91Ô­´´

1. Purpose

This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) establishes the university-level system for Peer Evaluations of Teaching (PET) in compliance with state law, which requires each state institution of higher education to implement a written system of peer evaluations that emphasizes faculty professional development related to their teaching responsibilities.

2. Definitions

1. Authority. Academic units (departments/schools or colleges) are responsible for creating, maintaining, and updating PET processes and evaluation criteria. Academic units are expected to update their evaluations at least once every five years. Processes and evaluation criteria should be developed through a shared governance process.
2. Contextualization. The interpretation of peer evaluation evidence in light of course type, modality (in-person, hybrid, or online), class size, discipline norms, student demographics, and other contextual factors that may influence teaching practices and outcomes.
3. Faculty. For the purposes of this SOP, faculty is defined as part-time or full-time tenure-track/tenured faculty, instructional faculty, or clinical faculty with faculty rank and status.
4. Evidence. Documentation and materials used to demonstrate teaching effectiveness. Evidence in PET may include direct observations, reviews of teaching artifacts (e.g., syllabi, assignments, assessments), analysis of student learning outcomes, faculty self-assessments, and records of professional development in teaching.
5. Formative Evaluation. A developmental evaluation intended to improve teaching effectiveness. In PET, formative evaluation emphasizes constructive feedback, reflective practice, and identification of opportunities for professional growth without direct personnel consequences.
6. Peer Evaluation of Teaching (PET). A collegial process in which faculty members provide informed, constructive, and evidence-based feedback on a colleague’s teaching methods, materials, and overall effectiveness.
7. Performance Metrics. Indicators identified by academic units to evaluate teaching effectiveness within PET. Metrics must be measurable, aligned with disciplinary standards, and communicated to faculty in advance.
8. Performance Ratings. The categories used to classify teaching effectiveness in annual or summative evaluations (e.g., Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, Does Not Meet Expectations). PET evidence may inform but does not replace these ratings.
9. Professional Development. Structured activities, reflections, or recommendations intended to enhance instructional effectiveness, pedagogical knowledge, and student engagement. Professional development is both an input to PET (faculty evidence) and an outcome (feedback from evaluators).
10. Professional Ethics. The expectation that faculty adhere to the ethical standards of their discipline, 91Ô­´´ policies, and broader professional obligations. In PET, professional ethics include respect for colleagues, confidentiality of evaluation processes, and constructive feedback.
11. Professional Judgment. The reasoned and informed interpretation of teaching evidence by peer evaluators, guided by disciplinary norms, established standards, and contextual considerations.
12. Sources of Information. Categories of data and materials used in PET, which may include (but is not limited to) faculty self-perspectives (self-reflections, self-reports, teaching portfolios), perspectives from peers, qualified staff, and/or academic leaders (observations, reviews),  perspectives from students (course evaluations, focus groups), and/or evidence of student learning (assessments, outcomes).
13. Student Voice. Input from students that provides indirect evidence of teaching effectiveness, typically gathered through evaluations, surveys, or learning outcomes. In PET, student voice may be incorporated when peer reviewers consider student perspectives alongside other sources of evidence.
14. Summative Evaluation. A formal evaluation used for high-stakes personnel decisions, such as promotion, tenure, or post-tenure review. PET may be included in summative evaluations but must be balanced with other measures of teaching effectiveness.
15. Teaching Excellence Criteria. The eight criteria adopted by 91Ô­´´ to assess teaching effectiveness: preparation, engagement, inclusion, subject expertise, pedagogical competence, outcomes, improvement, and adaptability & innovation.
16. Teaching Excellence Descriptors. The six broad descriptors that define excellent teaching at 91Ô­´´: well-designed, well-delivered, inclusive, learner-focused, reflective, and evolving. These descriptors provide an overarching framework for evaluating and supporting teaching excellence and are operationalized through the eight teaching excellence criteria.

3. Guiding Principles

The administration and use of Peer Evaluations of Teaching (PET) at 91Ô­´´ are guided by the following principles:

1. Academic Freedom. Evaluations cannot violate academic freedom and should respect the rights of faculty, while ensuring alignment with professional standards and institutional expectations.
2. Accountability. Faculty, evaluators, and administrators share responsibility for the integrity of the PET process. Faculty are expected to engage openly in the process; evaluators are accountable for fair and evidence-based feedback; and administrators are accountable for ensuring PET results are used responsibly and consistently.
3. Authority. Academic units are responsible for determining the procedures for conducting PETs, including evaluator selection, timing, format, and use in annual evaluations or promotion and tenure. These procedures must be developed through shared governance with faculty input and approved by the chair/director and dean.
4. Clarity. Instructions, protocols, and reporting formats should be stated in plain and consistent language so that faculty can understand the process, expectations, and outcomes of peer evaluations.
5. Development. PET is first and foremost a developmental process. Evaluations should focus on constructive feedback that supports faculty growth, instructional improvement, and engagement in professional development.
6. Fair Treatment. Recognizing that research has demonstrated that teaching evaluations may be influenced by implicit bias, units should provide guidance to support bias mitigation and fair treatment of all faculty in matters of evaluation.
7. Formative and Summative Use. While PET is primarily formative, focused on developmental feedback, academic units may also use peer evaluations as one component of summative reviews (e.g., annual evaluation, promotion, or post-tenure review).
8. Multiple Measures. PET should incorporate multiple sources of evidence—such as observations, teaching artifacts, and student learning outcomes—rather than relying on a single measure.
9. Professional Judgment. Peer evaluators are expected to interpret teaching evidence in a reasoned and informed manner, considering disciplinary norms, teaching context, and relevant factors such as modality, class size, and course type.
10. Transparency. The purpose, process, timing, and use of PET should be clearly communicated to faculty in advance. Faculty members should know how peer evaluations will be conducted, what evidence will be reviewed, and how results will be incorporated into personnel processes.

4. Evaluation Process

The evaluation process establishes how Peer Evaluations of Teaching (PET) are conducted, documented, and used at 91Ô­´´. The process ensures that peer review is applied in alignment with professional standards and the university’s teaching excellence framework.

Step 1: Establish and Communicate a PET System

Each academic unit (department/school or college), in consultation with the dean, must establish a written system for conducting PETs. The system should specify evaluator selection, timing, evidence requirements, scope, reporting formats, and procedures for incorporating PET into developmental and evaluative processes. Units must communicate their system clearly to faculty, ensuring that expectations, procedures, and responsibilities are transparent and accessible. Units are expected to evaluate faculty through a formal PET system at least once every three years; more frequent evaluations are encouraged.

Step 2: Select and Train Evaluators

Evaluators are chosen according to unit-level procedures, which may include mutual agreement, assignment from a designated pool, or service on an elected committee. Evaluators should have relevant disciplinary expertise and familiarity with the teaching context, including course type and modality. Units are responsible for ensuring that evaluators receive appropriate training, including guidance on 91Ô­´´â€™s teaching excellence descriptors and criteria, effective observation and review practices, and strategies for mitigating bias.

Step 3: Solicit Faculty Input and Goals (Optional)

Prior to the evaluation, the faculty member under review should have the opportunity to provide input into the process. This may include identifying teaching goals, selecting specific criteria for emphasis, or designating particular courses or materials for review. Faculty input ensures that the evaluation is responsive to developmental priorities while aligned with unit standards and expectations.

Step 4: Collect Evidence

Peer evaluations may draw on multiple sources of evidence, including classroom observations, teaching artifacts (e.g., syllabi, assignments, assessments), student learning outcomes, and faculty self-reflections. Units should establish consistent expectations for the scope and type of evidence required by balancing thoroughness with efficiency. Evidence should be collected in a systematic manner with attention to confidentiality and fairness.

Step 5: Evaluate and Write Feedback

Evaluators should review and analyze the collected evidence. Professional judgment should guide the evaluation, considering contextual factors such as course size, location, modality, and discipline norms. Feedback should be constructive, collegial, and oriented toward professional development. Evaluators are expected to prepare a written report summarizing strengths, opportunities for growth, and recommendations for enhancing teaching effectiveness.

Step 6: Solicit Faculty Response (Optional)

Faculty members may submit a written response to the evaluation report. The response may provide additional context, reflect on feedback received, or outline plans for professional development and instructional improvement. Faculty responses become part of the official record, ensuring that their perspective is incorporated into the evaluation process.

Step 7: Use in Personnel Processes

PET reports and faculty responses may be incorporated into summative personnel reviews, such as annual evaluations, promotion and tenure, or post-tenure review. When used in summative contexts, PET should be considered with other measures of teaching excellence, such as student evaluations of teaching, faculty self-assessments, and evidence of student learning. PET results should not be used in isolation to determine performance ratings.

5. Oversight and Accountability

Oversight of the Peer Evaluation of Teaching (PET) process is shared across multiple levels of the university to ensure consistency, fairness, and alignment with institutional and state requirements.

1. Academic Units. Departments/schools or colleges are responsible for designing and implementing PET systems that meet unit and university standards. Systems should establish procedures for evaluator selection, evidence collection, reporting, and recordkeeping. Department chairs and school directors are responsible for ensuring that PETs are applied consistently and equitably within their units.
2. Colleges. Deans (or designees) are accountable for reviewing and approving unit-level PET systems and ensuring equitable application across departments and schools. Colleges must verify that PET is conducted at least once every three years for all full-time faculty and that results are incorporated appropriately into developmental and evaluative processes.
3. Office of the Provost. The provost (or designee) provides university-wide oversight of PET systems to ensure compliance with state law, consistency with 91Ô­´´â€™s policies, and integration with institutional standards for teaching excellence. The provost (or designee) may also monitor trends in PET implementation for institutional improvement.
4. Center for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (CTLA). The CTLA supports PET systems by providing training for evaluators, developing evaluation resources and tools, and consulting with faculty and units on effective peer review practices. CTLA also promotes the formative use of PET results by connecting faculty with professional development opportunities.
5. Faculty. Whether serving as evaluators or undergoing evaluation, faculty are expected to maintain confidentiality, offer constructive feedback, and engage professionally in the evaluation process.

6. Recordkeeping

All Peer Evaluation of Teaching (PET) reports and related materials should be retained as part of the faculty member’s official evaluation record. Records must include the written report, any optional faculty response, and the date of the next scheduled evaluation.

Access to these records is limited to the faculty member, the department chair or school director, the dean, and authorized administrators. Faculty may also choose to include PET reports in teaching portfolios or promotion and tenure dossiers.

Records must be maintained and archived in accordance with 91Ô­´´ policy and state public records requirements. This ensures accountability and transparency in the evaluation process while protecting faculty privacy.

Aggregated PET results may also be used at the department, college, or university level for program review, accreditation, and institutional improvement, provided that individual faculty identities are not disclosed without consent.

February 20, 2026 – Initial Draft

April 1, 2026 – Effective Date