Mediated Learning Newsletter

Vol. 5, Issue 4: February 2006, page 1

A Peer Review of Teaching Program

Jenny McNulty
Department of Mathematical Sciences

Jenny McNulty

When I first heard of the phrase “peer review of teaching”, I thought it sounded like “impacted wisdom tooth”--something utterly unpleasant that you would not wish on anyone. Once I learned more about the program I became interested in participating and through newly acquired wisdom, have now come to view the phrase as synonymous with “chocolate cake”--something that you would share with your friends! Last semester a peer review of teaching (hereafter referred to as PROT) program was started in the Department of Mathematical Sciences in a joint effort with the Center for Teaching Excellence. This article reports on the trial program, its structure, its goals and the experiences of its members.

As the name implies, PROT provides an opportunity for colleagues to review and to be reviewed in regard to teaching. In PROT programs, the review process can either be formative (providing feedback to teachers for personal use) or summative (providing information to administrators for personnel issues). It is important that the group understand which type of review it will be doing; our program was a formative review. One of the goals of our program was to construct an environment that supports high quality teaching and to start a meaningful dialogue about teaching. All recognize that teaching is sometimes a solitary endeavor, but a goal of PROT was to allow teaching tips to be shared among colleagues and to encourage new approaches and outlooks.

The PROT program consisted of two group meetings, one at the beginning of the project and one at the end. In addition, there were three meetings during the semester between (assigned) partners. At the initial meeting, goals for the group, as well as individual goals were discussed. The personal goals were varied and included effective use of group work, better relating to students, better engagement of students, and motivation of students to read the textbook before class. The dialogue was lively and showed the desire of the group to discuss teaching-related issues. Participants were provided a reference book Peer Review of Teaching: A Sourcebook by Nancy Van Note Chism, which contained, for example, helpful suggestions for giving constructive feedback. Partners were assigned (mostly based on schedules) at this first meeting. Each pair met separately this first day to discuss individual goals and logistics for reciprocal class visits.

Peer visits were conducted with partners visiting each other on the same or consecutive days if possible. Each pair then met for a post-review meeting to share observations, comments, and constructive criticism. Most groups found the conversations useful and, despite initial jitters at being observed, enjoyed having a knowledgeable colleague give them an in-depth critique. In addition, pairs reported that this post-review meeting sparked ideas and conversation about teaching-related topics (such as retention of students, effective use of technology, etc.).

At the conclusion of the semester, the group reconvened for a final wrap-up session. Each person summarized experiences which in turn initiated conversations on topics such as the purpose of a classroom meeting and the inclusion of a review of assignments and syllabus in the process. The group also discussed plans for the future and modifications that could be made for the program and concluded that the program was useful and should be continued.

If this article piques your interest, know that many universities have these programs within departments and some have campus wide programs. There are many models and much information on the web. Two helpful web addresses follow:

• Peer Review of Teaching Project (University of Nebraska, Lincoln)
• Peer Review of Teaching (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

Please note: I am sharing the chocolate cake.

Reference: Chism, Nancy. Peer Review of Teaching: A Sourcebook. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc., 1999.

For more information about this specific trial, contact Jenny McNulty, or for general information, contact Johhny Lott at the Center for Teaching Excellence.