Guidelines for Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness Reviews

College of Health and Human Development Guidelines for Student Feedback Use in the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness Reviews

GENERAL INFORMATION

The new guidelines around use of student feedback in the assessment of teaching effectiveness in the promotion and tenure (P&T) process were developed by a University Faculty Senate Committee and was passed by Senate on September 14, 2021. The requirements the University has made for college guidelines are currently summarized on the PSU VPFA website under Changes to the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness.   

The new process was designed to take a standardized approach that incorporates student input in a methodical way intended to minimize bias in interpretation.  Starting on July 1, 2025, all tenure-line (TT) and non-tenure-line (NTT) faculty undergoing formal review (tenure and/or promotion, 2nd and 4th year pre-tenure review) will have student feedback evaluated in accordance with the University as integrated into our college Promotion and Tenure Guidelines.

Structured student feedback collected through the SEEQ/SRTE system under the new process is still just one component of assessment of teaching effectiveness in formal promotion and tenure reviews. The other principal component continues to be peer evaluation of teaching.   

The new approach for evaluating student feedback, rather than relying on raw scores and uncontextualized listings of comments, emphasizes careful review and interpretation of both quantitative ratings and qualitative comments by at least two faculty student feedback reviewers appointed by the academic unit head. The reviewers will develop a standardized report that is included in the dossier’s section on teaching effectiveness along with a brief, standardized table summarizing quantitative course data.  Faculty members under review may opt to include their individual SEEQ/SRTE reports as supplemental materials which will be held at the academic unit, but can be requested by any higher level of review.   

Selection of and Support for Student Feedback Reviewers 

A. Reviewer Selection

Each college academic unit will be responsible for establishing their own guidelines for reviewer eligibility and selection. These guidelines, however, must incorporate the following elements:

1. The authority for appointing reviewers lies with the head of the local academic unit or their designee.
   
   1. A minimum of two faculty members must be assigned by the head to review the student feedback for each faculty member under formal tenure and/or promotion review. At least one reviewer should be currently serving on the academic unit’s promotion and tenure committee. 
   2. At least one of the assigned reviewers must be chosen from a list of three-to-five  faculty members nominated by the faculty member under review. Nominated faculty members must have served as faculty (at any accredited higher education institution) for at least two-years, with at least one year at Penn State, and will have served as instructor (or co-instructor) for at least nine credits of non-independent study or thesis research coursework.  Both tenure-line and non-tenure-line faculty members can be considered eligible to serve, assuming they meet other criteria, as can members of the college promotion and tenure review committee.   
   3. Members of the college P&T Committee are qualified to serve on student feedback review committees.
   4. After informing the faculty members of their selection to a review committee, the unit head will provide a list of all faculty members selected for service to the college’s Office for Faculty Affairs and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (OFADEI), so that the college can provide training and support resources to committee members. 

B. College Support and Facilitation of Committee Activity 

1. The college Office for Faculty Affairs and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (OFADEI) will support reviewers by offering: 
   
   1. Reviewer Guidance: A document that includes advice on interpreting student data and mitigating bias, with links to resources from the Schreyer Institute for Teaching Excellence and guidance on the use of AI in constructing reports. 
   2. Report Framework: A template to assist reviewers in assessing the core elements of teaching and help develop their narrative statements. 
   3. Sample narrative statements: Examples of reports that will demonstrate how to craft clear and insightful summaries. 
   4. Central Folder: Establish a secure Share Point site with teaching effectiveness guidelines and any other support material that may be used for reviews.   

C. Student Feedback Review Process

The local academic unit will be responsible for organizing and managing the process for reviewer selection and oversight of review activity (including deadlines for timely report submission by reviewers and sharing of the reports with candidates).   

Department administrators should have access to SEEQS and will be responsible for pulling the SEEQs and responsible for notifying review committees once all SEEQs have been uploaded and folders are ready for review. 

Reviewers are expected to evaluate student feedback (SEEQ/SRTE data) from all courses taught by the candidate since their last formal review or over the designated review period, whichever is shorter.  Specific student feedback considered comprises the two quantitative SEEQ items and the first two qualitative comment fields. 

Review of student feedback from prior periods should still be included in the dossier, but following the format originally used. 

University guidance indicates that, when possible, student feedback reviewers should assess:

• Effective course design: how well the course structure supports student learning outcomes.
• Effective instruction: the clarity, engagement, and delivery of content in the classroom.
• Inclusive and ethical pedagogy: the instructor’s attention to equity, respect, and ethical standards.
• Reflective and evolving teaching practice and the instructor’s responsiveness to feedback and efforts to improve.
• Academic units are also encouraged to provide additional guidance for student feedback reviewers that considers the scope of feedback typically provided.

Student feedback reviewers will prepare one, jointly-authored report not exceeding 750 words. The report should summarize insights drawn from the student feedback data and, whenever possible, speak to components highlighted in University and local academic unit guidance.   In instances when substantive amounts of qualitative comments are included in the material to be reviewed reviewers can use AI-assisted summaries of that feedback.

Following the completion of their report, reviewers will upload the document in the designated folder. OFADEI will inform the head who is responsible for distributing the report to the faculty member under review. The faculty member under review then has the option to revise their narrative statement to address any issues raised in the report and including the revised version in their final dossier. 

C1. Use of AI 

Departments or review committees choosing to use AI-generated summaries will manage the process independently using the approved VPFA prompts. While this process will no longer be centrally coordinated by OFADEI, the office will continue to provide guidance, best practices, and support for review teams that wish to incorporate AI responsibly and effectively.

D. Adding Student Feedback Information to the Dossier

All SEEQ/SRTE scores for the review period must be included in the appendix within the dossier using tables that follow this format found in the resource folder.

Faculty members under review may opt to include their individual SEEQ/SRTE reports as supplemental materials which will be held at the academic unit but can be requested by any higher level of review.   

E. Communication and Teaching Effectiveness Folders 

To keep with consistency in file names, OFADEI recommends that departments: 
1. Use consistent file naming conventions (FacultyName_TeachingEffectivenessReview_YEAR). 
2. Maintain all communications and review summaries in a shared departmental folder for access by those who will be involved in the PT review process.  
3. Designate one administrative lead per department to oversee documentation accuracy and timely upload of materials. 

HHD Timeline for AY26-27