Institutional Approaches to Evaluate Teaching Effectiveness: The Role of Summative Peer Review of Teaching for Promotion and Tenure
Keywords:Student evaluations of teaching, promotion and tenure, summative peer review, Canadian universities, EDI
A growing body of literature has identified student evaluations of teaching (SETs) as introducing bias against minority faculty members and not serving as a reliable or valid measure of teaching effectiveness. This lack of reliability and validity presents issues for university tenure and promotion committees, as these institutional processes necessarily require accurate, objective, and holistically informed modes of evaluation to recognize teaching achievements. Summative peer review of teaching (SPRT) is an alternative mode of assessment that aims to provide evidence of teaching effectiveness to inform promotion and tenure. SPRT, as an institutional practice, has been adopted at a small cohort of institutions of higher education, marking a potential shift in practice. This article examines SETs to articulate the problematic elements introduced by SETs, specifically to examine if SPRT can serve as a viable alternative. By describing the SPRT processes that four institutions have taken, the authors aim to articulate these emerging approaches to collecting evidence of teaching effectiveness. In this descriptive work, it is our secondary contention that SPRT, through intentional design and facilitation, can offer a process that does not introduce bias in the same way as SETs and thus, can also be used to satisfy the growing need for practices that help achieve, in part, institutional goals related to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI).
Bernstein, D., Burnett, A., Goodburn, A., & Savory, P. (2006). Making teaching and learning visible: Course portfolios and the peer review of teaching. Anker Pub. Co. Inc.
Bharuthram, S. (2012). Making a case for the teaching of reading across the curriculum in highereducation. South African Journal of Education, 32(2), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v32n2a557
Blackmore, J. A. (2005). A critical evaluation of peer review via teaching observation within higher education. The International Journal of Educational Management, 19(2), 218-232.
Burrell, S. L., Donovan, S. K., & Williams, T. P. (Eds.). (2020). Breaking down silos for equity, diversity, and Inclusion (Edi): Teaching and collaboration across disciplines. Rowman & Littlefield.
Canadian Association of University Teachers. (2018, April). Underrepresented & underpaid: Diversity & equity among Canada’s post-secondary education teachers. https://www.caut.ca/sites/default/files/caut_equity_report_2018-04final.pdf
Chism, N. V. (2007). Peer review of teaching: A sourcebook (2nd ed.). Anker Pub. Co. Inc.
Dall’Alba, G. (1994). The role of teaching in higher education: Enabling students to enter a field of study and practice. Learning and Instruction, 3(4), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(93)90021-q
Donnelly, R. (2007). Perceived impact of peer observation of teaching in higher education. http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=ltcart
Frey, L., Botan, C., & Kreps, G. (1999). Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods (2nd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Griffen, A. J. (Ed.). (2021). Challenges to integrating diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in organizations. IGI Global.
Hammersley-Fletcher, L., & Orsmond, P. (2004). Evaluating our peers: Is peer observation a meaningful process? Studies in Higher Education, 29(4), 489-503.
Hammersley, M. (1989). The dilemma of qualitative method: Herbert Blumer and the Chicago tradition. Routledge.
Hornstein, H. A. (2017). Student evaluations of teaching are an inadequate assessment tool for evaluating faculty performance. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1304016. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2017.1304016
Jereb, E., Jerebic, J., & Urh, M. (2018). Revising the importance of factors pertaining to student satisfaction in higher education. Organizacija, 51(4), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2018-0020
Kreitzer, R. J., & Sweet-Cushman, J. (2021). Evaluating student evaluations of teaching: A review of measurement and equity bias in SETs and recommendations for ethical reform. Journal of Academic Ethics, 20, 73-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09400-w
Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1994). The use of students’ evaluations of university teaching to improve teaching effectiveness. Australian Government Publishing Service.
Murray, H. G. (1983). Low-inference classroom teaching behaviors and student ratings of college teaching effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06184.108.40.206
Murray, H. G. (2005). Annual Meeting of the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. In Student evaluation of teaching: Has it made a difference? (pp. 1–15). St Peter’s Bay: Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.
Napier, J., Riazi, M., & Jacenyik-Trawoger, C. (2014). Leadership: A cultural perspective on review as quality assurance versus quality enhancement. In J. Sachs & M. Parsell (Eds.), Peer review of learning and teaching in higher education: International perspectives (pp. 53-66). Springer.
Noben, I., Deinum, J. F., & Hofman, W. H. (2020). Quality of teaching in higher education: Reviewing teaching behaviour through classroom observations. International Journal for Academic Development, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144x.2020.1830776
Parsell, M. (2011, September 22). The PEER model [Plenary paper]. International Symposium on Leadership and Communication in Peer Review, Macquarie University.
Peterson, D. A., Biederman, L. A., Andersen, D., Ditonto, T. M., & Roe, K. (2019). Mitigating gender bias in student evaluations of teaching. PLOS ONE, 14(5), e0216241.. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216241
Sword. H. (2017). Air & light & time & space: How successful academics write. Harvard University Press.
Texas A&M University. (n.d.). Center for teaching excellence: Home. https://cte.tamu.edu/
University of Alberta. (n.d.). Centre for teaching and learning. https://www.ualberta.ca/centrefor-teaching-and-learning/index.html
University of British Columbia. (n.d.). Centre for teaching, learning and technology. http://ctlt.ubc.ca/
University of Toronto. (n.d.). Centre for teaching support & innovation. https://teaching.utoronto.ca/
UNSW. (n.d.). Summative peer review of teaching. https://www.teaching.unsw.edu.au/summative-peer-review
Uttl, B., White, C. A., & Gonzalez, D. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007
Wood, M., & Su, F. (2017). What makes an excellent lecturer? Academics’ perspectives on the discourse of ‘teaching excellence’ in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(4), 451–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1301911
Copyright (c) 2022 Keif Godbout-Kinney, Gavan Watson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.