|
Committee Membership Jane Case-Smith, Associate Professor of Allied Medical Professions Kay Halasek, Associate Professor of English and Secretary of the Faculty (Chair) Alan Kalish, Director, Office of Faculty and TA Development Robert Lundquist, Associate Professor of Industrial, Welding, and Systems Engineering Steve Reed, Professor of Veterinary Clinical Science Sally Rudmann, Professor of Allied Medical Professions Li Tang, Instructional Development Specialist, Office of Faculty and TA Development Table of Contents Commission Membership 2 Table of Contents 3 Executive Summary 5 Introduction and Charge 9 Background 11 Committee Principles and Philosophy 13 A. The Importance of Teaching 13 B. Purposes of Evaluation 14 C. Broadening the Scope 14 D. Integration and Interpretation 18 The National Conversation 19 Findings 21 A. The Extent of the Problem and Its Causes 21 B. Best Practices 25 C. Resources for Improving Peer Review 28 Recommendations and Action Plan 29 Appendix I: Selected Best Practices 33 Appendix II: Guidelines for Revising Current Practices 44 Appendix III: Institutional Resources for TIUs and Colleges 46 Appendix IV: Bibliography of Print and On-line Resources 47 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Ad Hoc Committee on Peer Review of Teaching was formed in Winter 2000 and charged with reviewing the current practices of and problems with peer review of teaching at Ohio State University and to identify resources for improvement. More specifically the ad hoc committee was charged to 1) determine the extent of the problem and its causes, 2) document and report on "best practices" in University TIUs, 3) identify resources for improving peer review, and 4) report its findings and recommendations to Faculty Council and the Senate Steering Committee. Process The committee sought to address each of the charges identified and did so through a series of committee meetings, consultation with Vice Provost Nancy Rudd, CAFR chair Dieter Wanner, and several departmental and school administrators. Focus groups with tenure-eligible faculty provided the committee with information about the climate for peer review of teaching in a variety of TIUs. The AAUP/Faculty Council-sponsored panel discussion on the SEI helped to situate the topic of peer review in the larger context of evaluation of instruction. In the course of drafting this report, representatives from the ad hoc committee on peer review of teaching (CPRT) shared findings and recommendations with Faculty Council and the larger University community at all OSU campuses during a panel discussion on peer review of teaching co-sponsored by FTAD and the Academy of Teaching. The committee conducted a random sampling of slightly more than 1/3 of A, P&T documents. Principles The charge contains imbedded assumptions that CPRT embraces: · Evaluation of the quality of university teaching is a complex, multifaceted process that should include student, peer, administrative and self-evaluation; · Both the criteria and the appropriate procedures for judging the quality of teaching must be embedded in disciplinary cultures and informed by departmental missions; · Development and implementation of specific criteria and procedures is a faculty role and responsibility; and · Models of effective and responsible evaluation plans, both within OSU and in peer and benchmark institutions exist; research on these practices and a scholarly awareness of these models and this body of research can assist Ohio State in designing effective programs of peer review. Findings In its review, the committee identified, examined, and evaluated the following elements in A, P & T documents: procedures for conducting the review, criteria for evaluation, documentation required, and methods of student evaluation required. Although its review of current practices at Ohio State indicated a significant difference in the quality of and commitment to peer review, the committee found that all current A, P&T documents reviewed state that such review will be conducted by the unit and outline the procedures for that review. It appears, then, that TIUs have complied with the letter of the guidelines, articulating that periodic review is required for both probationary and tenured faculty (at all ranks) and that peer review must be administered by the department, not by the faculty member. Because peer review of teaching is a relatively new OAA requirement, A, P&T documents suggest that many units have not successfully integrated peer review of into their larger systems of evaluation of instruction that also includes student, administrator, and self-evaluation. Review of the randomly selected A,P &T documents revealed both a number of problems in the implementation of peer review of teaching and systems of peer review that CPRT would describe as adequate benchmarks or, in some cases, "best practices." Recommendations and Action Plan The first step in improving the quality of peer review of teaching is to create an environment in which effective teaching is encouraged and rewarded. This kind of culture will enable units to function not only under a mandate to improve methods of peer review but also with an assurance that the University will provide the necessary fiscal and human resources to make such revisions. A new, productive culture of peer review at the University will · encourage units to discuss evaluation of teaching with the goal of defining its purpose and relevance to the unit's mission and function · encourage each unit to develop procedures, criteria, and documentation that reflect its unique perspective on peer review · encourage college-wide information sessions on peer review of teaching · assist TIUs in determining and implementing processes for effective peer review · establish systems that articulate criteria for and reward effective and exemplary teaching at all levels of review · educate the University community on FYI, SEI, and the relationship between student and peer review of teaching · situate the student evaluation of instruction within a broader evaluation of teaching that also includes peer review · promote the value of external peer review of teaching where appropriate · revise existing OAA guidelines and core dossier · draft a University rule governing peer review of teaching The committee therefore recommends the following ACTION PLAN for the University: · Articulate a Faculty Rule governing the peer review of teaching, said rule explicitly identifying peer review of teaching as the responsibility of the TIU in accordance with its teaching mission(s) · Revise existing OAA guidelines and core dossier to provide for more substantive reporting of all types of evaluation of teaching (e.g., self, peer, administrative) · Conduct regular and substantive workshops for chairs and deans on the evaluation of teaching · Allocate resources to spearhead a University-wide initiative to improve peer review · Develop an introductory document to guide TIUs through the early stages of revisiting and revising current peer review of teaching practices · Produce a document to be distributed to deans and department chairs outlining institutional, on-line, and extra-University resources for improving peer review of teaching (See appendices IV and V for a list of such resources.) · Charge TIUs with updating A, P&T documents (before 2003) to include a complete and comprehensive plan for peer review, to be reviewed and evaluated by OAA in consultation with the faculty of the University. INTRODUCTION AND CHARGE During 1999-2000, the Senate Steering Committee and Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility expressed a growing concern with the current status of peer review of teaching at The Ohio State University. Anecdotal evidence from faculty of inappropriate or unsuccessful peer review of teaching suggested that this very important element of the work of the University was not effectively or uniformly managed across tenure initiating units (TIUs). Given this, the Ad Hoc Committee on Peer Review of Teaching was formed in Winter 2000 and charged with reviewing the current practices of and problems with peer review of teaching at Ohio State University and to identify resources for improvement. More specifically the ad hoc committee was charged to · determine the extent of the problem and its causes, · document and report on "best practices" in University TIUs, · identify resources for improving peer review, and · report its findings and recommendations to Faculty Council and the Senate Steering Committee. The role of the committee was further clarified in an April 17, 2000 memo to the Senate Steering Committee outlining the response of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility (CAFR) to a report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI). In that memo, Professor Dieter Wanner (chair, CAFR) noted that The OAA guidelines for A,P&T [Appointments, Promotion and Tenure] will need to introduce some language requiring the formulation of a departmentally defined and overtly described process for evaluating quality of teaching beyond the current requirement of a uniform evaluation instrument [e.g., the SEI]. As in the case of research evaluation, the local criteria of the different disciplines and corresponding teaching situations are crucial for arriving at a meaningful evaluation of instruction in any A, P&T situation consonant with the letter and spirit of Rule 3335-47. A combination of student satisfaction and peer approval will be a broader, thus better measure of teaching quality than student satisfaction alone. This charge contains imbedded assumptions that guided the ad hoc committee (CPRT) during its deliberations and that the committee would like to make explicit: · Evaluation of the quality of university teaching is a complex, multifaceted process that should include student and self-evaluation of instruction and peer and administrative review; · Both the criteria for judging and the appropriate procedures for implementing evaluation of instruction must be embedded in disciplinary cultures and informed by departmental missions; · Development and implementation of specific criteria and procedures are a faculty role and responsibility; and · Models of effective and responsible evaluation plans, both within OSU and in peer and benchmark institutions exist; research on these practices and a scholarly awareness of these models and this body of research can assist Ohio State in designing effective programs of peer review. BACKGROUND As noted in Professor Wanner's memo, no rule currently exists that requires peer review of teaching. Rather, University Rules charge department chairs and directors of schools with "providing for . . . periodic course review by the faculty," but the intent of this rule is ambiguous. University Rules also require that TIUs "establish a mechanism . . . for preparing a report" that details the "eligible faculty's assessment of quality and effectiveness of teaching" of a candidate for promotion and tenure [3335-47-04(B)(1)]. Moreover, the TIU is "responsible for gathering internal evidence of the quality and effectiveness of teaching" [3335-47-04(B)(3)]. The rules do not, however, explicitly articulate peer review of teaching as a required element of such assessment of the "quality and effectiveness of teaching." No University Rule exists that explicitly mandates peer review of teaching; however, the Office of Academic Affairs (OAA) has articulated the following guidelines with regard to peer review: Although the Office of Academic Affairs does not require any particular form of peer review, the department is nevertheless required to develop a detailed plan that is appropriate for its instructional situation(s), taking into account what assessments will be done, for what purpose, by whom, and when. REQUIRED Periodic evaluation is required for both probationary and tenured faculty (at all ranks). Peer evaluation must be administered by the department, not by the faculty member. RECOMMENDED Peer evaluation should focus on those aspects of teaching that students cannot evaluate. Peer evaluation should have clear goals, be informed by student opinion, and be grounded in a department culture that values good teaching. The OAA guidelines then go on to identify those elements on which the evaluation of teaching should focus (e.g., drop rates, failure rates, clarity of speech, engagement of students, substance of class, and course materials). The OAA dossier, required of candidates for promotion and tenure, includes the following description of the elements related to the evaluation of teaching: Documentation of teaching could include the following: · Assessment of the success of the candidate's former graduate students and post-doctoral students · Extent to which pedagogical materials developed by the candidate have been adopted by other faculty here and at other institutions · Extent to which candidate is invited to provide expertise on teaching · Teaching awards PEER REVIEW OF TEACHING The department must set forth a detailed plan for peer review of teaching to be used in faculty performance reviews that is appropriate for the department's instructional situation(s). Peer evaluation should focus on those aspects of teaching that students cannot evaluate. STUDENT EVALUATION OF TEACHING The department must set forth a detailed plan for obtaining student evaluation information to be used in faculty performance reviews. The OAA dossier also allows for external letters of evaluation from peers and former students that address the quality of teaching. OAA Guidelines are available at http://oaa.ohio-state.edu/handbook/xi_guidelines.html. Requirements for the core dossier are available on-line at http://oaa.ohio-state.edu/handbook/xi_dossier.html. COMMITTEE PRINCIPLES AND PHILOSOPHY In addition to the assumptions above, CPRT articulated the following additional principles and philosophy during its review of peer review of teaching: Principles · The evaluation of instruction is first and foremost a responsibility of the faculty. · The University must define the purpose(s) and goals of peer review of teaching. · The University must articulate more clearly the relationship between student evaluation and peer review of teaching. · TIUs must provide opportunities for and mechanisms that support both formative and evaluative responses to teaching. · TIUs must not only establish rules governing evaluation of instruction but also abide by those rules, applying them evenly and without prejudice. The Importance of Teaching The recently adopted Academic Plan states the University's aspiration to become one of the world's great public research and teaching universities. To achieve this goal, The Ohio State University has committed to providing an enhanced teaching and learning environment to its students. The Academic Plan acknowledges that "we will never be a great university without dramatically enhancing the reality and perception of our teaching and learning as well as our research and scholarship" (2). The Academic Plan also identifies "being universally recognized for the quality of the learning experience we offer to our students . . . " (2) as one of the four core elements upon which the University seeks to focus. One of the richest assets of The Ohio State University is the teaching experience and expertise of our faculty and graduate teaching associates. If the University is to meet the goals of the Academic Plan to be universally recognized as a truly outstanding university, it must do more to assure that its faculty-of all ranks-and graduate teaching associates have every opportunity to become more reflective of and scholarly in their teaching practices. The University must recognize its faculty when their achievements in teaching rise to an outstanding level and enable them to share their expertise with the entire campus community. Purposes of Evaluation It is not enough simply to collect data on teaching effectiveness (e.g., SEIs, peer observation reports, external letters from former students)-this data must be used to improve the quality of teaching and learning. Scholarly literature on assessment often differentiates the purposes of evaluation of teaching into formative feedback collected for the use of instructors in improving their teaching practice and summative evaluation used to support personnel decisions. Most of the peer review of teaching policies reviewed by CPRT, indeed most of the discussion of peer review at Ohio State, focus on the summative purposes of evaluation. Many of the Patterns of Administration read by CPRT did not even mention the possibility of formative feedback. This is a crucial problem in our institution's basic definition of the issue. It is important to assure that data collected by and for an individual faculty member for formative purposes remain confidential and not be commandeered for summative purposes. However, it is equally necessary to assert that any evaluation of teaching that is solely summative fails to address a basic obligation of the university to its students and other stakeholders to insure that teaching is not only excellent but also that the university constantly seeks to improve teaching. The institution must ensure that data are available to faculty for improving teaching practice (formative feedback). Without this formative element, the university cannot begin to enhance the "reality and perception of our teaching and learning" to become "universally recognized for the quality of the learning experience we offer our students" (Academic Plan 2). Broadening the Scope Limiting the discussion of evaluation of the quality of teaching to peer review is problematic. Our first assumption, that evaluation of the quality of university of teaching is a complex, multifaceted process, requires that we broaden the scope of evaluation of instruction to include a wide range of aspects of teaching and to collect data from at least four distinct sources. Teaching encompasses such aspects as classroom instruction; course and curriculum development; supervision of independent study including direction of graduate research, theses, and dissertations; advising, development of instructional materials ranging from handouts to textbooks and web sites; and scholarship on university teaching and learning. All of these practices are open to evaluation and any of them might be appropriate parts of any individual faculty member's teaching profile. It is important for the faculty members of every TIU to discuss openly the range of practices that they wish to include and to develop criteria by which they will judge those practices. The quality of the various components of faculty teaching can be adequately evaluated by students, peers, administrators and by faculty members themselves. Each of these sources is situated to provide information about different aspects of teaching. Each has its strengths and weaknesses; however, to leave out any of these sources risks missing or misinterpreting the data available. Students Feedback from students is widely solicited; current University rules and policies require that faculty collect comment from students in every course taught. CPRT recognizes the value of soliciting commentary from students on their experiences in the classroom, especially as it relates to their perceptions about such elements as a teacher's accessibility, ability to establish a conducive learning environment, timeliness of and quality of responses to student work. At the same time, CPRT's review of A, P&T documents and reports from faculty suggest that TIUs rely far too heavily on student responses to courses and instruction in their assessment of the quality of a faculty member's teaching. In some units, for example, the SEI report constitutes the whole of the evaluation of instruction, with assessment determined solely on whether a faculty member does or does not meet or exceed the college or University mean in the cumulative average on the SEI. CPRT recognizes that no one method of soliciting student response to teaching is appropriate across or even within units, acknowledging that TIUs must develop and implement appropriate policies for implementing and procedures for interpreting data collected from students. Moreover, the SEI gathers information about a small set of teaching behaviors that do not fit all teaching styles or situations equally well. CPRT therefore recognizes the value of such instruments as FYI, which provide faculty with a flexible evaluation instrument that can gather data on those aspects of teaching on which they are most interested in getting feedback. For these reasons, CPRT opposes any further entrenchment of the SEI as a primary method of assessment of teaching. Peers In the last several years, OAA has developed policies that in effect require peer review of teaching without an accompanying University Rule. Although CPRT concurs with existing OAA guidelines, it also recognizes that the range of policies and practice across TIUs varies widely. In short, existing OAA guidelines, review of A, P &T documents, and oversight of current practices are not enough to ensure either successful peer review of teaching or comprehensive evaluation of instruction. In rare (but nonetheless troubling) cases units rely solely on the SEI in their evaluation of teaching. In many other units, minimal classroom observations serve as the primary or sole method for assessing teaching effectiveness. CPRT finds such practices problematic and recognizes that to ensure University-wide comprehensive and multifaceted review of teaching the University cannot rely only on existing OAA guidelines. Given this, CPRT proposes revision of existing Faculty Rules to · state explicitly the requirement for peer review of teaching and · articulate all other elements of the evaluation of instruction (e.g., student response, administrative review, and self-evaluation) as a responsibility of the faculty. Classroom observations alone or reliance on the SEI are neither appropriate nor comprehensive methods of evaluating teaching effectiveness. Successful peer review entails a commitment of time and resources as units train peer reviewers and develop and implement revised policies and procedures. CPRT recognizes that revision of existing practices requires investments of faculty time and other departmental resources for which college- and/or University-level administrative units must provide fiscal support. Administrators Department chairs and school directors play a particularly important role in the definition, development, and implementation of appropriate practices of peer review of teaching. On the most basic level, chairs and directors are charged in the Faculty Rules [3335-3-35 (C) (14)] "To promote improvement of instruction by providing for the evaluation of each course when offered, including written evaluation by students of the course and instructors, and periodic course review by faculty." CPRT recognizes that given their roles as administrators, chairs and directors cannot function effectively as peer reviewers or mentors (e.g., serving on mentoring committees, reviewing classroom materials). At the same time, chairs and directors can · provide important corroborating evidence related to the quality of teaching by faculty in a department or school, · identify particular teaching contributions of the faculty to the teaching mission and mandates of the unit, · interpret the recommendations of peer review reports, and · speak to the effectiveness of extra-classroom teaching of faculty. Self-Assessment Reflective practice and self-assessment by faculty members themselves are necessary components of any legitimate systematic evaluation of instruction. Of course, self-assessment cannot be the only source of data for making credible personnel decisions, but the personal narrative that provides an explanation of a faculty member's teaching career is a valuable source for tenure and promotion decisions. Faculty are best situated to · explain the goals and intentions of their courses and assignment designs · describe the philosophy of teaching and learning that informs their practice · interpret the relationship between student ratings and classroom events · reflect on evaluative information to improve their teaching. First the faculty member articulates a thoughtful, reflective, philosophical statement about his/her own teaching. The teaching philosophy and goals provide guidance to the unit faculty as to who should provide peer review, in what courses, what teaching environments, and under what predetermined circumstances. The faculty member then is encouraged to use the feedback from student and peer review to revise courses and adapt his/her teaching styles and methods. The faculty member also uses the feedback to refine and expand his/her own teaching goals. This systematic use of teaching evaluation as a source of teaching growth is then documented in the dossier.} Integration and Interpretation The ad hoc committee agrees with CAFR in its review of the SEI in that the "formulation of a meaningful peer evaluation framework becomes the obligation of OAA in consultation with the TIUs; and the TIUs need to provide criteria and standards in consonance with their disciplines." Each department and college, in other words, is responsible for developing a system to integrate and interpret data derived from all of the relevant sources, to arrive at criteria for judging teaching excellence in an open and collegial manner, and to implement these procedures in a fair and responsible way. Systems of evaluation must make both summative judgments about the quality of teaching and provide timely and formative feedback and the opportunity for faculty members to use this feedback to improve instruction of Ohio State students. THE NATIONAL CONVERSATION The Ohio Sate University is not alone in its struggles to develop useable, fair, and valid systems for evaluating teaching. Throughout the history of higher education, faculty have observed and evaluated the teaching of their peers. For most of this history, however, this review has been ad hoc, not part of any structured assessment of faculty work. During the 20th century, with the growth of formal procedures for tenure and promotion, the evaluation of teaching has become part of the normal process of faculty evaluation. Peter Seldin, in Changing Practices in Evaluating Teaching (1999), traces the significant developments in these procedures during the last 30 years--especially since 1990. According to Seldin, systems of faculty evaluation have evolved from a judgment made almost solely based on the opinions of chairs and deans to include first student surveys and colleagues' "opinions," and more recently class visits and review of materials (16-23). In addition to Seldin's review of the changing practices of peer review, the literature is full of works on the design and implementation of teaching evaluation programs and a good bit of research on the outcomes of such activities. The important lesson from this literature is that criteria and procedures must be clearly defined, multiple sources of data must be employed, and data once collected must be used. One primary strand of the current national conversation about the evaluation of teaching follows on Ernest Boyer's 1990 Scholarship Reconsidered, which proposes that universities treat teaching as a scholarly activity. From this basic concept, many scholars have sought to develop methods to make the scholarship of teaching and learning explicit and reviewable in ways analogous to the scholarship of disciplinary research. One such effort is the AAHE/Pew project on the peer review of teaching based at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The five institutions in this project-the University of Nebraska, Indiana University, Kansas State University, the University of Michigan, and Texas A&M University) are PhD-granting research universities. Faculty on each campus have multiple missions including teaching, research, and outreach. The intellectual work done in research is already well represented din the publications and funded projects of the faculty, and there is a desire to represent the intellectual work in teaching as well. All five institutions are committed to finding a way for faculty to learn from each other's excellent teaching, just as faculty learn from each other's publicly accessible research. In this project, structured peer review of teaching is a vehicle for developing teaching skills and deepening one's understanding of the modern learning community. This project will create a model community of scholars who engage in regular substantive peer review to derive benefit from both reviewing and being reviewed. Faculty begin by interacting in writing about the substantive accomplishments of themselves and their students. This writing leads to scheduled conversations in which new ideas for both intellectual content and teaching practice abound. Once comfortable with the nature of these interactions on teaching, participants may share their best work of participants to complement the existing evidence of excellence and effectiveness in teaching. We hope that this project will both generate renewed enthusiasm for teaching and provide a vehicle for review that will enhance the standing of teaching as a serious part of professorial life. Another much more broad-based effort to discuss these issues is the Carnegie Foundation project to encourage Campus Conversations on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in a national effort to improve university teaching with which Ohio State University has some local connection. Several OSU departments, schools, and colleges have held initial conversations about the nature of scholarship of teaching and learning in their contexts and reward structures. These same issues were raised and similar sentiments expressed at the Autumn 2000 CIC meeting, with eight of twelve institutions listing the evaluation of teaching as one of the top five issues of concern. Regardless of how the University collects data, it must remember that data must be collected and used, both to improve teaching and reward effective and exemplary teachers. FINDINGS The committee sought to address each of the charges identified and did so through a series of committee meetings, consultation with Vice Provost Nancy Rudd, CAFR chair Dieter Wanner, and several departmental and school administrators. Focus groups with tenure-eligible faculty provided the committee with information about the climate for peer review of teaching in a variety of TIUs. The AAUP/Faculty Council-sponsored panel discussion on the SEI helped to situate the topic of peer review in the larger context of evaluation of instruction. In the course of drafting this report, representatives from CPRT shared findings and recommendations with Faculty Council and the larger University community at all OSU campuses during a panel discussion on peer review of teaching co-sponsored by FTAD and the Academy of Teaching. The committee conducted a random sampling of slightly more than 33% of A, P&T documents. In its review, the committee identified the following elements: procedures for conducting the review, criteria for evaluation, documentation required, and methods of student evaluation required. In this review, the committee noted that all documents addressed peer review of teaching, but the procedures, criteria, and documentation were highly varied. The extent of the problem and its causes In a meeting with the committee (April 26, 2000), Vice Provost Nancy Rudd expressed a concern with the status of peer review of teaching similar to those that gave rise to the formation of the committee itself. Although guidelines exist governing the peer review of teaching, Rudd suggested that they have not yet been in place long enough to determine whether the problems identified by CAFR or OAA are systemic or local. Although its review of current practices at Ohio State (see below) indicated a significant difference in the quality of and commitment to peer review, the committee found that all current A, P&T documents reviewed state that such review will be conducted by the unit and outline the procedures for that review. It appears, then, that TIUs have complied with the letter of the guidelines, articulating that periodic review is required for both probationary and tenured faculty (at all ranks) and that peer review must be administered by the department, not by the faculty member. Review of the thirty randomly selected A,P &T documents revealed both a number of problems in the implementation of peer review of teaching and systems of peer review that CPRT would describe as adequate benchmarks or, in some cases, "best practices." Because peer review of teaching is a relatively new OAA requirement, A, P&T documents suggest that many units have not successfully integrated peer review of into their larger systems of evaluation of instruction that also includes student, administrator, and self-evaluation. Key problems found in descriptions of peer review in A, P&T documents are categorized below as procedure, criteria, and documentation. The problems described below were apparent in a significant number of A, P&T documents and illustrate the kinds of issues currently impeding successful systematic University-wide peer review of teaching. Procedures · Specific procedures for peer review of teaching are not provided.
· Peer review appears to be limited to classroom observation.
· Responsibility for implementing the peer review is unclear
or unassigned. · Responsibility for peer review of teaching appears to fall
on the candidate. · Procedures do not distinguish between formative and summative
evaluation. · Student response to teaching dominates or appears of greater
significance than peer review. · No opportunities for formative evaluation exist. · Documents do not include an explicit statement about on-going
(post-tenure) review of teaching, a required element of existing OAA
Guidelines for peer review. · When appropriate, documents do not explicitly articulate procedures
for peer review of the teaching of regional campus faculty. · Documents do not define the term "peer." Criteria · No criteria for good teaching are established. · No guidance is provided for using specific criteria in peer review of teaching. · Criteria emphasize the quantity of teaching and/or omit discussion of the quality of teaching. Documentation · Guidance regarding how to integrate self, student, administrative, and peer review into the dossier's description of teaching effectiveness is not provided. The relationship among are relative importance of each type of evaluation is not apparent. Despite finding that TIUs adhere to OAA Guidelines, CPRT review of A, P&T documents revealed significant differences in the extent and quality of defined procedures for peer review, and additional evidence suggests that units are neither uniformly nor consistently applying or following their stated rules. Additionally, untenured faculty in particular report that units do not fulfill the responsibilities outlined in their A, P&T documents. Faculty report, for example, that TIU administrators or promotion and tenure committees do not adequately inform them about the processes and requirements for peer review. They also report that, in violation of OAA Guidelines, peer review (e.g., class observation) is neither regularly conducted or coordinated by the TIU, observation reports are neither written nor submitted to the TIU, and/or other teaching materials are not adequately reviewed. Best practices In contrast to the kinds of inadequate practices outlined above, a number of A, P&T documents suggest that other units have well-developed systems of teaching evaluation of which peer review is an essential element. Collectively, these documents illustrate the kinds of practices that CPRT believes illustrate a positive statement of the value of peer review of teaching. Units with model practices of peer review document clearly defined, objective criteria and procedures that are comprehensive and well integrated into a system of teaching evaluation. (See Appendices II and III for additional information regarding best practices at Ohio State.) The following are practices gleaned from a review of A, P&T documents and a review of the literature on teaching evaluation that CPRT believes to be essential to effective peer review of teaching and should become benchmarks for all TIUs as they revisit and revise existing peer review procedures. See Appendix I for samples of best practices and starting points for discussion from the Department of Human and Community Resource Development, Department of Pediatrics, and School of Physical Activity and Educational Services Procedures · Peer review of teaching plays a more substantive role than
student response in a unit's evaluation of teaching effectiveness. · A committee (e.g. a sub committee of the AP&T committee
or a designated "committee on the peer review of teaching")
or a specific group of individuals (e.g., full professors of the unit)
are responsible for peer review of teaching. · Peer review involves gathering information from multiple sources.
· TIUs provide substantive guidance and continued professional development training for those faculty conducting peer review, ensuring that observations and other methods of peer review are conducted systematically and objectively. · Procedures for conducting and interpreting both formative
and summative peer evaluation are provided. · A comprehensive system of evaluation is established that combines
self, student, administrative, and peer review. · Teaching excellence is fostered through mentoring systems
that allow faculty to improve their teaching and benefit from formative
feedback to their teaching. · The context of teaching evaluation is specifically defined (e.g. independent study courses, clinical teaching, outreach, extension, and classroom). Teaching evaluation procedures and tools align with the teaching context(s). Procedures for peer review of web-based course materials are included. · Guidance is given as to the number of peer reviews expected (or required) each year. · Specific procedures for review of course materials are stated to ensure a rigorous, objective review by peers and content experts external to the university. · Data gathering methods and instruments used in peer review of teaching show evidence of reliability and validity. Criteria · Each unit identifies its views regarding the purpose for and relevance of peer evaluation in relationship to other methods of evaluation. · Specific, measurable criteria for peer review are provided. · The criteria are research-based and fit the unit's culture and mission. · Criteria for peer review include aspects of teaching that
are best judged by a peer. I Documentation · Documented formative evaluation (i.e. that initiated by the
faculty member for improving teaching) provides evidence of the candidate's
interest in improving teaching. · Documentation of peer review of teaching includes specific details of how, when, where, and what teaching was evaluated. · Self-evaluation is fundamental to interpreting student, administrative, and peer review. Resources for improving peer review Currently, the most valuable resource on campus for the peer review of teaching is the Office of Faculty and TA Development. FTAD houses both material and human resources integral to the development and implementation of a more productive and proactive approach to peer review. (See Appendix IV for a list of print resources available at FTAD.) Another resource, the Academy of Teaching, recently joined hands with FTAD to promote the importance of effective peer review of teaching through a January 2001 colloquium on the issue. CPRT applauds these joint efforts and identifies them as one model of institutional response to the current status of peer review of teaching at Ohio State. FTAD and the Academy, however, are not the only units to which units should turn as they reconsider existing peer review practices. If a comprehensive revision in and improvement of peer review of teaching is to occur at Ohio State, the central administration must respond with the fiscal resources that will allow colleges and TIUs to respond to this report proactively, establishing structures that will expedite a full review, revision, and implementation of new peer review practices. Other University resources currently available for improving the quality of peer review of teaching include the following: Counseling and Consultation Services In short, the University at all administrative levels must move to establish a positive and productive culture of peer review and can begin such a movement by supporting (philosophically and fiscally) revisions to current administrative practices that undermine-directly and indirectly-meaningful peer review. (See Appendix III for a comprehensive listing of resources and contact names.) RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION PLAN
· Encourage units to discuss evaluation of teaching with the goal of defining its purpose and relevance to the unit's mission and function · Encourage each unit to develop procedures, criteria, and documentation that reflect its unique perspective on peer review · Encourage college-wide information sessions on peer review of teaching · Assist TIUs in determining and implementing processes for effective peer review (See Appendix II for Guidelines for Revising Current Practices of Peer Review.) · Establish systems that articulate criteria for and reward effective and exemplary teaching at all levels of review · Educate the University community on FYI, SEI, and the relationship between student and peer review of teaching · Situate the student evaluation of instruction within a broader evaluation of teaching that also includes peer review · Promote the value of external peer review of teaching where appropriate · Revise existing OAA guidelines and core dossier · Draft a University rule governing peer review of teaching, working from the following proposed initial revision:
3335-3-35 (C) The duties of the chair of a department or the director of a school shall be as follows: (14) To promote improvement of instruction by providing for the evaluation of each course when offered, including written evaluation by students of the course and instructors, and periodic course review by the faculty. Proposed Revision: 3335-3-35 (C) The duties of the chair of a department or the director of a school shall be as follows: (14) To promote improvement of instruction by providing for the evaluation of each course when offered, including written evaluation by students of the course and instructors, peer evaluation of instructors, and periodic course review by the faculty.
· Articulate a Faculty Rule governing the peer review of teaching, said rule explicitly identifying peer review of teaching as the responsibility of the TIU in accordance with its teaching mission(s) · Revise existing OAA guidelines and core dossier to provide for more substantive reporting of all types of evaluation of teaching (e.g., self, peer, administrative) · Conduct regular and substantive workshops for chairs and deans on the evaluation of teaching · Allocate resources to spearhead a University-wide initiative to improve peer review · Develop an introductory document to guide TIUs through the early stages of revisiting and revising current peer review of teaching practices · Produce a document to be distributed to deans and department chairs outlining institutional, on-line, and extra-University resources for improving peer review of teaching (See appendices IV and V for a list of such resources.) · Charge TIUs with updating A, P&T documents (before 2003) to include a complete and comprehensive plan for peer review, to be reviewed and evaluated by OAA in consultation with the faculty of the University.
Department of Pediatrics School of Physical Activity and Educational Services Department of Human and Community Resource Development Documentation of excellence in teaching Teaching includes classroom and laboratory instruction, outreach teaching, supervision of independent study, thesis, non-thesis, and dissertation research, honors projects, clinical experience, and supervision of internships, early field experience, student teachers, beginning teachers and Extension personnel, experienced teachers and Extension personnel, and student advising. Characteristics of quality teaching · Knowledge and command of subject matter. Evidence to document teaching and advising quality and effectiveness · Written reviews of teaching performance, learner activities,
and instructional materials by the Department Chair, peers, and current/former
students and clients. Faculty members are expected to document their teaching performance using the following procedures: The Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI) will be used by all faculty members to assess teaching performance in credit-generating courses, exclusive of independent study and research hours. The Extension Evaluation of Effective Teaching (EEET) will be used to assess teaching performance in seminars, workshops, and other non-formal instructional settings. · The assessment form will be distributed at the end of the program or during the last class session. · The faculty member will designate a class member to distribute and collect the assessment form. This person will mail or hand deliver the completed forms in a sealed envelope to the appropriate office for analysis. · The faculty member will not be present when the assessment forms are completed and collected. · Written comments can be solicited. These comments should be distributed and collected by the designated class member. This person will mail or hand deliver the comments in a sealed envelope to the faculty member's secretary for distribution after grades have been posted. Peer review of teaching will occur on an annual basis. The purpose of peer review is to encourage and support faculty members to improve teaching performance, revise and update course syllabi, notes, methods, and practices, and provide a baseline for growth. Peer review of teaching will be conducted using the following procedures: · Teaching performance will be reviewed annually by peers. Faculty teaching performance will be assessed by peers for both credit-generating courses and non-formal instruction. · Peer reviewers will be selected by the Department Chair in consultation with the faculty. Prior to the review, the peer reviewer will examine the course syllabus or teaching plan and student or client evaluations. The peer reviews will focus on the characteristics of quality teaching as outlined in this document. PEER REVIEW OF TEACHING APPEND TO THE APPOINTMENTS, PROMOTION & TENURE DOCUMENT SCHOOL OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY & EDUCATIONAL SERVICES COLLEGE OF EDUCATION Originally approved with the first Appointments, Promotion &Tenure document Approved as a stand alone document February, 2001 Peer Review of Teaching Peer Review of Instruction in The School of Physical Activity and Educational Services Faculty is a critically reflective, collaborative, and continuous activity focusing on developing instructional excellence among our faculty. A peer is a faculty colleague with expertise in content, curricula design, pedagogy, and learner assessment. Peers can be located within PAES, the College of Education, and/or the University. Peer review of instruction as stated in this document is a developmental / faculty growth process and can be part of the formal assessment to instruction required for promotion and/or tenure. Documentation collected as part of the developmental peer review of instruction may be used by the faculty member to document effectiveness and improvements in teaching mandated by formal university reviews. The goal of the PAES peer review of teaching is to generate sustained reflection on one's own teaching, and to promote dialogue among faculty concerning insights about teaching and the instructional process. Basis for the above statement of purpose As a school in a College of Education, PAES faculty should embrace, lead, and model actions and critical reflection and activities focusing on excellence in teaching and continuous improvement in the instructional process. A system for peer review of teaching supports and enhances the College of Education's mission to be a leader in instructional expertise across colleges in the University. Critical reflection on instructional practices can be heightened through participation in a community of instructional practices. While we recognize that reflection can occur on an individual level, we suggest that faculty in PAES can contribute to improving the quality of instruction in our academic community and of the individual members in that community. Peer review of teaching is an opportunity for the professorate to inquire and critically examine how as a community of instructors we can improve our own practice and the quality of instruction in our sections and School. Peer Review of Teaching is Collaborative A critical examination of our practice can come about through dialogue with our peers. Critical examination is used to promote professional growth. While we recognize that there is an evaluative component to any review of teaching, peer review is developmental and directed toward professional development in the instructional process across all faculty ranks. Peer review of teaching is located at the section and program level. Peer review is a collaborative process involving section, program, college, or university peers discussing content, instructional planning, instructional strategies appropriate to the discipline, and assessment of student learning. Peers can provide data and insight concerning a faculty member's instruction. It is the individual faculty member who engages in and invites others to share in assessing, reflecting and making sense of the data collected by the individual faculty member. Varieties of tools are available to assist in the process ranging from formative to summative, qualitative to quantitative, internal to external, formal to informal. Each faculty member based on reflective thought and insights from colleagues determines the form and substance of the review most appropriate to their level of practice. Within PAES, individual faculty might form a peer instructional support team to help with the process. Junior faculty will include their mentors in their support teams. Peer Review of Teaching is Continuous Peer review is continuous. While there are mandated reviews for faculty seeking promotion or tenure, each faculty member continuously throughout the year seeks a dialogue with peers to examine and discuss teaching practices and concerns. For example, probationary faculty might develop yearly plans for improvement of instruction based on feedback from peers, students, and the school director. Tenured faculty might develop three-year growth plans with yearly statements of accomplishments. Peer review is not a point in time review but a continuing commitment to investigate one's practice from a variety of perspectives which might include classroom observation, reflection on practice conducted with peers, examination of syllabi, creation of instructional web sites, analysis of learner performance and the like. The process is guided by individual faculty assessments of growth in various components of the instructional process and notions of increasing excellence in instruction. Relationship of Peer Review of Teaching to Promotion & Tenure and Other Mandated Reviews Products from the peer review of instruction might be presented as evidence of instructional quality. Faculty may choose to present materials to the Personnel Committee and to the Director in support of the annual review. Evidence might include observations of teaching, analysis of student evaluation of instruction, peer review of curricula materials, completion of instructional development plans and other types of valid, instruction-enhancing materials. Summary of Principles of Peer Review of Instruction Peer review of instruction is the responsibility of each faculty member. Probationary faculty might develop an annual instructional development plan. Tenured faculty might develop a three-five year developmental plan. Plans are based on assessment of instructional needs determined by faculty either individually or in consultation with peer support teams. It is recommended that probationary faculty form a peer support team. Documentation Related to Peer Review of Teaching Unless otherwise developed, summary tables, analysis sheets, and other work sheets from "Peer Review of Instruction" by Nancy Chisholm should be used to conduct peer-review of teaching. When conducted, peer evaluations of teaching should be detailed, should provide an analysis of the candidate's instructional skills, and should include evaluations of instructional materials (e.g., course syllabi, examinations, readings lists, textbooks, as well as of the candidate's performance in the classroom). Reports of observations should specify which courses were observed and at what point in the quarter the observations took place, and if the course was observed with or without the faculty member's knowledge that the review was to take place. The peer-evaluator should provide a copy of the evaluation to the faculty member and should meet with the faculty member to review the evaluation. As a result of the evaluation the faculty member may modify aspects of teaching that may be documented to improve teaching via the dossier. The director or the PAES Personnel Committee, via the annual review will assess teaching performance. Usually this will occur via an analysis of student evaluations of instruction for the previous years. Analysis of course syllabi, observation of instruction, or survey of enrolled students (who earned "d" or higher) may also occur as part of the annual review. As mentoring is also an instructional or teaching process, graduates or current student advisees of the faculty member may be surveyed about their satisfaction of advising by the faculty member. The completed analyses of teaching will be included in the dossier for annual reviews, fourth year review, and for review for promotion and tenure or for promotion. Peer evaluation for probationary faculty and for associate professors Peer evaluation of instructional materials should occur at least twice before consideration for promotion. There should also be a minimum of four classroom observations during the years prior to application for promotion. The Office of Faculty and TA Development, or other appropriate office should be consulted and their services utilized at least twice before application for promotion. Peer evaluation for tenured faculty Evaluation of instruction by peers will occur if evaluation of teaching by the director during the annual review indicates less than acceptable teaching performance. The Office of Faculty and TA Development, or other appropriate office should be consulted and their services utilized at least twice every five years. Endnote: The PAES faculty had prolonged discussion about the use of the words should and could related to the documentation of teaching section. It was determined the word "should" will be used. It was intended that the use of this word would be per the following: should is used …to express duty or obligation (the equivalent of ought to): an assistant professor should (ought to) have peer review of teaching conducted x many times within x time period before x occurrence. (The American heritage® dictionary of the English language, third edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin company) APPENDIX II To initiate substantive and effective change in current practices of peer review of teaching at the most local levels (i.e., departments and schools), units can benefit greatly from referring to the following brief guidelines, taken in part from Nancy Van Note Chism's Peer Review of Teaching: A Sourcebook (Bolton, MA: Anker), 1999. Local Discussion of Evaluating Peer Review of Teaching This first step in reviewing current practices and seeking effective change is most crucial. Faculty must come together to address several philosophical and pedagogical issues before revising existing practice or implementing new practices. The kinds of issues addressed during local discussions (which will take place over several meetings and/or during retreats to address teaching) might include the following: 1) Define good teaching within the unit, its qualities and goals (a "what" of peer review). For what purposes is teaching reviewed (the "why")? 2) Define "peer" (a "who" of peer review). Who is eligible to conduct reviews of teaching? 3) Define who will be reviewed (a second "who"). According to OAA guidelines, all faculty teaching must be reviewed periodically. 4) Enumerate the range of practices defined as teaching (a "what" and "where" of peer review). These practices might include but are not limited to classroom teaching, scholarship on teaching, advising, web-based instruction, distance learning, dissertation and thesis advising, independent study, curriculum development. 5) Articulate the areas of focus for review of classroom teaching (e.g., articulation of course goals, mastery of course content, effective use of instructional methods and materials, appropriate evaluation of student work). 6) Establish the process by which peer review of teaching will take place (the "how" of peer review). What tools and methods will be used? What kinds of documentation will be required of faculty, peer reviewers, department chairs? 7) Define a schedule by which all faculty will be reviewed (the "when"). 8) Articulate the relationship between and provide opportunities for both formative and summative evaluation of teaching 9) Articulate the relationship among types of evaluation of teaching (i.e., student, peer, administrative, self) IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SYSTEM Once a department has discussed and reached consensus on issues like those listed above, it can then begin to implement the new processes. To do so effectively, the department must 1) Prepare faculty to participate effectively in the new review processes. "CLOSING THE LOOP" In addition to preparing faculty, monitoring and evaluating and perhaps adjusting a new system of peer review of teaching, departments just also "close the loop," use the data gathered in peer review to improve the quality of teaching within the unit. That is, teachers (and peers) use what they learn from both formative and summative evaluation to become better teachers. Departments must also seek to use the data collected to make informed and equitable judgments about teaching while undertaking summative evaluation of teaching. Peer review of teaching, as well, must be situated in terms of the other data available (i.e., self-evaluation, student evaluation, administrative review). Similarly, all data should be interpreted in terms of both the department's and candidate's goals, philosophies of teaching, and mission. APPENDIX III: INSTITUTIONAL RESOURCES FOR TIUs AND COLLEGES Counseling and Consultation Services Office for Disability Services Office of Academic Affairs/HR Workshops for New Chairs Office of Faculty and TA Development Office of Technology Enhanced Learning and Research Student Judicial Affairs APPENDIX IV: BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PRINT AND ON-LINE RESOURCES
Andrusyszyn, M.A. (1990). Faculty evaluation: A closer look at peer evaluation. Nurse Education Today, 10, 410-414. Arden, E. (1989). Who should judge the faculty? College Board Review, 152, 36-39. Armstrong, P.B. (1994). Deprivatizing the classroom. ADE Bulletin, 107, 13-19. Arreola, R. A. (1995). Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Barnett, C. W., & Matthews, H. W. (1998). Current procedures used to evaluate teaching in schools of pharmacy. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 62 (4), 388-91. Bernstein, D. J. (1996). A departmental system for balancing the development and evaluation of college teaching: A commentary on Cavanagh. Innovative Higher Education, 20 (4), 241-47. Blake, V. M., & Dinham, S. M. (1988). Teaching guidebook: An introduction to some basics. ED 301 106. Bode, R. K., & Menges, R. J. (1997). Feedback seeking and receiving by college and university faculty. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, March 24-28). Braskamp, L. A., & Ory, J. C. (1994). Assessing Faculty Work: Enhancing Individual and Instructional Performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Braskamp, L. A., & Others. (1982). Faculty uses of evaluation information. ED 218 308. Bergman, J. (1980). Peer evaluation of university faculty: A monograph. College Student Journal, 14 (3), 1-21. Brent, R. F., & Richard M. (1997). It takes one to know one. Chemical Engineering Education (CEE), 31 (1), 32-33. Cavanagh, R. R. (1996). Formative and summative evaluation in the faculty peer review of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 20 (4), 235-40. Ceci, S. J., & Peter, D. P. (1982). Peer review: A study of reliability. Change, 14 (6), 44-48. Centra, J. A. (1993). Reflective Faculty Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chism, N. (1999). Peer Review of Teaching. A Sourcebook. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Cohen, P. A., McKeachie, W. J. (1980). The role of colleagues in the evaluation of college teaching. Improving College and University Teaching, 28 (4), 147-54. Cosser, M. (1998). Towards the design of a system of peer review of teaching for the advancement of the individual within the university. Higher Education, 35, 143-62. Crase, D. R., & Crase, D. (1995). Peer assessment in higher education: Practices and perceptions. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 87 (2), 51-58. Diamond, N. A., & Others. (1983). Improving your lecturing. Revised. Paper identified by the Task Force on Establishing a National Clearinghouse of Materials Developed for Teaching Assistant (TA) Training. ED 285 498. Diamond, R. M. (1999). Aligning Faculty Rewards with Institutional Mission. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Dienst, E. R. (1981). Evaluation by colleagues. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (65th, Los Angeles, CA, April 13-17). ED 209 341. Dinham, S. M. (1987). Between academe and professional practice: Initial reflections on analyzing the role of professional practice in higher education. Paper presented at the Western Regional Meeting of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture. ED 289 398. Dombeck, M. T. (1986). Faculty peer review in a group setting. Nursing Outlook, 34 (4), 188-92. Doyle, J. R., & Green, R. H. (1994). Self and peer appraisal in higher education. Higher Education, 28 (2), 241-64. Ellis, R. (1993). The management of quality in the university of Ulster. Higher Education, 25 (3), 239-57. Feldman, K. A. (1989). Instructional effectiveness of college teachers as judged by teacher themselves, current and former students, colleagues, administrators, and external (neural) observers. Research in Higher Education, 30 (2), 137-94. Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Goodwin, S. S., & Others. (1983). Effective classroom questioning. Paper identified by the Task Force on Establishing a National Clearinghouse of Materials Developed for Teaching Assistant (TA) Training. ED 285 497. Gould, C. (1991). Converting faculty assessment into faculty development: The director of composition's responsibility to probationary faculty. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication (42nd, Boston, MA, March 21-23). Gunn, B. (1982). Evaluating faculty performance: A holistic approach. Journal of the College and University Personnel Association, 34 (4), 23-30. Hays, R. G. (1990). Round-robin peer evaluations require candid assessments. Journalism Educator, 44 (4), 72-74. Hutchings, P. (Ed.). (1995). From idea to prototype: The peer review of teaching. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Hutchings, P. (1996). Making teaching community property: A menu for peer collaboration and peer review. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Hutchings, P. (1996). The peer review of teaching: Progress, issues and prospects. Innovative Higher Education, 20 (4), 221-34. Keig, L. W., & Waggoner, M. D. (1995). Peer review of teaching: Improving college instruction through formative assessment. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6 (3), 51-83. Kronk, A. K., & Shipka, T. A. (1980). Evaluation of Faculty in Higher Education: A Handbook for Faculty Leaders. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1995). A multidimensional model for peer evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6 (3), 95-113. Langsam, D. M., & Dubois P. L. (1996). Can nightmares become sweet dreams? Peer review in the wake of a systemwide administrative mandate. Innovative Higher Education, 20 (4), 249-59. Ludwick, R., & Others. (1998). Documenting the scholarship of clinical teaching through peer review. Nurse Educator, 23 (6), 17-20. Malik, D. J. (1996). Peer review of teaching: External review of course content. Innovative Higher Education, 20 (4), 277-86. Marshall, R. (1996). Peer evaluation of instruction. Academe, 82, 64-6. Martsolf, D., Dieckman, B., & Heiss, M.A. (1998). Cultural factors related to the peer review of teaching. Nursing Connections, Fall issue. Martsolf, D. S., & Others. (1999). Peer review of teaching: Instituting a program in a college of nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, 38 (7), 326-32. Mason, T. R. (1981). Assessing faculty productivity: An issue for decentralization. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research (21st, Minneapolis, MN, May 17-20). McKeachie, W. J. (1987). Can evaluating instruction improve teaching? New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 31, 3-7. Menges, R. J. (1991). Why hasn't peer evaluation of college teaching caught on? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Mignon, C., & Langsam, D. (1999). Peer review and post-tenure review. Innovative Higher Education, 24 (1), 49-59. Morehead, J. W., & Shedd, P. J. (1997). Utilizing summative evaluation through external peer review of teaching. Innovative Higher Education. 22 (1), 37-44. Muchinsky, P. M. (1995). Peer review of teaching: lessons learned from military and industrial research on peer assessment. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6 (3),17-30. Mundy, V., & Grabau, L. J. (1999). Planning for peer review of teaching. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 28, 31-36. Murray, J. P. (1997). Successful faculty development and evaluation: The complete teaching portfolio. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report N.8. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development. Narang, H. (1992). Evaluating faculty teaching: A proposal. ED 349 906. Neumann, R. (1994). Valuing quality teaching through recognition of context specific skills. Australian Universities' Review, 37 (1), 8-13. Osborne, J. L. (1998). Integrating student and peer evaluation teaching. College Teaching, 46 (1), 36-38. Prodgers, S. B. (Ed.). (1980). Toward systematic faculty evaluation. Regional Spotlight, 13 (2). Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. ED 181 833. Pruitt, A. S. (1986). Colleagues as sources of evidence and evaluators of teaching performance in personnel decisions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (67th, San Francisco, CA, April, 16-20). Quinlan, K. M. (1995). Faculty perspectives on peer review. Thought & Action, 11 (2), 5-22. Quinlan, K. M. (1996). Involving peers in the evaluation and improvement of teaching: A menu of strategies. Innovative Higher Education, 20 (4), 299-307. Quinlan, K., & Bernstein, D. J. (Eds.). (1996). Peer review of teaching: Symposium. Innovative Higher Education, 20, 221-307. Romberg, E. (1985). Evaluating teaching in the health professions: Peers as evaluators of teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (69th, Chicago, IL, March 31-April 4). ED 254 550. Root, L. S. (1987). Faculty evaluation: Reliability of peer assessment of research, teaching, and service. Research in Higher Education, 26 (1), 71-84. Roworth, W.W. (1997). Pandora's dilemma: Some reflections on peer review. Academe, 83 (3), 35-38. Rudmann, J. (1990). Guidelines and resource references for developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation and development program. ED 325 532. Scales, A. C., & Others. (1990). University of Pennsylvania vs. EEOC and the status of peer review: A symposium. Academe, 76 (3), 31-35. Scruggs, R. R., & Others. (1988). Evaluation of teaching performance in U.S. dental schools. Journal of Dental Education, 52 (2), 102-7. Seldin, P. (1988). Evaluating college teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 33, 47-56. Seldin, P. (1988). Evaluating teaching performance: Answers to common questions. AGB Reports, 30 (1), 34-39. Seldin, P. (1980). Successful Faculty Evaluation Programs: A Practical Guide to Improve Faculty Performance and Promotion/Tenure Decisions. Crugers, NY: Coventry Press. Seldin, P., & Associates. (1999). Changing Practices in Evaluating Teaching: A Practical Guide to Improved Faculty Performance and Promotion/Tenure Decisions. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Sheppard, S. L., & Others (1996). Commentary on student interviews. Innovative Higher Education, 20 (4), 271-76. Shklov, N. (1987). Effective counseling in peer assessment of teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Conference on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (Kingston, Ontario, June 22). ED 288 455. Skoog, G. (1980). Improving college teaching through peer observation. Journal of Teacher Education, 31 (2), 23-25. Spencer, P. A. (1992). Improving Teacher Evaluation. CA: Riverside Community College. Spencer, P. A., & Flyr, M. L. (1992). The formal evaluation as an impetus to classroom change: Myth or reality? ED 349 053. Strenski, E. (1995). Two cheers for peer review: Problems of definition, interpretation, and appropriate function. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6 (3), 31-49. Sullivan, T. A. (1995). Teaching evaluation by peers. Issues. Teaching Sociology, 23 (1), 61-63. Taylor, J. W. (1999). Lessons learned about post-tenure review from the AAHE Peer Review of Teaching Project. Innovative Higher Education, 24(1), 73-80. Trower, C. A. (1998). Employment Practices in the Professions: Fresh Ideas from Inside and Outside the Academy. New Pathways: Faculty Career and Employment for the 21st Century Working Paper Series, Inquiry #13 . Washington, DC.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Urbach, F. (1992). Developing a teaching portfolio. College Teaching, 41 (2), 71-74. Weimer, M. G., & Others. Instructional observation: Caveats, concerns, and ways to compensate. Studies in Higher Education, 13 (3), 285-93. Weinbach, R. W., & Randolph, J. L. (1984). Peer review for tenure and promotion in professional schools. Improving College and University Teaching, 32 (2), 81-86. Werner, D. L. (1984). Teaching clinical teachers. Journal of Optometric Education, 9 (4), 8-12. Wesson, M., & Johnson, S. (1991). Post-tenure review and faculty revitalization. Academe, 77 (3), 53-57. Wilson, R. (1998). Project seeks to help colleges use peer review to evaluate teaching. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 44, A14. Winter, M. G., & Kestner, S. G. (1990). Peer evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Journal of Dental Education, 54 (10), 626-29. Whitman, N. A., & Cockayne, T. W. (1984). Evaluating Medical School Courses: A User-Centered Handbook. Salt Lake City, UT: School of Medicine, Utah University. Whitman, N., & Weiss, E. (1982). Faculty evaluation: The use of explicit criteria for promotion, retention, and tenure. AAHE-ERIC/ Higher Education Research Report No. 2. ED 221 148. Zirkel, P. A. (1985). Faculty review in the promotion and tenure process beyond the department level. Planning for Higher Education, 13 (4), 15-17.
http://www.unc.edu/depts/ctl/fyc15.html http://www.cstudies.ubc.ca/facdev/services/guidelines.html http://www.depts.washington.edu/cidrweb/PeerCollegueReview.html http://sll.stanford.edu/ (Tomorrow's Professor Listserv) Last updated: November 7, 2000 PEER REVIEW ACTION PLAN ACTIVITY/OBJECTIVE STRATEGY FOR ACTIVITY IMPLEMENTATION OFFICE/BODY
RESPONSIBLE START DATE EXPECTED COMPLETION DATE EXPECTED OUTCOMES |
|
|
|
|
