Peer Evaluation of Teaching Activities


The improvement of the teaching activity is facilitated by obtaining a feedback on the academic activity. Complementary to the course evaluation by students, it is also necessary that the teaching staff in the UBB can benefit from the feedback offered from several perspectives on their own academic activities. The formative assessment methods may include in addition to course evaluation by students, the peer evaluation (inter-evaluation), the evaluation of the faculty management and the self-evaluation.


Evaluation criteria

Teaching activity

• Preparation and organization of teaching courses (course portfolio: planning and structuring the course, course objectives, interest in formulating tasks and building beneficial learning situations, teaching methods, ability to use various means of teaching, time management)
• Scientific content of subjects taught (covering the topic, the scientific value of the course, the actuality of the bibliography)
• Communication skills (rhetoric, argumentation, clarity of presentation)
• Relationships with students (encourage participation and questions from students, creates an atmosphere conducive to learning, receptivity to the views of students, employing the potential of students, practice of interactive training, fostering students critical thinking, manifesting interest for the learning outcomes of students)
• Student examination procedures and criteria (assessment procedures, informing upon the requirements and criteria for the examination at the beginning of the semester, formative and summative feedback provided to students during and at the end of the training activities, workloads)
• The theoretical/practical usefulness and relevance of the subjects taught (the disciplinary and cross-disciplinary skills that they prompt, being in line with the labour market requirements)

Scientific research activity

• Publication activity results (number of publications, relevant national and international publications, etc.)
• Involvement in projects (grants and financial resources mobilized through the research activity, research human resource mobilization)
• The prestige of the teacher within his/her professional membership group (participation in scientific events, awards received, membership in professional organizations)

Administrative activity (if applicable)

• Meeting the administrative tasks specific to the position held (dean, pro-dean, department head, chancellor, etc.)
• Involvement in occasional administrative activities of the department/faculty (timetable preparation, reports, documents requested by other structures of the university) • Organization and conducting of events (cultural, scientific, artistic, sporting, etc.)


Evaluation procedure of the courses by peers at Babeş-Bolyai University pdf file
Peer evaluation questionnaire of the teaching activities at Babeş-Bolyai University pdf file


On-line Peer Evaluation

In the POSDRU/18/1.2/G/5593 project "Quality assurance for the academic study programmes through human resource training and orientation towards the labour market" has been developed an application which enables the online peer evaluation.


Log in to On-line Peer Evaluation Software

The evaluation procedure

1. Every teacher is evaluated every four years. It is recommended that the assessment is made especially for the teachers who intend to submit their file for promotion.


 2. Excepting the cases involving promotion decisions, peer evaluation is conducted only with the purpose of improving teaching.


 3. Peer review will be conducted by two or three colleagues (holding a higher or equal position to the person assessed), appointed by the Head of Department/Dean, after consultation with the teacher to be evaluated.


4. Peer review is based on:
1.Teaching observation at at least one activity and
2. Analysis of the discipline portfolio.


 5. The discipline and the date of the observation will be selected by the evaluators from several proposals made by the teacher to be assessed/observed.


 6. The teacher to be observed will provide in advance the evaluators with information on the objectives of the course to be assessed, a copy of the course materials as well as other materials related to the discipline in question.


 7. Based on the course observation and on the examination of materials received, the assessor will complete an observation protocol/ evaluation report. This report will also include as an attachement the peer review questionnaire.


 8. At the post-observation meeting, the evaluator will hand the assessed teacher a copy of the assessment (the original form will be handed to the Head of Department). Fthe fed-back provided by the assessor will be constructive and detailed enough to allow the adjustment and improvement of teaching.


 9. The peer assessment based on classroom observation does not replace the assessment offered by the department management or by students; the information provided by this method is to be processed in conjunction with the information provided by students and by the self-assessment in order to obtain an overall objective view of the assessed teacher’s didactic activity.

 10. The evaluation results are confidential (observee, observer, Dean/ Head of Department)


11. One separate file will be prepared for each member of the teaching department. This file will include the self-evaluation, peer evaluation, results of peer evaluation and evaluation from the Head of Department.


 12. The quality assurance officer or a person from the Commission for evaluation and quality assurance, designated by the dean will keep track of peer evaluations conducted within the faculty. An annual report/ centralized table will be issued on account of which the Centre for Quality Management will make a summary of the assessments in the entire University.


13. We suggest a few categories of items that can serve as benchmarks for course and teaching assessment during observation. Faculty is left to improve the criteria suggested by formulating other criteria which the teachers in the department/faculty deem relevant.