Section I   

1.1 WHEREAS: the Senate has undertaken a multi-year effort to examine and improve UO’s teaching evaluation instruments and practices toward “reducing biases and improving validity, with the goal of improving teaching, learning, and equity” (US16/17-28);   

1.2 WHEREAS: the Senate has determined that teaching evaluation must include the available evidence from multiple sources (including peers, students, and instructors themselves) assessed, at a minimum, against the four standards of professional, inclusive, engaged and research-informed teaching (US21/22-06); 

1.3 WHEREAS: units must operationalize the evaluation of teaching through development of unit-specific Teaching Evaluation Rubrics that name the standards, sources of evidence, and the criteria for meeting, exceeding or not meeting expectations (US21/22-06); 

1.4 WHEREAS: peer review of teaching is a mandated practice in the CBA Articles 19 and 20 on faculty review, and one for which the Senate has historically set “content” expectations; 

1.5 WHEREAS: one consequence of diminishing over reliance on student feedback and rankings is the need to ensure that peer review, an equally important source of evidence about teaching, is robust and thoughtfully conducted. 

Section II 

2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED: each unit will develop a Peer Review of Teaching policy that establishes:  

The substance of reviews:  

• • the criteria by which peer review will be conducted, including at a minimum the professional, inclusive, engaged, and research-informed university-wide standards and any additional standards of modifications made by the unit (units may cite their Teaching Evaluation Rubric); 
• • a standard observation guide and/or template aligned to the criteria that will be used for each review 
• • The content of reviews (e.g. syllabus, Canvas site, class observation, etc.) 

The management of reviews:  

• • the responsible person, office, or committee that will keep track of which faculty are required to be reviewed each academic year; notifies faculty being reviewed that a review will take place; assigns reviewers; keeps a schedule of reviews; and determines how reviews will be maintained and archived; 
• • the date by which faculty undergoing review will be contacted; 
• • the qualifications reviewers must hold (e.g., rank or training, or membership in unit or cross-unit partner, etc.)  

Agency of faculty undergoing review:  

• • the role—if any—the faculty member being reviewed has in the selection of reviewers;  
• • by what process faculty will sign reviews to indicate they’ve seen them and the steps they may take if they disagree with a review; 
• • how faculty may request formative reviews that do not become part of their teaching evaluation materials. 

2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED: that units update their N/TTF Review & Promotion policies with a Peer Review of Teaching policy in line with the CBA deadline of June 15, 2024 (Appendix 1, Agreement 2). The Office of the Provost will provide a template Peer Review of Teaching policy.

2.3 BE IT FURTHER MOVED: that units should revisit their Peer Review of Teaching policy and instruments periodically to ensure they are working to both improve and evaluate teaching and are as efficient as possible; 

2.4 BE IT FURTHER MOVED THAT: The Office of the Provost through its Teaching Engagement Program will provide example observation guides and templates in support of peer review and synchronous and asynchronous training options for reviewers.