Through the Looking Glass: Reflections on Peer Evaluation of Library Instruction

1. Through the Looking Glass: Reflections on Peer Evaluation of Library Instruction Lea Currie and Frances Devlin University of Kansas (KU) WILU – Wolfville, N.S. May 11, 2006

2. Why? • Spring 2003 • Library Instruction Task Force given charge re: documentation for evaluation of teaching • Only one of several components for self-assessment • Fall 2004 • Mandate from Provost

3. What is peer evaluation? • Definition “Assessment of an instructor’s effectiveness by another library staff member who is also involved in providing library instruction.” • Other names include: • peer review or peer observation

4. Types of Peer Evaluation • Formative • Developmental • Non-competitive • Non-threatening • Supportive • Focused on improvement • Constructive • Flexible to recognize different teaching styles

5. Types of Peer Evaluation • Summative • Formal evaluations • Tied in with annual performance review • Promotion and tenure decisions • Review of instructional materials • Tabulate student evaluations

6. The KU Libraries’ Experience • Peer Review of Instruction Task Force formed in Fall 2004 • Literature review • Web content from other universities • Identified options • Report in Feb. 2005

7. Recommendations for Process • flexible and voluntary • mentoring and coaching for new librarians • orientation and training • documentation • assessment

8. Implementation • Pilot project for Fall 2005 • Volunteers for peer review team • Workshops for participants • Checklist of observable activities • Procedures

9. Peer Evaluation Process • Selection of observer • Pre-observation meeting • Observation of instruction • Post-observation meeting • Observation checklist

10. Strengths • Librarians learn to be reflective and open • Framework for conversations on improving instruction • Build trusting relationships with peers • Supportive advice and feedback from colleagues • Observer may also learn • Improves the learning experience of students

11. Weaknesses • Evaluative comments can be biased • Peer relationships may suffer • Lack of trust – suggestions seen as criticism • Observer may affect teaching style • Time-consuming • One observation is not enough • Observer may need more training

12. What We Learned • Positive experience • group discussion engaging • willingness to share ideas, be flexible • building trust • Checklist adapted • Concerns • coordination of schedules • pilot period too short • pre-tenured vs. tenured

13. Open Discussion • How do you make peer evaluation a non-threatening experience? • How do you promote peer evaluation to senior librarians?

14. Lea Currie lcurrie@ku.edu (785) 864-8997 Frances Devlin fadevlin@ku.edu (785) 864-8925 How to Contact Us: Handouts available at: http://www.lib.ku.edu/instruction/lib/peerreview/