Peer Observe

1

Preparing forPreparing forPreparing forPreparing forPreparing forPeer ObservationPeer ObservationPeer ObservationPeer ObservationPeer Observation

A Guidebook

Prepared byThe Center for Teaching Effectiveness

Main Building 2200The University of Texas at Austin

232-1776

2

3

Why peer evaluation and peer observa-tion?

In a memorandum dated May 3,1995, President Robert Berdahlasked deans and department chairs atthe University of Texas at Austin fortheir recommendations for allchanges in academic rank/status for1996-97. An attachment to thememorandum, Guidelines for thePreparation of Supporting Materialsand the Management of CandidateFiles, included the followinginformation on page one under thesub-heading of TEACHING:

The department should provide aseparate document assessingteaching performance, with anexplanation of the evaluationprocedures and measures used. Thedepartment’s statement shoulddiscuss both student and peerevaluations and describe the facultymember’s principal areas ofteaching, his or her willingness toteach courses for which there is astrong student demand, and, asappropriate, the balance betweenundergraduate and graduate teaching.[Italics added.]

Peer evaluation of teaching istherefore an essential part of a facultymember’s promotion and tenure fileaccording to the University of Texasat Austin. Peer observation is onepart of the evaluation of teaching forimprovement or for personneldecisions for merit, promotion, and/ortenure.

What aspects of teaching are facultypeers most qualified to evaluate?

Cohen and McKeachie (1980)identified ten aspects of teaching thatpeers are most competent to evaluate

about teaching. Articles on peerevaluation of teaching suggest that allof these aspects can be used duringthe peer review process:

•Mastery of course content•Selection of course content•Course organization•Appropriateness of course objectives•Appropriateness of instructional materials

(i.e. readings, media)•Appropriateness of evaluative devices

(i.e., exams, written assignments)•Appropriateness of methodology used to

teach specific content areas•Commitment to teaching and concern for

student learning•Student achievement, based on per-

formance on exams and projects•Support of departmental instructional

efforts

A review of these aspects isfacilitated by a teaching portfolioprepared by the instructor and madeavailable to peer observers. Apamphlet entitled Preparing aTeaching Portfolio is also available atthe Center for Teaching Effective-ness. In addition, peer evaluation toimprove teaching or a summativepeer evaluation process can include aseries of classroom observations ofone instructor by faculty peers and/oradministrators.

What is peer observation?

The process of peer observa-tion involves faculty peers that reviewan instructor’s performance throughclassroom observation and examina-tion of instructional materials andcourse design. Observations ofclassroom behavior are intended forreviewing the teaching process and its

4

possible relationship to learning. Thefocus is on verbal and nonverbalbehaviors of both the instructor andthe students in the classroom.

Peer observation can producethe following evidence:

•Comments on the relationship betweeninstructor acts and student behaviors

•Comparison with methods peers considerto be good

•Specific suggestions for instructors toimprove teaching

The processes of observationand evaluation require a very highdegree of professional ethics andobjectivity. Effective peer observa-tion requires training in observationaland analytical skills. Less subjectivepeer observations require time formultiple reviews.

The major strengths of peerobservation are:

•Peers are familiar with college goals,priorities, values, faculty problems

•Peer observation helps faculty upgrade theirown profession

•Peer observers can be chosen frominstructor’s content area

The major weaknesses of peerobservation are:

•Data is often biased due to previous data,personal relationships, peer pressure

•Peer relationships may suffer•Possible bias due to observer’s preference

for own teaching methods

All things considered, keyauthors on peer observation agree thatpeer observation of classroomteaching is one useful part of a peerevaluation process.

What are two purposes of peer observa-tion?

Peer observations may be usedfor both formative feedback, for theimprovement of instruction, andsummative assessment for makingpersonnel decisions. Braskamp andOry (1994, p. 202) stated in AssessingFaculty Work that:

Peer observations are particularlyuseful in a program of faculty self-assessment and improvement.Instructors who wish to analyze theirown teaching and student learningcan benefit from a colleague’sobservation. Such classroomobservations can be flexible andinformal. In contrast, observationsfor personnel decision making needto be more formalized and standard-ized to ensure fairness, reliability,and credibility. Several trainedcolleagues making independent visitsprovide more credible summativeassessment information than doesone untrained colleague making asingle visit.

Formative peer observationis the process of faculty membersattending and observing peers in theclassroom to assist with the improve-ment of teaching. This process maybe specified by the department as apart of faculty development activitiesor entered into by individual facultymembers who want their teachingreviewed by peers.

The formative peer observationprocess is most important for juniorfaculty as a part of the teachingimprovement process in the yearsbefore tenure and promotion review.This process can prepare juniorfaculty early for their career teachingdemands. Longitudinal studies ofjunior faculty stress that earlyteaching demands often becomeoverwhelming and can prevent the

5

expected devotion to quality researchand service. Early interventionprovides junior faculty with the toolsfor success in teaching as well asresearch and service.

Summative peer observationinvolves the evaluation of peerclassroom behavior to provideteaching effectiveness informationused for merit, promotion, and/ortenure decisions. Typically, Ad HocCommittees on Teaching consistingof senior faculty members, juniorfaculty members, graduate and/orupper-level undergraduates meetindividually with the instructor to beobserved. The instructor and com-mittee members review all teachingmaterials i.e., course materials,syllabi, exams, teaching aides, studentevaluations, student advising records,and even face-to-face talks withstudents to obtain a complete pictureof teaching before entering theclassroom for an observation.

As indicated above, thecommittee approach to the observa-tion process is somewhat different forformative and summative peerobservation. Despite the differencesin the processes and the objectives ofthe two processes, key authorsbelieve that the development and useof an effective formative peerobservation process leads naturally toa fair, objective summative peerobservation process. Certainly theobservation instruments developedfor formative peer observation can beused for summative review in manycases. Observer skills developed informative peer observations will bedirectly applicable to a summativepeer evaluation process.

Although the outcomes of

formative and summative observationare different, effective formativepeer observation serves as a vehiclefor effective summative peer observa-tion and evaluation at the departmen-tal level. Most authors believe thatthe two processes are compatible andmutually supportive of facultyinvolvement in either formative orsummative peer observation.

How do you choose or design a peerobservation instrument?

Following guidelines estab-lished by the department or schoolwill ease many feelings of misgivingabout the peer observation process.An organizational plan that includesboth a set of departmental observationforms and a departmental or divisionAd Hoc Committee on Teaching,helps validate the peer observationprocess with all faculty. The threemost common ways to document orguide formative or summative peerobservations are: checklists, ratingscales, and written analyses.

Types of Instruments:Peer evaluations of a faculty

member’s classroom behavior can bebased on checklists, rating scales,and/or written analyses. Each type ofdocument has it’s strong and weakpoints as a format for peer observa-tion.

Checklists focus the observer’sattention during the observation andalso, the instructor reviews thechecklist before the classroom visit tounderstand observation expectations.Checklists are often viewed as toorestrictive by both observers andthose observed. Checklists also only

6

indicate that a behavior has beenobserved with no feedback about theeffectiveness or lack of effectivenessof a specific behavior. Checklists aresimilar to rating scales with noscoring involved. A checklist can becreated from a rating scale form bydeleting the scale and asking theobservers to record observed behav-iors. See pages 14-23.

Rating scales also focus theattention of the observer and theinstructor but add the dimension ofindicating relative effectiveness of agiven behavior. All rating sheets needto include behavior descriptors and anexplanation of the scale points. Allinstruments must be clearly relevantto the classroom teaching situation.Checklists and rating sheets includespecific language for instructors toreact to or take action on. See pages14-23.

The written analysis formataffords an open-ended opportunity fora peer not only to select what toobserve, but also, how to interpret theinformation and structure the evalua-tion. The down side to writtenappraisals is that peers can commenton very limited behaviors, focus onlyon one criteria, or reflect only theobserver’s personal approach toteaching. See page 24.

It is suggested that a combina-tion of checklist, rating sheet, andwritten analysis formats be adoptedand used for formative andsummative observations. Allobservation forms should yieldaccurate insights into the classroomenvironment and obtain data typicalof classroom behavior. See pages 14-24.

One checklist, rating sheet, or

written analysis form is not likely tocover all teaching demands in anyone department. For example, oneform is not likely to address teachinga large lecture class, teaching aspecial projects class, and teaching alaboratory class. Some of the samevariables may appear in all threeteaching situations, but each environ-ment has specific teaching demandsthat the others do not.

Formative Peer Observation ProcessSome basic types of formative

peer observation are: a master facultyprogram, mentor-mentee pairs, peerdevelopment triads, graduate studentfeedback, small group instructionaldiagnosis, and the appraisal inter-view.

Master Faculty ProgramKatz and Henry (1988) promoted

a Master Faculty Program that paireda successful senior professor with ajunior faculty member to collaborateon teaching; to observe each other’sclasses to learn; to compare andimprove teaching methodologies; andto foster weekly discussions abouteffective teaching. These “buddysystem” collaborations provide manyrewards for both faculty membersinvolved. With information gatheredin the observations, faculty pairs meetonce a week or so to discuss howstudent learning has been fostered orhindered in the learning methodolo-gies and to share insights aboutimproving teaching.

Mentor-Mentee RelationshipsRoles played by mentors

include friendship for emotional andpersonal support, career guidance for

7

increased professional visibility,information source for discussingdepartmental and university expecta-tions, and/or intellectual guidance toprovide research and writing reviews.More departments are arrangingmentor-mentee pairing thereby givingnew faculty the greatest opportunityto prove their worth and fulfillinstitutional expectations. Mentorsare generally selected from the samediscipline but Boice suggests thateffective mentoring does not have tobe discipline bound. Boice (1992)found that:

•Only a handful of new hires found usefulmentoring on their own. They also tendedto teach cautiously by emphasizing facts andprinciples over active student involvement.

•It was not necessary to pair new facultymembers only with senior members from thesame department. The pairing of juniorfaculty members and mentors from otherdepartments was equally effective.

•Useful mentoring did not depend on pairspicking each other. Assigning mentors wasequally effective. It was often necessary,however, to prompt pairs to meet regularlyuntil meeting became habitual.

•Although mentoring was generallybeneficial, many mentors were reluctant togive advice to new faculty on teaching,scholarly productivity, and time manage-ment. Thus, mentoring was not without itsdeficiencies.

Master Faculty and mentor-mentee programs are very similar inorganization, but mentors are notnecessarily designated as “masterteachers” and may be chosen directly

by the mentees for reasons other thanteaching expertise.

Peer Development TriadsPeer development triads extend

the “pair concept” and offer addi-tional opportunities to share andcompare teaching/learning strategieswith two peers.

Graduate Student FeedbackAn example of a graduate student

feedback mechanism can be found inThe University of Chicago’s Gradu-ate School of Business. Theydesigned a one hour MBA course forgraduate students in which theyprovide feedback to instructors byauditing a professor’s classes,videotaping selected presentations,and gathering suggestions fromenrolled students for midsemestercourse changes.

Small Group Instructional DiagnosisThe Small Group Instructional

Diagnosis (SGID) is another methodused to improve instruction with theaid of a peer or faculty developmentconsultant. The process, which canbe easily learned by peers, is de-scribed by Bennett (1987) as follows:

•With a half hour or so left in a class period,the instructor introduces a facilitator (peer)as a friend who will gather ideas about thestudents’ learning experiences. The wordevaluation is not used because of itspejorative connotation to students. Beforeleaving the room, the instructor informs theclass that he or she has voluntarily requestedthis SGID and hopes to learn about how thecourse is going.

8

•The facilitator assures students that thegroup results are confidential and will beshared only with the teacher. Groups offour or so students are formed to discusstheir learning experiences and a notetakerfor each group is designated by the facilita-tor. The facilitator also lists three questionson the board for each group to discuss:Which aspects of instruction help you learn?Which do not help?What do you suggest to improve yourlearning?

•After ten minutes of discussion, thefacilitator records the students’ responsesusing appropriate quantifiers (“most said,”“a few said”). The facilitator summarizesthe major ideas and shares the summarywith the students for additions or correc-tions.

•The facilitator then shares student re-sponses with the teacher as soon as possible,using the students’ own words wheneverpossible. If serious problems have emerged,the facilitator highlights solutions offered bystudents.

•During the next class period, if possible, theinstructor replies to the students’ analysis.Instructors should try to implement at leastone of the suggestions made by students;suggestions that are inconsistent with coursegoals or a teacher’s style do not need to begiven serious consideration.

Appraisal InterviewThe appraisal interview is

used by chairs who want to discuss ateaching problem with an instructor.First the chair needs to create asupportive environment for theinterview and begins with questionsabout how things are going ingeneral. The chair may share someinsights from her/his classroomobservations to offer encouraging

comments about the instructor’spractices. Then the chair askswhether the instructor is having anydifficulties. If the instructor does notmention difficulties, the chair thencan refer to information taken fromtheir own classroom observations orproblems raised by students. Finally,the chair asks how she/he or thedepartment can help the instructorsolve the problem. The appraisalinterview must be handled carefullyand more than one meeting may berequired to bring about the necessarymodifications. The primary objectiveof any type of formative observationprocess is improvement of teaching.

Summative Peer Observation ProcessThe three person committee,

faculty, student, and/or administrator,or the Ad Hoc Committee onTeaching, is the most frequently usedarrangement for summative peerobservation. A larger committeebecomes too cumbersome and asmaller committee does not provideenough data. The Ad Hoc Commit-tee can be composed of nominationsmade by the instructor and the chair/dean; this selection process isparticularly helpful for promotionand tenure decisions. Shared nomina-tions provide the instructor theopportunity to recommend one ormore observers for the committee.Preferably, the committee memberswill remain anonymous to each otherand the general departmental faculty,in order to avoid contamination ofobservations. A summary of the threefaculty/administrator/ studentobservations should be provided bythe committee chair.

9

exposure for the observer or the observedinstructor.

•The summary report provides overallinformation that clearly represents all theobservation results. Recommendationsshould be accompanied by specific ex-amples or observation particulars.

What are some key issues to rememberabout formative or summative peerobservation?

There are key issues toremember as you enter a formative orsummative peer observation process:

•Any observation system chosen by adepartment must be well-understood byobservers and those observed. Actualclassroom practice with the observationinstrument is mandatory for its’ effectiveuse. The observer must practice with thepeer observation form/s before classroomvisits. The observation is defined by theinstrument and the observer must be able torecord behavior in the categories on theform. Training for observers is required inorder to help them see what is happening inthe classroom. Simple or elaborate systemsrequire extensive training to prepareobservers. The turnover of administratorsand faculty in all departments indicate that acyclical peer observation training program isneeded.

•All observation data collected are represen-tative of overall teacher performance in theclassroom. Observers must be aware thatsome classes are atypical so that they willdevote enough time to secure typical dataabout instructor activity. Observers areaware of the content of the class, time ofday, length of class, and other temporalfactors such as age, gender, ethnicity,general appearance of the instructor, etc.,

Summary reports based onchecklists, rating forms, and/orwritten analyses should include thefollowing information (Centra, 1993,p. 130):

(1) Classroom performance observationforms

(2) Instructional materials review(3) Advising activity review(4) Participation on graduate committees

and graduate teaching(5) Special recognition for teaching(6) Overall recommendation

Protocol for Summative Peer Observa-tion Committee Members

It is suggested that each AdHoc Committee member follow thisprotocol for summative peer observa-tions (Braskamp & Ory, 1994; Millis,1987).

•Observers must respect the observedinstructor or ask to be removed from thecommittee. A faculty member with a strongdifference of opinion or personal dislike fora peer has difficulty being a fair observer.

•Each observer meets privately with theinstructor before the classroom observationsto discuss the instructor’s objectives for theirclasses and to review course materials. Theobserved instructor is allowed to askquestions about the process.

•Each committee member makes arrange-ments to observe the equivalent of three orfour complete class sessions. If theobserved faculty member is teaching in twoor more teaching venues (i.e., large lecturesection, graduate courses, performanceclass) the observer should arrange to attendclasses in more than one course. Fewerclasses will not produce a balance of

10

and the possible effect of these factors onobservation results.

•Observers and the observed instructor areaware of the institutional and departmentalcontext for the importance of teaching.Deans and chairs need to make a generalannouncement about the role of peerobservation, the observation instruments tobe used, committee assignments, and theintrinsic value of formative and summativepeer observation and evaluation.

•Each individual faculty observer meetsface-to-face with the individual instructorsbeing observed, remembering that somefaculty have tremendous fears about beingobserved, and that the act of observation willeffect the overall teaching/learning environ-ment to some degree or another.

•Observers and instructors are aware thatobservations do not take place in isolationand therefore produce evidence withpossible legal implications. Ad HocCommittee members need to be aware of thesensitivity of observation reports andrecommendations made for summative peerevaluations. As Centra (1993, p. 160)stated "Faculty members and administratorsshould have a general awareness of theirlegal rights and responsibilities, as stated infederal or state laws and interpreted in courtcases; faculty members are both employees,about whom decisions are made, and peerswho sit in judgment."

It is recommended that peerclassroom observations be used assimply one part of the larger picturewith regard to evaluation of teachingeffectiveness. Do not give peerobservations undue weight insummative evaluations for thefollowing reasons:

•Limited amount of time observed

•Different views of teaching amongcommittee members

•Supplementary to other sources aboutteaching

•Peers do not observe systematically•Peer observations often tainted by

reputation of instructor•Colleagues tend to be generous in

ratings•Low correlation of ratings between

different colleagues•Peers generally have limited experi-

ence observing teaching•Historically faculty not trained to

observe teaching•Colleagues better at judging research

than service or teaching

What are some recommendations forinstitutional use of peer observations?

Braskamp and Ory (1994, pp.205-206) list the following sugges-tions for adopting peer observation:

•Training observers is highly recommended;training helps instructors focus on desiredcriteria and learn how to observe correctly.The Center for Teaching Effectiveness canprovide such training.

•Departments may wish to rotate annuallythe responsibilities of peer observationamong eligible faculty; however smalldepartments will have difficulty in thisregard. Alternatively, academic officers canselect several observers from the list ofrecommended potential observers nominatedby the instructor. Observations by morethan one colleague are recommended, sinceall faculty, quite naturally, rely on their ownexperiences, values, and definitions ofeffective teaching in making assessments.

•All faculty should be informed of theobservation process before implementationin order to ensure that all observations areconducted in a similar fashion. At least

11

attitudes toward peer observation, mentoring,and improvement of teaching; desire toparticipate

•Confer with in-house instructional expertsand/or master teachers

•Establish a departmental Ad Hoc Commit-tee on Teaching to begin research into peerobservation for formative and summativepurposes

•Talk with consultants at the Center forTeaching Effectiveness about form andprocess development and training for peerobservers

•Inquire into peer observation activities ofother departments/colleges on campus

•Inquire into peer observation activities ofother departments/colleges on othercampuses nationwide

•Review this pamphlet and resources listed

•Check discipline specific educationaljournals and texts for peer observationarticles

•Develop departmental peer observationforms and a process for formative andsummative observation

•Establish a departmental policy forformative and summative peer observationand evaluation

•Train faculty members prior to classroomvisits

•Review the peer observation forms afterpreliminary trial observations, make changes,and retest the improved forms

•Establish a training schedule for peerobservers on a one or two year cycle so thatnew or incoming faculty or administratorsreceive observation training

three classroom observations for a givenclass over a single semester or quarter arerecommended to ensure adequate represen-tation; observation evidence often is suspectif only one classroom visit is made.

•Classroom visits can be both announcedand unannounced, depending on localpractice and policy. Unannounced visitscan result in the evaluator showing up onthe day of a film, exam, or field trip. Onestrategy is to have the instructor select sixclass periods for which evaluation visitswould be most appropriate.

•Peer observations can be completedannually, every other year, prior toapplication for promotion and tenure, or ona regular, ongoing basis. Departments mustconsider faculty availability and willingnessto observe in determining an observationpolicy.

•Each observer can highlight similaritiesand differences by writing summaryreports. Descriptive reports, focusing onagreed-upon tools and behaviors andincluding specific examples of instructorand student behaviors are recommended.The summary is more balanced and fair if itcontains both positive and negativeobservations. Judgments of effectiveness,as well as descriptions of the work, providethe most complete portrayal of theinstructor’s effectiveness.

If your department wants to developpeer observation as a part of peerevaluation, what should you do?

Suggestions for developing apeer observation process as part ofthe peer evaluation process in yourdepartment are:

•Poll departmental faculty to ascertain theirexpertise with peer observation; general

12

References:

Bennett, W.E. (1987) "Small GroupInstructional Diagnosis: A DialogicApproach to Instructional Improvement forTenured Faculty." The Journal of Staff,Program, and Organization Development,5(3), 100-104.

Boice, Robert (1992) The New FacultyMember. San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers.

Braskamp, Larry A., Brandenburg, DaleC., and Ory, John C. (1984) EvaluatingTeaching Effectiveness: A Practical Guide.Beverly Hills; Sage Publications, Inc.

Braskamp, Larry A. and Ory, John C.(1994) Assessing Faculty Work: EnhancingIndividual and Institutional Performance.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Cohen, P.S. and McKeachie, W.J. (1980)"The Role of Colleagues in the Evaluationof College Teaching." Improving Collegeand University Teaching, 28, 147-154.

Centra, John A. (1993) Reflective FacultyEvaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers.

Katz, J. and Henry, M. (1988) TurningProfessors into Teachers: A New Approachto Faculty Development and StudentLearning. New York: Macmillan.

Millis, Barabara J. (1987) "ColleaguesHelping Colleagues: A Peer ObservationProgram Model." The Journal of Staff,Program, and Organization Development,7(1), 15-21.

Seldin, Peter (1984) Changing Practicesin Faculty Evaluation: A Critical Assess-ment and Recommendations for Improve-ment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publish-ers.

See Bibliography on pages 26 - 28 for moreextensive readings on peer observation andevaluation.

13

Appendices

14

Classroom Observation Report

Instructor evaluated_______________________Course______________________Number of students present___________Date_____________________________Evaluator(s)_____________________________________________________________

Purpose: The purpose of this classroom observation is (1) to provide a data base formore accurate and equitable decisions on tenure, promotion, and merit increase and(2) to improve faculty performance.Instructions: Please consider each item carefully and assign the highest scores onlyfor unusually effective performance.Questions 12 and 13 have been deliberately left blank. You and the instructor beingevaluated are encouraged to add your own items.Each instructor should be observed on two occasions, and the observer(s) shouldremain in the classroom for the full class period.It is suggested that the observer(s) arrange a previsit and postvisit meeting with theinstructor.

Highest Satisfactory Lowest Not Applicable 5 4 3 2 1 n/a

______ 1. Defines objectives for the class presentation.______ 2. Effectively organizes learning situations to meet the objectives of the

class presentation.______ 3. Uses instructional methods encouraging relevant student participation

in the learning process.______ 4. Uses class time effectively.______ 5. Demonstrates enthusiasm for the subject matter.______ 6. Communicates clearly and effectively to the level of the students.______ 7. Explains important ideas simply and clearly.______ 8. Demonstrates command of subject matter.______ 9. Responds appropriately to student questions and comments.______ 10. Encourages critical thinking and analysis.______ 11. Considering the previous items, how would you rate this instructor in

comparison to others in the department?______ 12.______ 13.______ 14. Overall rating

Would you recommend this instructor to students you are advising?What specific suggestions would you make concerning how this particular class could have been improved?Did you have a previsit conference?______postvisit conference?______

Source: Successful Faculty Evaluation Programs, by P. Seldin. Crugers, N.Y.: CoventryPress, 1980. All rights reserved.

15

Classroom Observation Worksheet

Instructor______________________Course__________________________________Date________________________Observer___________________________________Directions: Below is a list of instructor behaviors that may occur within a given class orcourse. Please use it as guide to making observations, not as a list of required character-istics. When this worksheet is used for making improvements to instruction, it isrecommended that the instructor highlight the areas to be focused on before the observa-tion takes place.

Respond to each statement using the following scale:

Not observed More emphasis Accomplished recommended very well

1 2 3

Circle the number at the right that best represents your response. Use the commentspace below each section to provide more feedback or suggestions.

Content Organization Not observed More emphasis Accomplished very well

1. Made clear statement of 1 2 3 the purpose of the lesson2. Defined relationship of this 1 2 3 lesson to previous lessons3. Presented overview of the 1 2 3 lesson4. Presented topics with a 1 2 3 logical sequence5. Paced lesson appropriately 1 2 36. Summarized major points 1 2 3 of lesson7. Responded to problems 1 2 3 raised during lesson8. Related today's lesson to 1 2 3 future lessons

Comments:

(continued on next 4 pages)

16

Classroom Observation Worksheet Page 2

Presentation Not observed More emphasis Accomplished very well

9. Projected voice so 1 2 3 easily heard10. Used intonation to 1 2 3 vary emphasis11. Explained ideas with 1 2 3 clarity12. Maintained eye contact 1 2 3 with students13. Listened to student 1 2 3 questions & comments14. Projected nonverbal gestures 1 2 3 consistent with intentions15. Defined unfamiliar terms, 1 2 3 concepts, and principles16. Presented examples to 1 2 3 clarify points17. Related new ideas to 1 2 3 familiar concepts18. Restated important ideas 1 2 3 at appropriate times19. Varied explanations for 1 2 3 complex and difficult material20. Used humor appropriately to 1 2 3 strengthen retention & interest21. Limited use of repetitive 1 2 3 phrases & hanging articles

Comments:

17


Instructor-Student Not observed More emphasis Accomplished very wellInteractions

22. Encouraged student 1 2 3 questions23. Encouraged student 1 2 3 discussion24. Maintained student 1 2 3 attention25. Asked questions to 1 2 3 montior students' progress26. Gave satisfactory answers 1 2 3 to student questions27. Responded to nonverbal cues 1 2 3 of confusion, boredom, & curiosity28. Paced lesson to allow time 1 2 3 for note taking29. Encouraged students to 1 2 3 answer difficult questions30. Asked probing questions 1 2 3 when student answer was incomplete31. Restated questions and 1 2 3 answers when necessary32. Suggested questions of 1 2 3 limited interest to be handled outside of class

Comments:

(continued on next page)

18

Instructional Materials Not observed More emphasis Accomplished very welland Environment

33. Maintained adequate 1 2 3 classroom facilities34. Prepared students for the 1 2 3 lesson with appropriate assigned readings35. Supported lesson with 1 2 3 useful classroom discussions and exercises36. Presented helpful audio- 1 2 3 visual materials to support lesson organization & major points37. Provided relevant written 1 2 3 assignments

Comments:

Content Knowledge Not observed More emphasis Accomplished very welland Relevance

38. Presented material 1 2 3 worth knowing39. Presented material 1 2 3 appropriate to student knowledge & background40. Cited authorities to 1 2 3 support statements41. Presented material 1 2 3 appropriate to stated purpose of the course42. Made distinctions between 1 2 3 fact & opinion43. Presented divergent view- 1 2 3 points when appropriate44. Demonstrated command of 1 2 3 subject matter

Comments:


19


45. What overall impressions do you think students left this lesson with in terms of content or style?

46. What were the instructor's major strengths as demonstrated in this observation?

47. What suggestions do you have for improving upon this instructor's skills?

Source: A Guide for Evaluating Teaching for Promotion and Tenure, by Centra, Froh, Gray, &Lambert. Permission granted by Center for Instructional Development, Syracuse University,Syracuse, N.Y., 1976. All rights reserved.

20

Drama 301L - Feedback/Evaluation Form

Instructor:______________________ Meeting time:_______Meeting place: __________________________Class size: #Women______ #Men______

General Atmosphere Excellent Poor

1. Discipline(students arrive on time and get down to business)1 2 3 4 5 6 7(students appear prepared for class) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7(students attentive during class scene presentations)1 2 3 4 5 6 7(class begins and ends on time) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Instructor’s rapport with the class is ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Very clear Not given3. Objectives for the class session are... 1 2 3 4 5 6 74 Assignment for next class is ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

___ provided in a handout ___ on board ___ not written down

Student Actors ______________________ Excellent Poor

1. Preparation of environment for scene 1 23 4 5 6 7(props, mood, costumes, etc.)

2. Ability to perform unit changes — physical changes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

— emotional changes 1 2 3 4 5 6 73. Students’ ability to make characters believable 1 2 3 4 5 6 74. Student focus during scene... 1 2 3 4 5 6 75. Lines....... - delivery 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

- memorization 1 2 3 4 5 6 76. Dynamics of the scene (dramatic peaks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Instructor’s Critique of Scenes

1. Topics critiqued (please check those which were critiqued by the instructor)___ Quality of line learning ___ Use of environment ___ Facial expressions___ Development of character ___ Use of movement __ Other (please list)

Excellent Poor

2. Instructor’s use of positive feedback 1 2 3 4 5 6 73. “Two run-through”

— critique of lines was ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 — critique of development of character was1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21

4. Instructor’s use of constructive criticism was...1 2 3 4 5 6 75. Instructor’s encouragement of criticism/comments by other

students was... 1 2 3 4 5 6 76. Instructor’s ability to include entire class in his/her

comments was ... (i.e., instructor doesn’t just talkto the actors) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Drama Feedback Evaluation Form - Page2

Discussion Process Excellent Poor

1. Ability of students to critique concisely was..... 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. Instructor’s use of questions to prompt discussion 1 2 3 4 5 6 73. Instructor’s ability to state questions clearly was ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 74. Instructor’s insistance on/and use of objectivity in the

critiques was ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Diagram of Discussion Process

Directions: Make a “map” of the students in the class (i.e., where they are sitting) usinga box or circle for each student. Identify them by a number and sex (e.g., 1-F, 2-M, 3-M, etc.). Then, whenever a student participates, place a tally mark under the coded box|1-F|.

Comments:

(This form was developed to observe and evaluate students, but the format lends itself toobservation of instructorbehaviors and student-instructor interactions in a classroom. )

Form used by permission, developed by Karron G. Lewis, Center for Teaching Effectivenessand Marian Hampton and Bernie Engel, Department of Theatre & Dance at The University ofTexas at Austin.

22

Faculty Observed___________________________Rank_________________________Date of Observation______________Course Observed__________________________

Classroom Teaching Observation Rating scale = (1 = very poor, 2 = weak, 3 = average, 4 = good, 5 = excellent,

NA = not applicable)

CONTENTMain ideas are clear and specific 1 2 3 4 5 (Excellent)Sufficient variety in supporting information 1 2 3 4 5Relevancy of main ideas was clear 1 2 3 4 5Higher order thinking was required 1 2 3 4 5Instructor related ideas to prior knowledge 1 2 3 4 5Definitions were given for vocabulary 1 2 3 4 5

ORGANIZATIONIntroduction captured attention 1 2 3 4 5 (Excellent)Introduction stated organization of lecture 1 2 3 4 5Effective transitions (clear w/summaries) 1 2 3 4 5Clear organizational plan 1 2 3 4 5Concluded by summarizing main ideas 1 2 3 4 5Reviewed by connecting to previous classes 1 2 3 4 5Previewed by connecting to future classes 1 2 3 4 5

INTERACTIONInstructor questions at different level 1 2 3 4 5 NA (Excellent)Sufficient wait time 1 2 3 4 5 NAStudents asked questions 1 2 3 4 5 NAInstructor feedback was informative 1 2 3 4 5 NAInstructor incorporated student responses 1 2 3 4 5 NAGood rapport with students 1 2 3 4 5 NA

VERBAL/NON-VERBALLanguage was understandable 1 2 3 4 5 (Excellent)Articulation and pronunciation clear 1 2 3 4 5Absence of verbalized pauses (er, ah, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5Instructor spoke extemporaneously 1 2 3 4 5Accent was not distracting 1 2 3 4 5 NAEffective voice quality 1 2 3 4 5Volume sufficient to be heard 1 2 3 4 5Rate of delivery was appropriate 1 2 3 4 5Effective body movement and gestures 1 2 3 4 5Eye contact with students 1 2 3 4 5Confident & enthusiastic 1 2 3 4 5

23

USE OF MEDIAOverheads/Chalkboard content clear & well-organized 1 2 3 4 5 NA (Excellent)Visual aids can be easily read 1 2 3 4 5 NAInstructor provided an outline/handouts 1 2 3 4 5 NAComputerized instruction effective 1 2 3 4 5 NA

Classroom Teaching Observation Form Page 2SPECIAL CLASSIFICATION NOTES:STRENGTHS: (e.g. metacurriculum, use of comparisons & contrasts, positivefeedback, opportunity provided for student questions)

WEAKNESSES:(e.g. unable to answer student questions, overall topic knowledge,relevance of examples, etc.)

OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS RATING 1 2 3 4 5Date of Conference___________Observer Signature______________________

Form used by permission, E. Porter, D.K. Meyer & A.S. Hagen.The Journal of Staff, Program,& Organization Development, Vol.12, No.2, Fall 1994, pp.104-105.

24

Report of Classroom Observation

Instructor:___________________________Course:________________________________Number of students present:________Date:_______________________________Observer(s):__________________________________________________________

INSTRUCTIONS: Several days prior to the classroom observation, the instructor shouldprovide the observer(s) with a copy of the course syllabus containing course objectives,content, and organization. The instructor should explain to the observers(s) the instruc-tional goals and methods of accomplishing them for the class that will be observed.

Within three days after the visit, the observer(s) should meet with the instructor todiscuss observations and conclusions.

Please use the reverse side of this page to elaborate on your comments.

1. Describe the lesson taught, including the subject, objectives, and methods used.

2. Describe the instructor's teaching as it related to content mastery, breadth, anddepth.

3. How well organized and clear is the presentation?

4. How appropriate were the teaching techniques used for the instructor's goals forthis class?

5. Describe the level of student interest and participation.

6. What are the instructor's major strengths? Weaknesses?

7. What specific recommendations would you make to improve the instructor'sclassroom teaching?

Source: Changing Practices in Faculty Evaluation: A Critical Assessment and Recommendationfor Improvement, by P. Seldin. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984. All rights reserved.

25

Bibliography

26

Bibliography for Peer Observation & Evaluation

Arreola, R. A. “Defining and Evaluating the Elements of Teaching.” In W.Cashin (Ed.) Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Academic Chairperson’s Conference,Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development, Kansas State University, Spring,1989, 32, 3-12.

Arreola, R. A. Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System.Bolton, Mass.: Anker Publishing Co., 1995.

Baldridge, J. V., Kemerer, F., and Associates. Assessing the Impact ofFaculty Collective Bargaining. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, no. 8.Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1982.

Blackburn, R. T., and Clark, M. J. “An Assessment of Faculty Perfor-mance: Some Correlates Between Administrators, Colleagues, Student, and Self-Ratings.” Sociology of Education, 1975, 48, 242-256.

Braskamp, L. A. and Ory, J.C. Assessing Faculty Work. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 1994.

Braxton, J. M., Bayer, A. E., and Finkelstein, M. J. “Teaching PerformanceNorms in Academia.” Research in Higher Education, 1992, 33(5), 533-569.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. National Survey ofFaculty, 1989. In Boyer, E. L. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professo-riate. Lawrenceville, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1990.

Centra, J. A. “Colleagues as Raters of Classroom Instruction.” Journal ofHigher Education, 1975, 46, 327-337.

Centra, J. A. How Universities Evaluate Faculty Performance: A Survey ofDepartment Heads. GREB Research Report, no. 75-56R. Princeton, N. J.: Educa-tional Testing Service, 1977.

Centra, J. A. Determining Faculty Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979.

Centra, J. A., Froh, R. C., Gray, P. J., and Lambert, L. M. A Guide toEvaluating Teaching for Promotion and Tenure. Acton, Mass.: Copley PublishingGroup, 1987.

Chickering, A. W., and Gamson, Z. (Eds). Applying the Seven Principlesfor Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. New Directions for Teaching andLearning, no. 47., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.

27

Clift, J. and others. “Establishing the Validity of a Set of SummativeTeaching Performance Scales.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education..1989, 14(3), 193-206.

Cohen, P. A., and McKeachie, W. J. “The Role of Colleagues in theEvaluation of College Teaching.” Improving College and University Teaching,1980, 28, 147-154.

Cross, K.P. “Classroom Research: Helping Professors Learn More AboutTeaching and Learning.” In P. Seldin and Associates (Eds.), How AdministratorsCan Improve Teaching: Moving from Talk to Action in Higher Education. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.

Diamond, R. M. Serving on Promotion and Tenure Committees; A FacultyGuide. Bolton, Mass.; Anker Publishing Co., 1994.

Diamond, R. M. Preparing for Promotion and Tenure Review; A FacultyGuide. Bolton, Mass.: Anker Publishing Co., 1995.

Dilts, D. A., Haber, L. J., and Bialik, D. Assessing What Professors Do.Westport, CT.: Greenwood Press, 1994.

Dressel, P. L. Handbook of Academic Evaluation: Assessing InstitutionalEffectiveness, Student Progress, and Professional Performance for Decision Makingin Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1976.

Earl, S. E. “Staff and Peer Assessment—Measuring an Individual’s Contri-bution to Group Performance.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,1986, 11 (1), 60-69.

Feldman, K. A., “Instructional Effectiveness of College Teachers as Judgedby Teachers Themselves, Current and Former Students, Colleagues, Administratorsand External (Neutral) Observers.” Research in Higher Education, 1989, 30, 137-189.

Flygare, T. J. “Board of Trustees of Keene State College v. Sweeney:Implications for the Future of Peer Review in Faculty Personnel Decisions.” Journalof College and University Law, 1980, 7, 100-110.

French-Lazovik, G. “Peer Review: Documentary Evidence in the Evalua-tion of Teaching.” In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of Teacher Evaluation. NewburyPark, Calif.: Sage, 1981, 73-89.

28

Higher Education Reserach Institute. The American College Teacher:National Norms for the 1989-90 H.E.R.I. Faculty Survey. Los Angeles: Universityof California, 1991.

Kremer, J. “Constant Validity of Multiple Measures in Teaching, Re-search, and Service and Reliability of Peer Ratings.” Journal of EducationalPsychology, 1990, 82, 213-218.

Love, K. G. “Comparison of Peer Assessment Methods: Reliability,Validity, Friendship, Bias, and User Reaction.” Journal of Applied Psychology,1981, 66, 451-457.

McGaughey, R. A. “Why Research and Teaching Can Coexist.” TheChronicle of Higher Education, Aug. 5, 1992, 48 (38), A36.

Murray, H. G. “The impact of Formative and Summative Evaluation ofTeaching in North American Universities.” Assessment and Evaluation in HigherEducation, 1984, 9, 117-132.

Ory, J.C., and Parker, S.A. “Assessment Activities at Large, ResearchUniversities.” Research in Higher Education, 1989, 30 (4), 375-385.

Root, L. S. “Faculty Evaluation: Reliability of Peer Assessments ofResearch, Teaching, and Service.” Research in Higher Education, 1987, 26,71-84.

Seldin, P. and Associates. Improving College Teaching. Bolton, Mass.:Anker Publishing Co., 1995.

Tobias, S. “Peer Perspectives on the Teaching of Science.” Change,March/April 1986, 36-41.

Webster, D. S. “Instructional Effectiveness Using Scholarly Peer Assess-ments as Major Criteria.” Review of Higher Education, 1985, 9 (1), 67-82.

Weimer, M. Improving College Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,1990.

29

Documents

Peer Observe