The Peer Review of Teaching: Two Models

1. The Peer Review of Teaching: Two Models Anne Gill, Dr.P.H, M.S., R.N. Baylor College of Medicine Paula O’Neill, M.Ed., Ed.D. UT Dental Branch at Houston October 14, 2009

2. Objectives Identify the educational theory and development of peer review List 3 reasons for implementing a peer review program Describe two models for conducting faculty peer review

3. Definition • Peer review of teaching is a structured, formative process by which trained faculty voluntarily: • Assist each other to enhance teaching • Develop individual instruction improvement goals • Use focused teaching observations • Provide prompt feedback within an atmosphere of collegial trust and candor • Kinsella

4. Why Peer Review? • Reaction to social concerns about failures in public education 1980’s Accountability response • Implementation in Higher Education 1994 AAHE National Peer Review Project

5. American Association for Health Education (AAHE) “Peer review is a professional responsibility; we owe it to ourselves and our students to ensure the quality of what we do as teachers.” AAHE Project Workbook

6. Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition

7. Teaching Excellence?

8. Six Principles for Scholarly Assessment Scholarship Assessed, Ernest Boyer 1. Clear Goals 2. Adequate Preparation 3. Appropriate Methods 4. Significant Results 5. Effective Presentation 6. Reflective Critique

9. Models of Peer Review Standardized 1. Check list format 2. Dichotomous assessments 3. Reflection - included but not required Personalized 1. Areas for review pre negotiated 2. Objective observations reported 3. Reflection - essential component

10. Drivers for BCM Peer Review • To improve teaching • To affirm good teaching • Provide institutionally-credible, faculty-level evaluations of teaching activities provided to educators for their use in other venues Appointment and promotion processes Educator portfolio preparation

11. The Educator Consultation ProgramBaylor College of Medicine

12. Barriers to Peer Review at BCM Anxiety about faculty openness Possible threats to academic freedom Difficulty in defining a “peer” Time requirements to do an appropriate job Concerns about reliability and validity Awareness

13. Guided Reflection Peer Review "My dad was my best friend and greatest role model, and I will miss him deeply. He was an amazing dad, coach, mentor, soldier, husband and friend.”

14. Guiding Principles • Peer review does not replace student evaluations • The initiator of peer review owns the product • Peer review will emphasize formative evaluations • Peer Mentoring and Review is an incentive to improve teaching • Content Expert vs. Master Teacher • Recognition and support by Baylor Administration

15. ECP Services Provided • Large group teaching • Small group teaching • One-on-one teaching • Learner assessment • Course leadership • Communication of scholarly works • Team learning • Mentoring the mentor

16. Process • Faculty initiates a consultation through the ECP • Identify consultant who meets with the client to negotiate the review • Consultant makes the initial observation • Client debriefing within 2-3 days • Write-up observation report, if requested, by the client • Write-up is vetted with one other reviewer • Report is mailed to consultant

17. Resources:What Does it Take? Directors- One Member Consultants- 7 members in the pool Support Staff- Secretary-email and communications, web designer, maintain site Meetings- One per year Supplies- Negligible Provide services- Requests peak during F&J

18. Faculty Resources • Client- Desire to improve teaching skills • Pool of trained potential reviewers or training for reciprocal observations • Time available to perform the task • Trusting relationship between parties

19. Promoting the ECP • Webpage • Department or Section Presentations • Workshops Faculty Development Education Scholars Fellowship Program • Award requirement • Individual Testimony

20. Evaluation

21. The University of Texas Dental Branch at Houston Model

22. Development of the Peer Review Plan (1997-2000) • Joint effort of the OPD, Faculty Senate, Departments. • Sub-Committee members selected to represent specific areas. • Sub-committees met individually to discuss what teaching skills needed to be reviewed. • Then met as a group to review entire Peer Review Plan. • The Plan presented to Senate & Dean.

23. Building our Rationale • Ernest Boyer asked • “Just how are we to evaluate teaching, • How can we be sure that standards of excellence will be protected?“ • AAHE Project Workbook • Peer review is a professional responsibility; • we owe it to ourselves and our students to ensure the quality of what we do as teachers.

24. Faculty driven Office of Educational Research & Professional Development General oversight Scheduling Training Follow-up Partnered with NFO and Mentoring Positioning Peer Review at the DB

25. Guiding Principles • Peer review should involve judgments • about the quality of work for either promotion or tenure • Focused upon ways that faculty can be more effective colleagues to one another • in improving their work as faculty • Peer review must be culturally relevant and culturally competent • Peer review should Formativeat first

26. Guiding Principles • Peer review must be linked with activities such as • Reflective commentary about one of their teaching artifacts or their teaching • Peer mentoring • Pedagogical colloquium where faculty can talk to other faculty about teaching • Peer review is expected to become part of the departmental and school culture

27. Barriers • Time required • Willingness • Concern about reviewer’s expertise

28. Types of Peer Review • Large group • Small group • Pre-clinical • Clinical

29. Implementation Process • Department chairs annually formulate a peer review schedule • In consultation with departmental faculty • Faculty may request a peer review • Department chair may request a specific peer review of a departmental faculty.

30. Process cont. • Review not scheduled • Consultation prior to review • Review within 10 days after observation • Written report submitted to faculty member, chair, and copy for personnel file

31. Volunteers Nominated Departmental committee select peer evaluators Peer evaluators Peer evaluators trained Peer Reviewers/Evaluators

32. Focusing upon Standardized Evaluation • Large Group • >12 • Clarity and organization • Content • Presentation Style • Group Interactions • Guided by criteria • Strengths and recommendations • Small Group • 6-12 people • Clarity and organization • Presentation style • Group Interactions • Promoting Critical Thinking Skills • Guided by criteria • Strengths and recommendations

33. Standardized Evaluation • Preclinical Lab • Generally 1 on 1 • Interaction with learner • Promotion of critical thinking skills • Role modeling • Guided by criteria • Strengths and recommendations • Unstructured Clinical Teaching • Generally 1 on 1 • Interaction w learner • Promotion of critical thinking skills • Role modeling • Guided by criteria • Strengths and recommendations

34. Expected Outcomes • ID strengths and weaknesses • Documentation • Evidence of Excellence • Recommendations • FORMATIVE-Summative Evaluation • Faculty Development • Role models • Invoking standards of excellence in teaching

35. Faculty development resources • Office of Educational Research and Professional Development website • http://www.db.uth.tmc.edu/prof-develop/default.htm • One-on-one consultation by OERPD • Department workshops • School-wide workshops/seminars • Educational Scholars Fellowship Program • The University of Houston MED program

36. Recognition • Elevation of teaching as a “SCHOLARLY ENDEAVOR” • Recognition for Annual Evaluation • Recognition for Promotion and Tenure • Inclusion in APT Document

37. Dean’s Academy of Distinguished Educators • Dean’s Teaching Excellence Awards • presented annually • Exhibit outstanding teaching • Incite intellectual curiosity in their students • Engage students in the learning process and generated life-long skills. • Expected in nomination packet

38. DB Outcomes • Improved teaching learning environment • Student Evals • Course objectives + tests • Faculty Satisfaction • Increased communication across departments • Faculty Development • Important in Annual Evaluation Process • Department chair and Peer Review Committee • Contributes to Promotion/Tenure Process

39. Summary • Peer Review can provide information to help improve teaching, document those activities. • Peer Review is a “doable” activity and does not have to break the budget • Formative Peer Review does not replace the institutional responsibility for educational oversight and summative activities • Advances the scholarship of teaching for the educators as well as for the institution • Peer Review can build stronger collegial bonds across departments and programs

40. Questions?