feedback can offer valuable insights into classroom climate, instructor accessibility, and course organization. However, students are often not equipped to assess crucial aspects of effective teaching, such as the alignment of learning outcomes with assessments or the rigor of the content. Furthermore, SETs are influenced by factors unrelated to teaching quality, including course difficulty, expected grades, and biases related to gender, age, or race.
SETs can be useful when students provide feedback on instructional clarity, instructor responsiveness, course organization, and overall class climate, helping instructors identify areas for improvement. However, many SET questions ask students to assess teaching expertise beyond their understanding, often reflecting their feelings about the course rather than its effectiveness in supporting learning. Research suggests that SETs are influenced by emotions and biases unrelated to teaching effectiveness, raising fairness concerns, especially when used as high-stakes measures of teaching quality.
In response to the limitations of SETs, many institutions incorporate peer observations into their evaluation systems. However, traditional peer observation models often involve a single classroom visit, offering only a snapshot of teaching. Classroom dynamics can change throughout the semester, and teachers might alter their methods if they know they are being observed, reducing authenticity. Comprehensive peer evaluations should consider the broader course context for meaningful insights.
An effective approach to peer evaluation involves sustained engagement by a peer reviewer over the semester. This approach is not meant to be intensive but allows the reviewer to gain a broader understanding of course design and implementation. A semester-long peer evaluation may include access to the learning management system (LMS), multiple classroom visits, and structured discussions.
Having access to the LMS, peer reviewers can examine how learning outcomes, readings, and assignments are organized, assessing whether course materials align with learning goals and support student learning. LMS access allows reviewers to see how instructors communicate, organize assignments, and provide feedback, which are essential aspects of teaching effectiveness not visible in brief classroom observations.
Instead of observing a single class session, peer reviewers should attend multiple classes throughout the semester to witness different teaching modalities. This could include observing lecture-based, discussion-oriented, or applied learning activities, providing a more balanced view of the instructor’s teaching approach and reducing the pressure of high-stakes observations.
Structured conversations between the instructor and peer reviewer throughout the semester can foster collaboration in developing an effective course. Early discussions can establish course context and instructor goals, while follow-up conversations can share observations from classroom visits, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement. Framing this process as a professional exchange can support shared teaching improvement, moving peer evaluations from mere surveillance to professional development opportunities.
Early career faculty often feel pressured to prioritize student satisfaction due to the impact of SETs on tenure, promotion, and contract decisions, which can deter innovative teaching practices. An experienced colleague as a peer evaluator can appreciate the complexity of teaching and offer developmental feedback that SETs cannot. Peer evaluations can provide mentorship and professional dialogue on teaching, offering opportunities beyond Likert-scale surveys or brief student comments for early career faculty to engage with colleagues.
Original Source: facultyfocus.com
