Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

OBJECTIVES To clarify terminology To differentiate among the roles of participants in peer review To know the “nuts and bolts” of peer review To distinguish.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "OBJECTIVES To clarify terminology To differentiate among the roles of participants in peer review To know the “nuts and bolts” of peer review To distinguish."— Presentation transcript:

1 OBJECTIVES To clarify terminology To differentiate among the roles of participants in peer review To know the “nuts and bolts” of peer review To distinguish between formative and summative evaluation in peer review To apply the Johari window to peer observation To give constructive feedback

2 Introduction Terms: peer review, peer evaluation, peer observation A process of peer review of ????? Defined by the institution Defined by the dept Combination Observation of teaching behaviors

3 Peer Review: What? Teaching Research Discipline-based Service

4 Effective Teaching Understanding of content Presentation Explain abstract concepts clearly and simply Create pleasant and work- conducive environment

5 PET: When ? Hiring Retention Promotion and Tenure Post-tenure review Annual review 5 year cumulative evaluation When there’s a problem

6 PET: How Philosophy Evidence of learning Student evaluations Syllabi, course assignments, assessment techniques

7 More hows: Student comments/feedback/interviews Connecting teaching and learning Videotaping Observation, classroom visitation Combination (3 legged stool )‏

8 PET: Who You Your students Your colleagues

9 Student Evaluations Only one piece of the pie Primary purpose=evaluation Problems Standard form General questions End of semester Formative evaluation

10 Difficult to assess or be assessed Faculty recognize potential benefits as formative tool for improving instruction Serious doubts about use in summative evaluation Confusion about use Internal politics

11 Resistance to peer evaluator Doesn’t like women faculty Isn’t a good teacher him/herself Will judge one hour of teaching out of 40 Will observe a class with less interaction than normal OR Has never been supportive of me

12 Major concerns No need No interest No trust No hurry No ability

13 UTK General Questions Is material appropriate for course being taught? Are methods used for student evaluation fair, appropriate, well executed? Is general quality of material satisfactory?

14 The Johari Window III Blind to self ( feedback ) ↑ IV Unknown ( potential ) Known to SelfUnknown to Self Known to Others Unknown to Others 14

15 The Johari Window: Beginning III ← Blind ( feedback ) ↑ IV ← Unknown ( potential ) Known to SelfUnknown to Self Known to Others Unknown to Others 15

16 The Johari Window: End III ← Blind ( feedback ) ↑ IV ← Unknown ( potential ) Known to SelfUnknown to Self Known to Others Unknown to Others 16

17 Observation of Teaching Initial meeting –Identify goals/objectives –plans Observation Discussion (aka Feedback)‏ –Question, probe for examples, ask for suggestions

18 Initial Meeting Build rapport Share objectives Resolve concerns

19 Giving Constructive Feedback Begin with strengths Behavior not personality Specific Descriptive “here and now” Perceptions and feedback Don’t force Limit amount of feedback

20 Buying Signals Posture changes Movements Appearance Language

21 Receiver’s responsibility Actively participate Refrain from defensiveness Ask for specific examples Summarize main points (clarify) Share feelings

22 New ideas, methods, alternative strategies???? Books, journals Teaching libraries Peers Ideas and support Cross discipline sharing Pedogogical colloquia about teaching Observe others Peers Workshops Videotapes Portfolios


Download ppt "OBJECTIVES To clarify terminology To differentiate among the roles of participants in peer review To know the “nuts and bolts” of peer review To distinguish."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google