Increasing response rates is one important action to take in order to alleviate concerns about the generalizability of the student perceptions of teaching (Goodman, Anson, & Belcheir, 2015). In a study at Brigham Young University, Johnson (2003) found that the way faculty communicate with students about the online survey influences the response rate:

Effective strategies include:

1. Work towards creating a climate of mutual respect, one where student opinions are respected and addressed and instructor needs are taken into consideration (Chapman & Joines, 2017)
2. Discussing the importance of student ratings to the faculty member and their efforts to improve the course (Ballantyne, 2003; Linse, 2016),
3. Noting that their feedback will likely benefit future students (Linse, 2016),
4. Start your next semester by discussing what you learned from the surveys and how you are adjusting your teaching or something about the course as a result,
5. Provide non-point incentives (e.g. class treat for reaching a certain completion percentage) to complete the evaluation (Goodman et al., 2015),
6. Giving time in class to complete the evaluation (Goodman et al., 2015). For example, allow time during class for students to complete the SPOT, either using their own devices or holding the class in a computer lab. The course instructor needs to be absent during the completion of SPOT. Alternatively, make the completion of the online ratings a course assignment (e.g. "Tonight, as part of your homework, please complete the online course evaluation on Canvas."). This would be part of routine homework, not for points toward the final grade.
7. Multiple reminders from the faculty (Linse, 2016).

Impact of Early Course Evaluation on End of Semester Evaluations:

Peter Cohen's meta-analysis of studies on the impact of early-course evaluations on end of term evaluations concludes, "Instructors receiving mid-semester feedback averaged .16 of a rating point higher on end-of-semester overall ratings than did instructors receiving no mid-semester feed- back" (Cohen, 1980).  In a more recent study at Brigham Young University, the authors show that the impact of midcourse feedback on end-of-term feedback depends on what instructors do with the early course evaluation: "Student ratings showed improvement in proportion to the extent to which the faculty member engaged with the mid-course evaluation. Faculty who read the student feedback and did not discuss it with their students saw a 2 percent improvement in their online student rating scores. Faculty who read the feedback, discussed it with students, and did not make changes saw a 5 percent improvement. Finally, faculty who conducted the mid-course evaluation, read the feedback, discussed it with their students, and made changes saw a 9 percent improvement" (McGowan & Osguthorpe, 2011).

Processing the Feedback from Your Evaluations:

The table is adapted from an article by Buskit and Hogan (2010).

Discussing the Feedback with your Students:

Karen Lewis (2001) says, "Perhaps the most important part of conducting a mid-semester feedback session is your response to the students. In your response, you need to let them know what you learned from their information and what differences it will make. "

For more information and sample Informal Evaluations/Surveys, follow the link below.

In the spirit of supporting faculty, CTE has worked with Duquesne faculty to create a resource that explains the University's procedures and goals for peer evaluation, as well as provide a resource that may be useful for faculty to consult with their colleagues when being evaluated or when carrying out an evaluation.

While CTE does not have the capacity to set university policy, our goals are to:

• Explain the guidelines found in the Faculty Handbook and the policies and procedures put forth by Academic Affairs. 
• Offer recommendations and/or food for thought to discuss with your colleagues.
• Foster a culture where teaching and learning is valued as a skill that grows over time

CTE is incredibly thankful to our Faculty Focus Group on Peer Evaluation (Spring 2022) for all the feedback and input they provided in shaping the support and guidance this page and its resources provides. Thank you.

Below you'll find links to two guides related to Peer Evaluation. The first is a guide for pre-observation that begins by covering policies from Duquesne University's Academic Affairs relative to the evaluation process then moves on to addressing important concepts and discussions for evaluators and evaluatees to engage. The second guide examines how learning is defined and evaluated at Duquesne University with in-depth analyses of 'rigor' and 'engagement' -- the two main evaluated qualities of learning at Duquesne. This second guide also provides multiple discussion questions for evaluators and evaluatees to consider together expectations of how 'rigor' and 'engagement' function and appear in their specific discipline and courses.

Pre-Observation Guide and Recommendations (Box Link)

Evaluating Learning, Rigor, and Engagement at Duquesne (Box Link)

There is no official standardized form of peer evaluation at Duquesne University. However, it is always useful to have some samples to review and consult for ideas. The following are some evaluation tools from scholars and other institutions that are excellent in their own right but also have areas that could be strengthened. Along with links to these documents, we are providing commentary on the standout excellences and the areas that could be strengthened in each resource. These evaluations are based on our own views and the views of faculty who participated in our focus group on peer evaluation in the Spring of 2022.

Note: To access the documents below, you'll need to sign-in to Box with your DORI credentials.

University of Toronto Peer Evaluation Rubric (Box Link)

Standout strengths: Thorough, multiple evaluation rubrics, tools for self-evaluation, helpful set of "questions to avoid" for evaluators. Great questions to consider using for an observation starting on page 16 of the document.

Aspects to be aware of: Toronto's guide is understandably dense and takes some time to get through (but the content is worthwhile!).   

University of Kansas Peer Evaluation Rubric (Box Link)

Standouts: straightforward, strong rubric categories, good language for categories ('developing', 'proficient', and 'excellent'), concise (the rubric itself is only one page), checklist style evaluation which is helpful as a way to take notes to jog memory later.

Aspects to be aware of: The rubric categories are strong, but there is limited exegesis about the categories. If unfamiliar with the teaching approaches, language, or rubric categories, then this rubric will require further external reading to be fruitfully usable. Given this, it's important to review the rubric and its content with your peer to establish shared understanding if you plan on using it or borrowing elements from it in your evaluation. Also important to keep in mind that a filled out checklist does not constitute a peer evaluation of teaching at Duquesne.

UCLA Peer Evaluation Rubric (Box Link)

Standouts: Procedural evaluation approach that enforces reflective writing around each evaluated category, offers strong framing questions to keep in mind during the evaluation, segments class evaluation into 5-10 minute sections.

Aspects to be aware of: Similar to the rubric from University of Kansas, UCLA's document expects users to already possess fairly well-developed teaching knowledge. If considering using this resource or borrowing elements from it for your evaluation, make sure to establish shared understanding of those elements with your peer prior to the observation.

Mansfield Library Pre-Observation Questions (Box Link)

Standouts: Specialized in the specific, and important, area of the pre-observation part of the process. University of Toronto's guide also offers some insight on this, but Mansfield Library's approach is easy to adapt to your specific needs.

Aspects to be aware of: While this document can help frame the actual observation, it does not provide insight into how to proceed with the actual evaluation. Additionally, make sure you take the time to reflect on whether the questions work as they are or if they would benefit from being slightly modified/adapted to your specific concerns relative to your discipline and/or teaching and learning context.

This style of lecturing may not facilitate the most active learning environments, but there are absolutely times when this style of lecture is necessary. It is also great professional development for your students to learn how engage with this mode of information intake. It can help if you tell them about this reasoning (and your own unique justifications for this pedagogical decision)! In this style of lecture, students generate comprehensive notes based on what the instructor presents so that they can consult these notes when studying. Little to no discussion.

The goal is engaged listening and resource production.

In this style of lecturing, the instructor designs lectures to create opportunities for students to operationalize the knowledge they've learned either in preparation for the class (e.g. through the reading or the preceding lab), are learning throughout the class from you, or a combination of both.  This approach utilizes frequent, low stakes, testing or activities that have students put the learned concepts to work.

The goal is engagement with concepts and processes.

This style of lecture has is where you present on brief sections that are either broken up with planned discussion periods or you foster spontaneous discussion throughout. Specific questions rather than open-ended "what do you think about this?" or "any questions?" are best.

The goal is participation and group engagement.

1. Why should a student want to take this course? How does it make a difference as part of the discipline? How does it fit into the general-education program?
2. What are the objectives of the course? Where does it lead, intellectually and practically?
3. Why do the parts of the course come in the order that they do? Most syllabi note the order in which topics will be discussed, but make no attempt to explain the way the professor has chosen to organize the course.
4. What is the purpose of the assignments? Students are frequently told how much an assignment will "count" and how many pages long it must be, but they are rarely given any idea about what it will demand of them or what the goal is. Will students be required to describe, discuss, analyze, provide evidence, criticize, defend, compare, apply? To what end? If students are expected to present a project before the class, are the criteria for an excellent presentation made clear?
5. What will the tests test? memory? understanding? ability to synthesize? To present evidence logically? To apply knowledge in a new context? 
6. Why have the books been chosen? What is their relative importance in the course and in the discipline? Is the emphasis in the course on primary or secondary materials and why?

1. A syllabus quiz during one of the first classes of the semester. While it is helpful to read through your syllabus with students on the first day, it is also helpful to make them study it so that they really become familiar with the information it provides. Quiz questions can be on things like your office hours and email, the learning goals for the class, deadlines for assignments, etc. It can also be useful to let them 'grade' each other's quizzes with the answer key during the following class meeting. This way you can consider this a 'graded for completion' aspect of the class which cuts down on your workload as well as getting your students to once again revisit the syllabus.
2. Provide them a way to leave anonymous feedback on the syllabus. Ask them to bring to your attention any areas that are unclear or about which they still have questions. This gets them reading your syllabus and it also shows that you value their input.

Research has shown that a friendly tone in a syllabus leads students to perceive an instructor as kinder, more supportive, and motivated to teach (Harnish & Bridges, 2011; Ishiyama & Hartlaub, 2002).

For example, instead of:

NO CELL PHONES!! Using a phone during class is disrespectful and those who do so will be marked absent and/or asked to leave.

Consider something like:

Life is full of distractions, some we can choose and some we can’t. Having your phone out to complete non-essential tasks distracts not just you, but everyone else in class too. I ask you to be mindful of this and limit your phone use to what is strictly essential. If I notice that your device use is distracting others in class, I will reach out to you outside of class to address this.

Being mindful of tone can often increase the length of your policies. Given this, you might want to make sure you're only including a policy that you intend to consistently enforce.

• Creating study guides/reading guides for students.
• Generate fictional case-studies.
• Proofreading.
• Assist with generating rubrics and/or practice exams.
• Outlining for a project/paper/presentation.
• Easily create images for presentations.
• Create a research schedule/timeline.
• Function as an all-hours tutor.
• Role-play interviews.
• Require students to “teach” the AI about a subject.

• Do not submit personal identifying information (your own or your colleagues/students).
• Do not use non-enterprise Generative AI tools that can view/respond to your emails.
• Do not use AI for comprehensive grading of student work. It is only acceptable to use AI to assist with grading and if you do so you must be completely transparent with studies about the level of AI assistance in your grading.
• Do not hide the use of GenAI: if you are using a GenAI tool to take notes during a meeting, plan an event, write a memo, come up with case studies, develop learning activities, translate an article, assist in grading, etc., then it is unethical to not disclose this.

The following are only recommendations, you are welcome to use them if you want but also encouraged to tailor them to your specific needs:

Example Permissive Statement: 

• • What specific content was generated by AI 
  • What AI tool was used 
  • What prompt was used to generate the AI content 

    • Both the prompt and original response from the AI tool must be provided (as a screenshot or PDF) in order for your use to be considered “cited” properly. 
  • Why the content was generated with AI 

Example Limited Use/Moderate Statement: 

GenAI processes prompts through the following hierarchy (in order from highest priority to least):

• Task (what are you asking it to do)
• Context (specifics to keep in mind while completing the task)
• Exemplar (the completion of the task should be modeled after...)
• Persona (what identity should the AI assume)
• Format (mode of delivery)
• Tone (e.g. casual or formal)
  

This hierarchy can help you clarify your prompts but it's worth noting that you don't need every component from this hierarchy in order to have a decent prompt. This sample prompt creates a situation where the AI acts like a student seeking tutoring services and it only uses four of the hierarchy components. Note that the words in parentheses at the start of each sentence are there to signal what role the sentence plays, but these words are not a part of the prompt itself:

(Persona) You are a first-year college undergraduate seeking my services as a tutor. (Task) Ask me questions about [insert topic] one at time. (Task) After I answer your question, follow-up with a clarifying statement so I can ensure your understanding. (Task) Throughout our conversation, get one or two of these clarifying statements wrong so I can correct you. (Task) If I miss a mistake you‘ve made, let me know. (Format) This should be written like a conversational exchange between student and mentor, short questions and responses are best. (Tone) Be friendly and collaborative but also respectful and deferent in your tone.