Peer Review


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Peer Review

    1. 1. PEER REVIEW OF TEACHING Prepared by Kathryn Andrus Teaching and Learning Center July 2009
    2. 2. PEER REVIEW: BASICS Definitions and types Uses Typical forms Optimal forms Process of developing system
    3. 3. PEER REVIEW OF TEACHING IS “A fair, systematic process originating with the unit and out by an informed colleague or colleagues who will use clearly stated criteria for gathering a multidimensional body of evidence from multiple sources for the purpose of evaluating the teaching performance of a faculty member”
    4. 4. PEER REVIEW IS AT WORK IN Hiring Promotion and tenure Communities of Practice Sabbatical approvals Coaching new faculty Teaching awards Review for merit raises Post-tenure review Contract renewals Assigning courses
    5. 5. SUMMATIVE REVIEW: DATA FROM MULTIPLE Students: FCQs, letters based upon some defined but often undefined criteria, day-to-day, personal Instructor: dossier with descriptive information (philosophy, course materials, etc), collection of unmediated materials, self- evaluation Dept. Colleagues: mediates candidate dossier, address subject matter expertise, appropriateness of materials, assessment approaches, FCQs, supporting letters
    6. 6. FORMATIVE REVIEWS FOR DEVELOPMENT Peer-to-peer review for purpose of identification of areas for improvement and providing safe methods for working out teaching in preparation for summative evaluations Voluntary -- trust is essential Summary letter not necessarily required part of dossier -- could be at odds with the purpose
    7. 7. PURPOSES OF TWO KINDS OF REVIEW Formative Summative Individual career success Institutional stakes Improvement Reward-oriented Development -- creative and Accountability and standards innovative Public -- job Personal -- feelings Required Voluntary Supervisory Mentoring Notification and discussion of Useful feedback for change decisions, options
    8. 8. TYPES OF PEER REVIEW ACTIVITIES FOR Classroom visits -- multiple times over long term Class materials review (including online) Learning outcomes and assessments used to measure Teaching portfolios -- display of best work in all of its complexity Review and discussion of videotaped lectures Exchanging ideas in colloquia, workshop
    9. 9. TYPE OF ACTIVITIES AND THE REVIEWS Instructional support/mentoring for other faculty Leadership activities -- curriculum development, assessment of learning outcomes Scholarship of Teaching -- development of project, funding, methodologies, publication, conference presentations on teaching Advising activities -- grad students, undergrad research Team-teaching and co-teaching feedback
    11. 11. REASONS FOR EXPANDING PEER Making teaching public to all constituents Teaching as community property of unit Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Professionalism Teaching awards criteria strengthend Making expectations explicit for faculty success
    12. 12. MORE REASONS Opportunity for revising/creating explicit standards for evaluation Faculty motivation enhanced? Accountability Improved evaluation process to go beyond FCQs raise teaching to the level of research by using peer review
    13. 13. PEER REVIEW PROCESS Institutional framework for evaluation in place Goals and objectives of teaching and learning excellence Establish criteria and procedures (handout) Establishing appropriate means for evaluations, with specific instructions for faculty reviewed Creating instruments for data gathering: rubrics (handouts) Training for reviewers
    14. 14. RESISTENCE FOR EXPANDING PR How can somebody not in my field tell me how to teach? It’s all about performance. I’m good at what I do, but I don’t entertain. We do it already. It works. More stuff to do? Forgeddaboutit. We hate each other in my department. I would get trashed. Just another administrative hoop to jump through.
    15. 15. NON- NEGOTIABLE ASSUMPTIONS The institution values teaching enough to put resources toward the process There are evaluative criteria, standards and methods in place that are fair, valid and reliable There are motivating factors for the unit to participate and share the responsibilities Reviewers will be trained, committed to the process and their work supported & valued
    16. 16. DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA Founded on what the unit believes is excellence in teaching -- varies among disciplines and is MOST CHALLENGING PART OF THE PROCESS Should be designed like assessments -- linked to goals and objectives of unit Start with Categories, then Tasks with specific qualifiers Content should be treated by peers in field, but products for and of good teaching can be assessed by non-experts
    17. 17. PEER REVIEWERS Must be prepared with training in appropriate evaluation for the teaching context (lecture, active learning, clinical) Must create or be provided with rubrics based upon the evaluation criteria decided by the unit Must be protected from reprisal Should be part of a group with responsibility and relative autonomy Can be part of a group whose findings are summarized in a single
    18. 18. FACULTY TO BE REVIEWED Pro-active self-interest Regential expectation for mentoring New areas of scholarship for P/T Clear expectations allow for self-monitoring Continuous collecting documention and feedback to demonstrate development activity
    19. 19. GOAL: THE TEACHING FACULTY WILL HAVE Objectives: the faculty member will Have current knowledge of the field (breadth) Have specific [doctoral level, practical] expertise/experience in a subfield (depth) Demonstrate continuous updating of knowledge base through reading, conference attendance, and supervising graduate research in field
    20. 20. GOAL: THE TEACHING FACULTY WILL BE AN Objectives: The faculty will: Encourage and maintain discussions Keep the discussion on topic Promote sharing among learners Encourage participation and involvement Encourage awareness of goup process
    22. 22. BIBLIOGRAPHY Chism, N. Peer Review of Teaching: a Sourcebook 2nd. Ed. Anker, 2007. Seldin, P. Changing Practices in Evaluating Teaching. Anker, 1999. Bernstein, D. Et al. Making Teaching and Learning Visible: Course Portfolios and the Peer Review of Teaching. Anker, 2006. Arreola, R. Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System. Anker, 2007.