Drexel University Case Studies
School of Education
Recognizing the importance and value of peer review of teaching, the School of Education requires teaching observations for all tenure-track and non-tenure track full-time faculty. Adjunct faculty in some programs within the School of Education also participate in peer review of teaching. The protocol includes performing two peer observations of teaching that are used in the first promotion process and one additional review used for full promotion. Reports from the peer review of teaching can also be used as part of faculty annual review and may be required for faculty experiencing performance-related issues.
The process of finding a reviewer is collegial and the responsibility of the reviewee. Often faculty ask colleagues or mentors within their department to perform the review. The instrument used to perform the review was co-written by the faculty and a former dean over a decade ago, but it has been updated a few times since its creation. Reviewers use the same instrument for all courses, including both online and in-person courses. Peer review is a part of the culture in this school, everyone participates, and the value of this process is apparent and accepted. The purpose of the review is to be evaluative but also “the basis for formative conversations that enhance professional development.” There is an opportunity to provide feedback and have a discussion about the report.
Note: The SoE has recently established a new working group to review this process and make some revisions. Additionally, conversations are occurring among the SoE faculty around how this exercise would be beneficial beyond the tenure and promotion processes.
College of Nursing and Health Professions
Peer review of teaching in the College of Nursing and Health Professions (CNHP) began in 2009 with the creation of the Master Teacher’s Guild: an optional, confidential process dedicated to improving teaching practices. A committee of faculty and professional staff developed the protocol, instrument, and training for reviewers that would help to standardize the process. Peer review and observations by the Master Teacher’s Guild members is optional, formative, and not built into faculty annual review. In other words, faculty reviewees elect to participate with the goal to improve their teaching. The reviewee can elect to use the materials as a supplement to annual review or tenure and promotion materials, but it is not required.
Reviewers use a different rubric for online and in-person courses. The goal is to “complement the faculty member’s student evaluations” and “improve the students’ experience.” Faculty can also meet with the reviewer to discuss the report that was generated to get additional feedback. Today, CNHP is working on requiring peer observations for all faculty at least once during annual reviews, starting with the onboarding of new faculty. This new protocol is in a pilot phase as they try to determine resources to operationalize the process.
Continue to additional resources and references