1 / 10

Formative Peer Review at Ocean County College

Formative Peer Review at Ocean County College. Guiding Principle. “Ideally, the peer review of teaching is a critically reflective and collaborative process in which the instructor under review works closely with a colleague or group of colleagues to discuss his or her teaching.”

madonna-holman
Download Presentation

Formative Peer Review at Ocean County College

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Formative Peer Review at Ocean County College

  2. Guiding Principle “Ideally, the peer review of teaching is a critically reflective and collaborative process in which the instructor under review works closely with a colleague or group of colleagues to discuss his or her teaching.” (University of British Columbia, CTL)

  3. Where We Are at Ocean County College • Rationale • The Current Procedures for Evaluation • Formation of Group • Discussions • Introduction to the College Community

  4. The State of the Art Peer review by one colleague Peer review by a team of colleagues Portfolio review of your own teaching Administrative review of performance Student evaluation Assistance for faculty renewal and development Teacher and scholar “Community Practice”

  5. So Far…… • Faculty Evaluation System • Program for all tenured and non-tenured professors (full-time, adjuncts, 12-month) • Evaluation team includes one professor from the individual’s discipline, one from their school and one other faculty member • The Dean works with this team. Individuals can appeal team composition to Dean. • The approved team will observe two classes and hold a pre and post conference. • A plan for growth will be a concluding document. • Other methods of evaluation will also be used to assess the contributions of the faculty member. • We will begin with a pilot administration of the system. • We will need to hold workshops to introduce and train.

  6. The Proposed Observation Process • Pre Conference • Review of Syllabus • the sequence of assigned readings and activities by topic and date • information about course policies, procedures and objectives • language about University policies related to the Americans with Disabilities Act, plagiarism and others as listed in the course catalog • describes what students will be expected to know or be able to do after completing the course, including the skills and competencies that will be developed. • course student learning objectives should be clearly listed in the syllabus. • a sense of what the course will cover, what work is expected of them, and how their performance will be evaluated, including grading criteria. • Classroom visitation

  7. What to Look For Does the class start on time? How many students attend the class? Does the instructor introduce the topics for the day, is material presented in a logical manner, does the professor use examples to illustrate concepts, does the professor summarize the main points at the end of the presentation? Does the instructor demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter? Does the instructor speak clearly and hold the less engaged? Is the instructor receptive to student questions? Does the professor use appropriate pacing for student note-taking? students’ attention throughout the session? Is the instructor enthusiastic about the subject matter? Does the instructor answer questions clearly and accurately?

  8. What to Look For (continued) Does the professor provide a clear explanation of assignments, due dates, etc.? If there is a group assignment during the review, are clear directives given to the small groups; do students understand what they are supposed to do in the small groups? Is the lecture/class discussion consistent with the course outline, class content, etc.? Is the instructor aware of the extent to which students are engaged in the lecture/discussion? Does the instructor attempt to elicit input from those who are less engaged?

  9. ONLINE AND BLENDED COURSES Blended-attend a live and online “class” Online -a synchronized class or “lurk” At preconference review enrollment, log-in info, syllabus. What to review: formatting interaction discussions/assignments

  10. References and Resources http://www.celt.iastate.edu/faculty/peer_review.html http://www.csun.edu/~pprcomm/documents/guidelines/BestPractices_PeerReviewofTeaching.pdf http://www.courseportfolio.org/peer/pages/index.jsp http://ctlt.ubc.ca/programs/all-our-programs/peer-review-of-teaching/ http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=imsereports http://www.kstate.edu/academicpersonnel/depthead/unclass/recomm.html Presenters emails; alongo@ocean.edu, dmarshall@ocean.edu, rstrada@ocean.edu

More Related