Peer Evaluations

INTRODUCTION

The Faculty Personnel Committee faces the important task of evaluating the contributions of members of the faculty. The Committee's ability to arrive at sound personnel decisions depends heavily upon the quality, depth, and accuracy of information submitted by peers. We ask therefore, despite the many other demands on your time and energy, that you give special thought to your responses when completing a peer evaluation.

In rare cases, a faculty member who is eligible for promotion or merit may not have submitted a Faculty Personnel Information sheet (Self-Report). Nonetheless, he or she will be evaluated by the Committee, so we request that you evaluate the faculty member even in the absence of a self-report. Handbook policy allows faculty members to opt out of consideration for promotion but not evaluation for merit except under defined conditions.

If you feel you do not know enough about a particular faculty member to provide an evaluation, we ask that you contact the Provost's assistant, Leigh Ann Emmons at laemmons@owu.edu or x3102.

SUBMITTING

Peer evaluations are collected as described in Section 3.9.2.2 of the Faculty Handbook. Please do not submit your peer evaluations on paper - use the electronic peer evaluation form. The process is password-protected at each step. When you click on the link above, you will be asked to provide your OWU username and password. No one will have access to your peer evaluation except you, members of the Faculty Personnel Committee, the President, the Provost, and the Provost's assistant.  

The website linked above will show you the faculty members you have been asked to evaluate. For each faculty member you review, the website will list items for which that person is being reviewed. When you mark the scales for those items, please remember that these scales do not assume a faculty norm. The evaluation website will provide links to the Self-Report and any other supplemental documents the faculty member has submitted for your consideration.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PEER EVALUATORS

When you have been asked by the Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) to provide a peer evaluation of another faculty member, please follow the instructions and guidance provided below. All responses will be confidential to the members of FPC and will be submitted online using the electronic peer evaluation form.  

General Tips:

1. The most helpful peer evaluations include written text. Please don't submit an evaluation with numbers only.

2. Your peer evaluation does not have to be particularly long to be extremely helpful to FPC. 1-2 thoughtful paragraphs for each category is an excellent target, although you may write more if you wish.

3. Please try and provide perspective that FPC may not have, either because we are not in the candidate's department or because we have limited understanding/knowledge about the candidate's area of expertise.

4. FPC reads the candidate's self-report very closely, so please avoid repeating what the candidate already stated in the self-report. Instead, provide additional context that will help the committee assess information provided in the candidate's self-report.

Category I: Teaching

Tips for Peer Evaluators:

Based on your reading of the candidate's self-report and syllabi, as well as any additional direct or indirect observations you might have, please provide an assessment of the candidate's pedagogy, advising, and mentorship of students. When possible, specific examples not included in the self-report or syllabi are helpful here. Additionally, please make it clear what you are basing your evaluation on. For example, have you directly observed the candidate teaching? 

If you feel that the candidate is doing particularly unique pedagogy relative to the typical approach at OWU, and/or in the department or discipline, FPC would be interested to hear your feedback on these techniques. Are these deviations from the norm good or bad, in your opinion? If the department uses pedagogical approaches that may not be obvious to the members of FPC, describing those practices can provide helpful context for the committee.

In cases where you teach upper-level courses that have students coming from lower-level course/s taught by the candidate, it would be helpful to address how well prepared students are for the upper-level course/s. If applicable, discuss how the candidate has modified, changed, or adjusted the general departmental curriculum. For example, if they are teaching new classes have they been well received?

Additionally, please provide a rating of overall teaching effectiveness. (Note: When evaluating your colleagues, please compare them to members of the same academic rank. For example, Assistant Professors should be compared against other Assistant Professors at Ohio Wesleyan.)

1: Below Expectations

2: Meets Expectations

3: Exceeds Expectations

 

Category II: Scholarly or Creative Work

Tips for peer evaluators:

For this category, the most helpful evaluations of the candidate's scholarship provide FPC with your perspective as an expert in the candidate's discipline. Members of FPC often have limited understanding/knowledge about the candidate's area(s) of scholarship, so thoughtful and detailed peer evaluations are critical. 

When considering the candidate's scholarship, it is helpful to comment both on the quality of the work and the quality of the venue(s) where the work is shared (e.g., journals, publishers, online platforms, etc). Evaluators should also consider whether the candidate's scholarship is on a positive or negative trajectory based on past projects and current work still in progress. How could their scholarship be improved, if at all?

If the candidate is conducting scholarship with students, is the work exceptional beyond the normal expectation for student/faculty efforts? More generally, is the candidate's scholarship particularly challenging, due to time- or labor-intensive steps that may not be obvious to a non-expert? Does the workload or infrastructure at OWU place additional burdens on the pace of scholarship for the candidate that the committee should be aware of?

Finally, if your department has a Memorandum of Agreement with FPC that relates to this category, we strongly encourage you to comment on the quality of the work in this category in the context of the expectations detailed by that Agreement when evaluating members of your home department. 

Also, please provide a rating of scholarly or creative work. (Note: When evaluating your colleagues, please compare them to members of the same academic rank. For example, Assistant Professors should be compared against other Assistant Professors at Ohio Wesleyan.)

1: Below Expectations

2: Meets Expectations

3: Exceeds Expectations

 

Category III: University and Community Service

Tips for peer evaluators:

Members of FPC have some insight into the amount of work required by most university committees. As a result, the most helpful evaluations of this category comment on the level of engagement and leadership that the candidate contributed to these committees. If the candidate served on a committee during a period when the workload was especially high, FPC would value that information. 

In cases where you are departmental colleagues, provide context on the candidate's contributions in service to the department. If applicable, provide insight into the amount and quality of non-committee service. How did the work benefit the department and students?

Also, please provide a rating of service work. (Note: When evaluating your colleagues, please compare them to members of the same academic rank. For example, Assistant Professors should be compared against other Assistant Professors at Ohio Wesleyan.)

1: Below Expectations

2: Meets Expectations

3: Exceeds Expectations

---

Lastly, you will be asked to provide a recommendation regarding one or more of the following categories. For each recommendation, please choose one of the numerical options.

Retention for next year:

1 - Do not support retention

2 - Uncertain

3 - Support retention

Tenure:

1 - Do not support granting tenure 

2 - Uncertain

3 - Support granting tenure

Promotion to Full Professor:

1 - Do not support promotion

2 - Uncertain

3 - Support promotion

Merit: (Note: As per Faculty Handbook section 3.9.6., candidates who do not submit a Self-Report are ineligible for merit.)

0 - No Merit

1 - Lowest Merit Tier

2 - Middle Merit Tier

3 - Highest Merit Tier