Guidelines for Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness Reviews

Considering Structured Student Feedback in the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness in Formal Pre-tenure, Tenure and Promotion Reviews

GENERAL INFORMATION

New guidelines around use of structured 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 passed by the Faculty Senate on September 14, 2021. Structured student feedback collected through the SEEQ/SRTE system under the new process is still just one component of assessment of teaching effectiveness used in formal promotion and tenure reviews. The other principal component continues to be peer evaluation of teaching.

Implementation requirements are currently summarized on the PSU VPFA website under Changes to the Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness. 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 University guidance. The new process will take a standardized approach to considering student input in a methodical way intended to minimize bias in interpretation. This document summarizes the approach that will be adopted by HHD. A summary of this approach has also been integrated into our college Promotion and Tenure Guidelines.

Rather than relying on raw scores and uncontextualized listings of comments, the new process requires 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 also opt to include their individual SEEQ/SRTE reports as supplemental materials, which will be held at the academic unit level with any other supplemental materials but can be requested by any higher level of review.

The sections that follow describe in more detail the process to be used at HHD and will go into effect July 1, 2025.

COLLEGE-LEVEL PROCESS

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

a. The authority for appointing reviewers lies with the head of the local academic unit or their designee.

b. A minimum of two faculty members must be assigned to review the student feedback for each faculty member under formal tenure and/or promotion review.

c. 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 at any institution. Both tenure-line and non-tenure-line faculty members are eligible to serve, assuming they meet other criteria.

d. The academic unit head will then choose at least one additional faculty member to serve as a reviewer who is currently serving on the academic unit’s promotion and tenure committee.

e. Members of the college P&T Committee are eligible to serve on student feedback review committees).

f. 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.

2.) College Support and Facilitation of Student Feedback Review Committee Activity

a. The college Office for Faculty Affairs and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (OFADEI) will support reviewers by offering:

• Reviewer Guidance. Documents that will include step-by-step 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.
• Rubrics. Templates to assist reviewers in assessing the core elements of teaching and help develop their narrative statements.
• Sample Narrative Statements. Examples of reports that will demonstrate how to craft clear and insightful summaries.
• Online Training. A 15-minute asynchronous video that will walk through the materials noted above, as well as others made available by the University, and offering best practices for reviewers to use through the review process.

b. The college’s Office for Faculty Affairs and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (OFADEI) will further facilitate the work of reviewers by:

• Establishing a secure Share Point site for each committee in which they can find support materials along with the actual data to be reviewed.
• Working with the academic unit administrators to pull the raw SEEQ data from sections A1-4 of the forms for each class taught by the faculty member under review and making these data accessible. This work will be completed within one week of the OFADEI receiving academic unit committee assignments.
• When SEEQs included in the review period include large numbers of student comments, OFADEI will also include in the Share Point site an AI-generated summary of student comments developed following University guidance. This AI-generated summary does not serve as the report itself, it is a source to be considered in the writing of the report. If such a summary is not included, student feedback reviewers are free to create an AI-generated summary themselves, but they must follow University guidance. Note that if the student feedback reviewers create and utilize an AI-generated summary, that must be disclosed via a footnote in the final report following University guidance for such disclosure.

3.) Student Feedback Review Process

a. The local academic unit will also 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).

b. 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.

c. Review of student feedback from prior periods should still be included in the dossier, but is not part of the reviewers current assessment, and is included in the dossier following the format originally used.

d. University guidance indicates that, when possible, student feedback reviewers should try to 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.

e. However, the college recognizes that the elements of the structured student feedback form and the data those generate may not always allow for assessment of these domains of teaching effectiveness and reviewers should exercise caution not to over-interpret limited data. Academic units are also encouraged to provide additional guidance for student feedback reviewers that considers the scope of feedback typically provided.

f. Student feedback reviewers will prepare a single, jointly-authored report not exceeding 750 words. The report should offer insights drawn from the student feedback data and, whenever possible, speak to components highlighted in University and local academic unit guidance.

g. Following the completion of their report, reviewers will provide it to the academic unit head who is then 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. They will have seven days in which to review and provide the revised version to the unit head. 

h. In addition, to the report provided by the student feedback reviewers, all candidates must include a table summarizing the quantitative data from all SEEQ/SRTE report forms for all courses during the review period. Fields in Academic Insight will be available for entering these data and generating a report that has the following:

i. Remember that faculty members under review may also opt to include their individual SEEQ/SRTE report forms as supplemental materials which will be held at the academic unit, but can be requested by any higher level of review.

HHD Implementation Timeline for Structured Student Feedback Review AY25-26

*ADFADEI will visit each unit to introduce the process during the fall semester.
**Exact dates determined by internal departmental timeline.

PDF of Guidelines