Peer Review of Teaching

1. Peer Review of Teaching Carla L. Peck, PhD Associate Director (Curriculum), CTL

2. Our Goals for Today Define Peer Review of Teaching Differentiate between two purposes of Peer Review of Teaching Review the evidence supporting Peer Review of Teaching Examining the Process for PRT Understand the role of the Centre for Teaching and Learning Identify questions and concerns (to be addressed now, and in future sessions)

3. Let’s begin… Peer Review of Teaching (PRT) What do you know about PRT? What would you hope to gain from PRT? What questions or concerns do you have about PRT?

5. What is Peer Review of Teaching (PRT)? Peer Review of Teaching (PRT) is a confidential form of evaluation, conducted by colleagues or peers, designed to provide feedback to instructors about their teaching. Intention: To enhance the teaching and learning culture of a school, department, faculty, and university. Provides a more complex and complete view of an instructor’s teaching. Enables instructors and observers to reflect on their teaching practice over an extended period of time. A note on terminology: PRT is also known as Peer Observation of Teaching, Peer Evaluation of Teaching, among other terms.

6. Two Purposes of PRT: Formative & Summative • What is the difference between Formative and Summative assessment of teaching? • Compare getting a physical from your doctor to getting an autopsy. Both exams will tell you what is wrong, but only one of these will give you an opportunity to do something about it! • Formative: When the chef tastes the soup • Summative: When the customer tastes the soup

7. Formative Assessment • Colleagues/peers generate information for you about your teaching that you can use to improve your teaching and your students′ learning. • Supportive, non-evaluative • Can involve a review of teaching materials, classroom observations, soliciting feedback from students, among other strategies. • Focuses on specific aspects of teaching to identify strengths and areas requiring growth, followed by a plan for professional development (PD). • Most effective when knowncriteria are used as a basis for review (norm-referenced vs. criterion-referenced). • For example, student engagement – can take many forms • Serves as a vehicle for the development of effective teaching throughout a career (action plans, PD, etc.). • Documentation can help foster reflection and can also be used as evidence of PD.

8. Summative Assessment • Observer (not necessarily a peer) generates information about your teaching for the purposes of promotion, tenure, reappointment, or teaching awards. • Can involve a review of teaching materials, classroom observations, soliciting feedback from students, among other strategies. • Focuses on a global view of an instructor’s teaching; usually occurs once. • Is usually comparative in nature (norm-referenced). • Ranks performance relative to one’s peers. • Information collected becomes part of an instructor’s personnel file. • May involve action plans (areas for improvement), but not always.

9. Your Turn Take a plain piece of paper and find something to draw with. The task: Draw a house. You have 60 seconds!

10. How did you do? Give your drawing to someone else. Everyone should have someone else’s drawing. Assign a mark to your colleague’s drawing as follows: • 1 point for a door • 2 points per window • 3 points for a chimney • 4 points if there is smoke coming out of the chimney • 5 points if there are two or more stories • 10 points for a garden path • 50 points for a garage • 100 points for a flower garden • 250 points if more than one colour is used

11. Reflecting on the activity How did you feel when you were given the task? Did you have enough information? How effective was it to learn the assessment criteria after the fact? How would knowing the assessment criteria ahead of time change the way you approached the task? • As a student? • As an instructor? How would your drawing (and your score!) be different if I asked you to do it again? What connections can you make between this activity and PRT?

12. Why do Peer Review of Teaching? UBC Centre for Teaching, Learning, and Technology: Peer Review of Teaching Fosters Openness https://youtu.be/ylj7iuofZik

13. What’s the Evidence for PRT? PRT dates to the 1960s (McMahon, Barrett & O’Neill, 2007) Boyer (1990): Characteristics of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning • communities of engagement – individuals willing to collaborate with others to explore shared interests and build on accumulated knowledge, theory and experience; • production of artefacts – writing (e.g. narratives, reflections), publications, learning materials, text books, e-learning; • willingness to subject ideas and practice to critical evaluation to meet standards of rigour; and • respect for recognized and appropriate principles of enquiry or investigation to accumulate knowledge, solve or explore problems. Adapted from: http://www.peerreviewofteaching.org/about-peer-review-of-teaching/prt-and-scholarly-teaching.jsp

14. For a scholarship of teaching, we need scholarship that makes our work public and susceptible to critique. It then becomes community property, available for others to build upon. (Shulman, 1999, p.16).

15. PRT can provide a 360 degree view of teaching and has a range of benefits: More comprehensive than USRIs Can combat an over-reliance on USRIs where instructors are overly concerned about good scores (=> reduction in standards, conventional teaching methods, less innovation) (Hutchings, 1996) Increased teacher confidence, greater insight into teaching practices and the development of innovative approaches to teaching and learning (e.g., Schultz & Latif, 2006; Bell & Mladenovic, 2008). Provides opportunities for instructors to open their teaching up to a community of colleagues who can nurture improvement (Hutchings, 1996).

16. Bernstein, Jonson & Smith (2000) found that peer review processes positively impact faculty attitudes and approaches toward teaching in the following ways:  • Dramatic changes to in-class practices. More active & collaborative learning, less lecturing • Faculty were more willing to ask students to demonstrate higher order intellectual/critical thinking skills • Some faculty improved how they provided feedback to students, which positively impacted student learning • Enhanced the scholarly community in departments and faculties (increased dialogue on substantive teaching issues such as desired learning goals)

17. Chester (2012) found that academics who participated in PRT described changes to their teaching processes including course organization, time management, and development of student engagement skills. Mutual inspiration through sharing teaching innovation and good teaching practices Opportunities to build evidence for the purposes of promotion, tenure, reappointment, or teaching awards Provides instructors with a language to talk about their and their colleagues’ teaching Instructors can be more intentional about their teaching

18. What are the challenges? Peer evaluations do not replace other forms of evaluation/review of teaching. They are one component of a multi-faceted approach to teaching evaluation. Bias – Subjective evaluations - particularly if criteria and standards are not made clear. Power relations in departments can also be a factor. Process must be rigorous, open, and transparent. Collegiality issues – Can trigger anxiety and tension, therefore must be done with transparency, integrity, and care. Purpose must be made clear – to improve teaching and learning. To support. Time & Effort – To be done well, PRT requires time and effort. Administrators need to recognize this.

19. An example of PRT: A teacher, a peer reviewer, and principal walk into a classroom… https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/measures-of-effective-teaching-observation

20. What can my peers evaluate? According to Fernandez & Yu (2007), “colleagues can reliably evaluate Commitment to teaching and concern for student learning; Selection of course or teaching session content; Mastery of course or teaching session content; Course or teaching session organization; Appropriateness of course or teaching session objectives; Appropriateness of instructional materials (such as readings, media, visual aids); Appropriateness of evaluation devices; Appropriateness of teaching methodology; Student achievement, based on performance on exams and projects; and Support of departmental instructional efforts.” (Introduction)

21. What’s the Process for PRT? Development of department, school, or faculty criteria and standards for review Ensure everyone is clear on the criteria and standards => calibration exercises, training the peer reviewers Preliminary interview/conversation:Peer reviewer gathers information about teaching context, the course, etc. Instructor identifies what they hope to gain from the process. Pair collectively decides on what elements will be a part of the PRT.

22. PRT may include the following: observation of classroom teaching reviewing teaching materials (i.e. syllabi, assignments) reviewing feedback on student work soliciting student feedback video recordings of teaching instructor’s written statement of teaching philosophy self-assessment documentation such as a teaching portfolio; and comments from graduate students supervisees Is (ideally) done in conjunction with a faculty development program

23. Post review conversation:Discussion between the peer and the instructor on strengths, areas for growth Written documentation:Two ways to do this – peer can provide a written report, or the peer and instructor can collaborate on a report. (Can be optional.) CONFIDENTIAL Reflection:Instructor uses feedback as a basis for reflection. Identifies areas s/he would like to develop and creates a plan for professional development. Development: Pursued individually or collectively as a faculty Repeat!

24. What’s CTL’s Role? Peer Consultation Program May work with faculties/units to develop “in-house” Peer Consultants Faculty development: identify areas faculty would like to work on and plan customized workshops Provide technology support (e.g., video recording of teaching) Support faculty members’ scholarship on teaching and learning (publishing, applying for TLEF, ethics review, etc.)

26. References Bell, A. & Mladenovic, R. (2008). The benefits of peer observation of teaching for tutor development. Higher Education, 55(6), 735-752. DOI:10.1007/s10734-007-9093-1 Bernstein, D. J., Jonson, J. & Smith, K. (2000, Fall). An examination of the implementation of peer review of teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(83), 73-86. Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Chester, A. (2012). Peer partnerships in teaching: Evaluation of a voluntary model of professional development in tertiary education. Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning,12, 94-108. Fernandez, C. E., & Yu, J. (2007). Peer review of teaching. Journal of Chiropractic Education, 21(2), 154-161. Hutchings, P. (1996). The Peer Collaboration and Review of Teaching. ACLS Occasional Paper No 33. McMahon, T., Barrett, T. & O'Neill, G. (2007). Using observation of teaching to improve quality: finding your way through the muddle of competing conceptions, confusion of practice and mutually exclusive intentions. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 499 – 511. DOI: 10.1080/13562510701415607 Shulman, L. (1999, July/August). Taking Learning Seriously. Change, 10-17. Schultz, K. K., & Latif, D. (2006). The Planning and Implementation of a Faculty Peer Review Teaching Project. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 70(2), 32.