Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

PEER REVIEW OF TEACHING WORKSHOP SUSAN S. WILLIAMS VICE DEAN ALAN KALISH DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING ASC CHAIRS — JAN. 30,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "PEER REVIEW OF TEACHING WORKSHOP SUSAN S. WILLIAMS VICE DEAN ALAN KALISH DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING ASC CHAIRS — JAN. 30,"— Presentation transcript:

1 PEER REVIEW OF TEACHING WORKSHOP SUSAN S. WILLIAMS VICE DEAN ALAN KALISH DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING ASC CHAIRS — JAN. 30, 2015

2 MAIN TOPICS Principles/Philosophy Requirements Process –Governance documents –Individual implementation

3 PEER REVIEW AS SOCIAL CONTRACT Assumes societal deference to peer oversight of the competence and ethics of professional work DEFINITIONS OF PEER REVIEW IN FACULTY RULES Provides the foundation for decisions regarding faculty appointment, reappointment, and promotion and tenure. Peers are those faculty who can be expected to be most knowledgeable regarding an individual’s qualifications and performance — normally TIU colleagues or colleagues in related units or centers. Recommendations by the faculty vested with the responsibility for providing peer review will be accepted unless they are not supported by evidence presented regarding on how the candidate meets the criteria established by the units.

4 PRINCIPLES/PHILOSOPHY Peer review of instruction is one aspect of overall peer review vested with TIU colleagues Provides context for student evaluations and candidate’s teaching statements Includes more than classroom visitation Should be formative (focused on improvement) as well as summative (evaluative) Iterative process that continues past initial promotion Goal is conversation about and continuous improvement of teaching as well as additional documentation of teaching effectiveness Most professions require continuing professional education: faculty do very well at keeping up with disciplinary content. We can consider this a process of continuing education about disseminating that content effectively EVALUATION WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT IS PUNITIVE; DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT EVALUATION IS GUESSWORK!

5 REQUIREMENTS: University OAA requires evaluation of instruction in all courses and by all faculty members. The evaluation of university teaching should be a comprehensive, integrated process that includes collection of data from students, peers, administrators, and the faculty members themselves. These data are interpreted with the understanding that both university instruction and its evaluation entail professional judgments according to expectations of the TIU. — from OAA Handbook emphasis added

6 RECOMMENDATION: University Peer evaluation should focus on those aspects of teaching that students cannot validly assess, such as appropriateness of curricular choices, implicit and explicit goals of instruction, choice of examination/evaluation materials by the faculty member, and consistency with highest standards of disciplinary knowledge. Peer evaluation should have clear goals, be informed by student opinion, and be grounded in a unit culture that values good teaching. Classroom observations should not serve as the sole method for peer assessment of teaching effectiveness. — from OAA Handbook

7 REQUIREMENTS: University Periodic peer evaluation is required for all tenure-track and clinical faculty who deliver formal course instruction and recommended for any associated faculty with multiple-year appointments. In case of full professors, such evaluation can take the form of peer review without a formal written evaluation. In addition, peer evaluation for promotion should include at least two different evaluations, with the exact number to be determined by the TIU in line with college guidelines. — from OAA Handbook

8 UNIVERSITY STANDARDS FOR PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR Promotion to the rank of associate professor must be based on convincing evidence that the faculty member has achieved excellence as a teacher, as a scholar, and as one who provides effective service; and can be expected to continue a program of high quality teaching, scholarship and service relevant to the mission of the academic unit(s) to which the faculty member is assigned and to the university. Rules of the University Faculty,

9 UNIVERSITY STANDARDS FOR PROMOTION TO PROFESSOR Promotion to the rank of professor must be based on convincing evidence that the faculty member has sustained record of excellence in teaching; has produced a significant body of scholarship that is recognized nationally or internationally; and has demonstrated leadership in service. Rules of the University Faculty,

10 REQUIREMENTS: College Peer evaluation of teaching is required for all faculty members in the College of Arts and Sciences. Peer evaluation should fulfill two basic goals: 1) provide constructive feedback to faculty on both the content and the quality of their instruction, and 2) help faculty to continually improve the overall effectiveness of their teaching at all levels. Each department or school will establish procedures for peer evaluation of teaching that are appropriate to its size and needs. The department chair or school director oversees the unit's peer evaluation of teaching process. — from ASC APT document

11 REQUIREMENTS: College minimums (in college APT) Assistant professors: reviewed once per year; 5 required at time of 6th year review Associate professors: reviewed every other year; minimum for promotion review set by TIU Full professors: reviewed every 4 years Reviews are comprehensive and include review of syllabi and course materials and discussion with faculty member Written evaluations are directed to chair and copied to faculty member being reviewed, who has the right to comment in writing

12 REQUIREMENTS: Who should do the reviews Faculty member who can focus on those aspects of teaching that students cannot evaluate, such as appropriateness of curricular choices given the goals of the course (survey, major required course), implicit and explicit goals of instruction, choice of examination/evaluation materials by the faculty member, and consistency with current disciplinary knowledge. Generally someone of higher rank than the faculty member for assistant and associate professors, though the college APT does not require this Could be from another unit if person is knowledgeable about the course content External reviewer Regional campus faculty typically have a mix of reviews by faculty on their campus (not necessarily in field) and from the TIU

13 PROCESS: Governance documents OAA requires that the process for conducting peer reviews be included as the last section of the APT document If a committee is used to coordinate peer reviews, that committee should also be included in POA Prior agreement on what aspects of teaching beyond observation of classroom behavior will be reviewed Faculty should be consulted in the process of drafting the peer review section of the APT document Faculty should engage in a discussion of the range of practices that constitute good teaching in your field Units can decide who appoints the faculty who will conduct the reviews: the candidate; the P and T chair; a faculty committee; the chair; or some other designated person How does your unit decide who conducts peer reviews and what will be reviewed?

14 PROCESS: Unit specific best practices Provide template or form to reviewers conducting the peer review Have faculty providing peer review report activities as part of annual review Check in at annual reviews to ensure that faculty have received the required reviews Look at peer review documentation when deciding whether associate professors are ready to be considered for promotion, and decide under what circumstances exceptions should be made

15 PROCESS: Unit specific best practices Examples: –EEOB (use of review and evaluation and “menu” of activities) –History of Art (use of individual evaluation committees with 2 faculty peers) –Spanish and Portuguese (form) –Sample checklist form for class observation –Sample rating form for peer review of instructor comments on student work What other best practices do you have?

16 QUESTIONS?


Download ppt "PEER REVIEW OF TEACHING WORKSHOP SUSAN S. WILLIAMS VICE DEAN ALAN KALISH DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING ASC CHAIRS — JAN. 30,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google