There are 3 types of evaluations that you may use for programs: program evaluations, EEETs, and peer reviews. Program evaluations should be conducted for most programs, especially when utilizing a new curriculum or teaching a curriculum for the 1st time. Educators are expected to have 3-5 EEETs submitted and 1-2 peer reviews completed each year for their performance reviews.

Program Evaluations

Program evaluations are developed for specific programs to monitor impacts of a program. These are evaluations that you can develop yourself for your county programs or use evaluations developed by other ANR staff, teams and planning committees for curriculum such as pesticide recertification. See below for example evaluations.

Watch Stakeholder Identification in Evaluation

Stakeholders are critical to the planning, implementation, and results of an evaluation. Therefore, when planning to conduct a program evaluation it is important to make sure you consider all of your stakeholders. You not only have to understand who all of your stakeholders are, but how they may be impacted by your evaluation results. Your most critical stakeholders may not always be who you think they are. Presenter: Dr. Joy Rumble

Evaluation of Effective Extension Teaching (EEETs)

Evaluation of Effective Extension Teaching (EEETs) forms provide both quantitative and qualitative assessments of teaching from the learners’ point of view. Please note that these forms do not measure the impact of teaching, but rather the quality of teaching. When used in conjunction with other kinds of information, these forms provide extensive, objective documentation of teaching effectiveness.

Data from Ohio State University Extension instructors/educators have been collected since 1991. A database exists which allows comparisons on nine teaching effectiveness variables for individual in the promotion/tenure process. The individual submitting EEET forms for tabulation can use the results for self-improvement. EEET forms are a required component of both the performance appraisal process and the promotion/tenure process for program faculty and staff.

The EEET summary on any given Extension instructor’s teaching is confidentially returned to that instructor. It is the responsibility of the Extension instructor to review his or her EEET summary report for accuracy and completeness before sending to his or her supervisor for performance appraisal purposes.

Click here to access the EEET webpage and download forms for your program. Have someone from your office collect the forms from event participants and mail in (mailing address on cover form). You will need 3-5 EEETs completed each year.

Peer Evaluations of Teaching

Requirements for Peer Review

All Extension professionals are expected to formally evaluate their teaching by utilizing peers to help inform strategies for improving instructional delivery and effectiveness. A&P and faculty educators and specialists are expected to arrange for at least one peer evaluation of teaching annually regardless of FTE percentage. Other Extension professionals for whom teaching is a core component of their work (e.g. program assistants or program coordinators) are encouraged to do the same but are not required. This peer evaluation of teaching focuses on key dimensions outlined below, is provided in formal letter format, and should identify specific opportunities for continued growth and development in Extension teaching.

The yearly peer review requirement is still applicable to those seeking a non-mandatory promotion. As stated in our APT Document, “A peer evaluation of teaching should be completed at least once each year for probationary tenure-track, professional practice, and associated faculty member, and at least once every four years for tenured and nonprobationary professional practice faculty. Tenured faculty members and non-probationary professional practice faculty seeking promotion from Associate Professor to Professor should ensure the proper number of peer evaluations necessary for the promotion review and the opportunity to improve upon those peer evaluations prior to the promotion review.” (Section X.B.)

Selecting a Peer Evaluator

Peers should be selected who possess a level of expertise needed to provide constructive and useful evaluative feedback on teaching (i.e. higher level of expertise as evidenced by additional years of experience, or a higher rank). It is not necessary that the peer reviewer have deep expertise in the subject matter. When a specific need for teaching improvement is identified, the chair is available to identify specific faculty members to assist with peer reviews of teaching.

Individuals identified as peer reviewers should be of higher rank than the faculty member and be recognized for their expertise in teaching or curriculum design.
In the case of outside reviewers, senior level Extension professionals might not carry academic titles at other universities. Thus, the reviewer should state their equivalent rank based on OSU Extension’s faculty titles.
The peer evaluator can be one’s supervisor, but from year to year should include other peers.
The reviewer should not be someone who is co-teaching the event. Other potential conflicts of interest should be considered in the selection process and avoided in securing a peer evaluation.

Guidelines for the Letter

The annual peer evaluation of teaching should be documented in narrative form as a letter from the peer to the instructor requesting the evaluative feedback. The letter should include the date of the teaching event, and be on institutional letterhead of the peer and signed by the peer, also listing their full name and title in print (including equivalent rank based on OSU faculty terminology). Personal characteristics of the instructor and the importance of the subject matter are relevant only to the extent that they impact quality of teaching. Verbatim student comments should not be included in the letter. Teaching materials (such as teaching outlines, handouts, audio/visuals, web sites, evaluation instruments, etc.) can be included in the review. When possible and feasible, the peer is encouraged to share verbal feedback with the instructor at the conclusion of the teaching event. While we prefer that the evaluator utilizes our Key Dimensions outlined below, the only requirement is to include details relating to these dimensions.

KEY DIMENSIONS OF PEER EVALUATION OF TEACHING LETTERS

Curriculum Choice and Development

Appropriateness for audience and specific teaching objectives
Use of and appropriateness of supporting materials

Instructional Strategies

Effectiveness of methods and materials
Effectiveness in engaging participants
Effective use of time allotted

Promotion of Participant Learning

Learning objectives clearly stated and developed
Supporting materials useful to learners in their own situations
Opportunities provided for active participation
Key points identified and clearly summarized; questions addressed clearly
Personal characteristics: enthusiastic, self-confident, professional, interested in student success, approachable and accessible to participants

Instructor Preparedness

Appropriate depth of disciplinary knowledge; technically accurate
Logical organization of class time, presentation, and teaching methods
Accommodates differences among learners and keeps participants focused on the objectives

Evaluation of Learning

Appropriateness of evaluation materials and approach
Participant feedback on how activities/projects/assignments contribute to learning

Summary Comments

General comments
Summary of strengths and specific things that worked
Summary of suggestions for improvement
Comparison to last review by this observer (if applicable)
Include name, title/rank and signature

Modified March 5, 2025

Ohio State nav bar

Evaluation