Voted on Policies (Supplemental)

1 Departmental Protocol for Peer Review of Teaching (Voted on Dec 2022)

Back to Table of Contents

This protocol largely follows Brent and Felder, “A Protocol For Peer Review of Teaching,” ASEE 2004.

1.1 Peer Review Committee

Back to Table of Contents

Prior to the Fall semester of the academic year, a peer review committee shall be formed. This committee will function for the next academic year. The committee should consist of a committee chair (“chair”) to oversee the process and a group of faculty peer reviewers (“raters”). Ideally, the faculty serving on the committee will cover topic areas for CISE courses.

There is no training session for the raters, but members of the committee should familiarize themselves with the rating form and the DOs and DON’Ts one-pager (Appendix A).

Both CISE tenure-track faculty and instructional faculty are eligible to serve on the committee.

1.2 Requesting Peer Review

Back to Table of Contents

During the academic year, any CISE faculty member (“instructor”) can request a peer review of their teaching for the current or upcoming semester for a specific course. This is an optional process. To do so, the faculty member will email the request to the peer review committee chair specifying the course to be reviewed.

1.3 Assignments of Raters

Back to Table of Contents

Once a request for peer review has been received, the committee chair will assign two raters to perform the review. Insofar as possible:

1. one rater should have previously taught the course being reviewed or be regularly teaching courses in the same area; and
2. the other rater should be from a different area.

To minimize potential conflicts of interest, raters should be at or above the aspirational rank of the instructor being reviewed. For example, untenured assistant professors should not be rating the teaching of instructors who may later evaluate their candidacy for tenure.

1.4 Procedure for Peer Review

Back to Table of Contents

• The instructor and the two raters communicate to arrange two lecture observation sessions and go over the rating forms (see below). The instructor will also send relevant course materials (e.g., syllabus) to the raters ahead of the observation. The instructor may optionally send to the raters a short written statement about their teaching style and aspects of their teaching that they would like the raters to consider. This may even include idiosyncratic aspects of the schedule that are relevant to the observation (e.g., there is always a quiz in the first 20 minutes of a class).
• During an observation session, raters should observe discreetly and without interfering with the educational environment that they are reviewing. After each observation session, the two raters will fill out the rating form independently. In doing so, the raters should keep in mind that teaching styles vary and that teaching should be evaluated accordingly. Once completed, the raters will send their forms to the committee chair.
• If the committee chair judges the two forms to have substantial disagreement, the raters may be asked to meet and reconcile their ratings of each item. In that case, the raters should fill out a consensus form that will then be sent to the committee chair. Whenever the two raters cannot agree on the integer rating of an item, their ratings should be averaged and rounded up to the nearest integer.
• The committee chair will write a letter summarizing the raters’ findings and highlighting strengths and areas for improvements. The chair will send this letter to the instructor. The instructor can then add a response as a comment or dissenting opinion.
• [Optional] The instructor, raters, and committee chair may meet to further discuss the evaluation.

2 Guidance to Faculty going up for Sustained Performance Eval (Voted on Dec 2022)

Back to Table of Contents

To formalize the advisory feedback that the tenure and promotion committee provides to the department chair (Section 1.3 of the bylaws governing faculty evaluation), the faculty member undergoing sustained performance evaluation (SPE) may make a motion during a faculty meeting that their SPE folder be opened for a vote of eligible departmental faculty (at rank or above) and that the results of the vote be included as part of the advisory feedback.

3 CISE Cheating Policy Adopted unanimously (Voted on Mar 7, 2023)

Back to Table of Contents

Rationale:

This is suggested policy guidance for purely voluntary adoption by faculty members, with departmental backing. Even without formal departmental backing, faculty members can adopt this policy because it is consistent with university rules. However, since most faculty members are not aware of the limits that fall within university rules, having the department formally endorse this policy will help faculty members feel more comfortable implementing it.

Policy:

This cheating policy is merely a recommendation. However, if a faculty member chooses to adopt this policy, the CISE department will support the faculty member’s position.

1. The faculty member prominently announces a zero-tolerance policy on the course webpage at the beginning of the semester when the course is offered.
2. At any time that a student is caught cheating with compelling evidence, the faculty member immediately reports to the University using the online form (violation report): https://sccr.dso.ufl.edu/resources-by-audience/faculty-and-staff/faculty-student-resolution/
3. Since the University takes time to process such reports, in the meantime, if asked by the student, the faculty member informs the student of the following:
   1. The cheating incident has been reported to the University.
   2. The faculty member will recommend to the University a minimum punishment of a grade of E in the course, in addition to a score of 0 for the assignment or test where the cheating occurred.
   3. The University maintains records of such reports filed across all the courses the student takes, and will make the final decision; in particular, the University may choose a more severe punishment, including suspension.
4. Pending the University’s decision, if the student continues submitting assessments for the course after being informed of Items 3(a), 3(b), and 3(c), the faculty member maintains assessment grading records for the student as usual, but per University policy, awards the student a grade of “N” during the semester. If the University has not yet reached a decision at the end of the semester, a final grade of I or E is submitted (the University recommends I). If the University’s decision subsequently requires the faculty member to change the final letter grade, the faculty member uses the student’s assessment grading records to fill out a grade change form.

Appendix A: Peer Review Form; DO’s and DON’Ts

Back to Table of Contents

Lecture Observation Form

Course: ____________________      Instructor: ____________________

Complete the table below by entering one integer rating for each item.

Rating Scale:

• 5 — Exceeds expectations in all respects.
• 4 — Meets expectations in all respects.
• 3 — Meets expectations in most respects.
• 2 — Meets expectations in some respects.
• 1 — Meets expectations in few or no respects.

1. was well prepared for the class
2. was knowledgeable about the subject matter
3. was enthusiastic about the subject matter
4. spoke clearly, audibly, and confidently
5. used a variety of relevant illustrations/examples
6. made effective use of the board and/or visual aids
7. asked stimulating and challenging questions
8. effectively held class’s attention
9. achieved active student involvement
10. treated students with respect
11. —
12. —

What worked well in the class?

______________________________________________________________________________

What could have been improved?

______________________________________________________________________________

Rater(s): ______________________________      Observation Date: _____________

Observation of Teaching DOs and DON’Ts

This guide is based on the guiding principles for quality peer review of teaching in Perlman and McCann, “Peer review of teaching: An overview,” Society for the Teaching of Psychology (APA Division 2), Office of Teaching Resources in Psychology (OTRP), 1998.

Faculty on the peer review committee should customize this as necessary. Any CISE faculty member may also suggest additions or modifications to it.

1. DO keep in mind that teaching styles vary. When filling out the observation form, raters should keep in mind that teaching should be evaluated in the context of the instructor’s teaching style. For example, some instructors may teach in a flipped classroom style or be using the Socratic method of teaching.
2. DON’T surprise the instructor being rated. This includes surprise visits not agreed upon by both the rater and the instructor.
3. DO pay attention to the instructor’s optional statement on teaching style and aspects to focus on.
4. DON’T interfere with the teaching environment. Raters should observe discreetly and without disrupting the class.
5. DO avoid personal biases or subjective opinions. Raters should base their evaluation on objective observations about the instructor’s teaching.
6. DO comment on strengths. Raters should not only focus on weaknesses. They should also comment on strengths and how to build upon them.

References & Resources:

• College of Journalism and Communications
• College of Dentistry
• College of Business (note: required process for third-year review, tenure, etc.)
• College of Liberal Arts and Sciences