1. School Deans appoint a pool of evaluators who are trained by the Centre for University Teaching The staff member whose teaching is being evaluated is informed in confidence of the identity of the evaluator/s that the Dean proposes to appoint. If the staff member thinks he/she has a reasonable case for suggesting that a particular proposed evaluator is inappropriate, the staff member may in confidence advise the Dean accordingly. Accepted as reasonable. The Dean proposes a different evaluator. Not accepted as reasonable. The staff member is notified of the decision. The person whose teaching is being evaluated and the evaluator/s are included in one email, sent by the Dean or delegate, advising them to proceed with the evaluation process. Assigning evaluators No response OR Confirmation that the staff member has no objections School Dean selects staff whose teaching is to be evaluated School Dean identifies at least one evaluator from the Faculty appointed pool of trained peer evaluators to undertake each evaluation. This evaluator may be familiar with the discipline of the staff member being evaluated, where appropriate.

2. Peer evaluation process The evaluator/s contact the staff member being evaluated to arrange the first meeting. Person being evaluated: Conducts a self evaluation Identifies the aspect(s) of their teaching role that they want feedback about Selects one or two activities for evaluation ( a minimum of one teaching session and optionally one additional teaching session or activity or artefact) Preliminary Discussion The person being evaluated will outline the activity/ies they would like evaluated and the aspect(s) they would like taken into consideration for the evaluation All participants will agree the criteria by which to conduct the evaluation -this will occur by negotiation. The criteria should represent the views of all participants. All participants agree the dates of the evaluation activities and meeting/s. The participants discuss strategies to manage the impact of the presence of evaluator/s on the students and class dynamics Observation of Activity 1 Comments recorded on one of the Observation Record forms available from CUT Observation of activity 2 (optional) Comments recorded on one of the Observation Record forms available from CUT Post-observation meeting for Activity (1 and) 2 Should occur immediately or as soon as possible after the observation session(s) have occurred Same as per Criteria-framed Discussion 1 Then: All participants discuss and agree the content of the Summary of Evaluation Outcomes for Activities 1& 2 and collaboratively write (decide who will write the first draft). Agreed Summary of Evaluation Outcomes for Activities 1& 2 written on the form provided by CUT, signed, emailed to the Supervisor by the evaluators and cc’d to all participants If the supervisor is not the Dean, then an email is sent to the Dean by the evaluators stating that the evaluation has occurred Criteria-framed Discussion for Activity 1 (recommended if activities 1&2 are distant in time) Should occur immediately or as soon as possible after the observation session/s have occurred Evaluator/s facilitate a criteria-framed discussion including the provision of constructive, useable feedback according to the jointly established criteria The person being evaluated should be given an opportunity to discuss and explain: their beliefs about, & approach to, teaching & learning; their reasons for the teaching & learning methods used and their approaches; any constraints to teaching caused by decisions beyond an individual’s control; and any experimental or trial approaches undertaken including their attendant risks.