Peer Review of Teaching

Anne E. Belcher, PhD, RN, ANEF, FAAN

Associate Professor (Clinical)

Johns Hopkins University School of

Education

Acknowledgement The project described in this presentation was developed in collaboration with Linda Gerson, PhD, RN, Assistant Professor (retired), Johns Hopkins School of Nursing.

Disclosure

The presenter does not have any conflict of interest to disclose.

Objectives

Provide an overview of peer review of teaching

Describe the JHU SON Peer Review Project

Describe the faculty development workshop

Discuss general guidelines for the peer review process

Delineate the components of the peer review rating scale

Articulate peer review process feedback

Delineate issues going forward – for JHU and for nursing education in general

Overview of Peer Review of Teaching

May be used for formative evaluation of classroom interactions, clinical instruction, and teaching materials

Now may also include seminars, online teaching, and simulation

Is intended to be developmental rather than judgmental

Offers the teacher the opportunity to receive feedback from colleagues in a way that is complementary to student evaluations

May be used for summative evaluation as basis for merit increases, promotion and tenure

JHU SON Peer Review Project

Purpose was to pilot test instruments and processes and procedures for formative evaluation of faculty in the classroom setting

Approval for the pilot study was obtained from BS and MSN Curriculum Committees

Faculty members were recruited to serve as reviewers and/or reviewees

Plans were generated for a faculty development workshop for reviewers

Faculty Development

Workshop Agenda • Overview of peer review

• Discussion of general guidelines for peer review

• Discussion of peer review instruments

• Viewing of teaching video/use of peer review instrument

• Guidelines for written reports and reviewee debriefing

• Discussion of reviewer/reviewee satisfaction scales

Issues Addressed in Planning the Workshop

Based on discussion with faculty planning to attend the workshop, the following content and tools were incorporated into the agenda:

• Discussion of what excellence in teaching looks like

• Sample recommendations to share with the reviewee

• Prescription/goals developed collaboratively with the reviewee

• Assistance with avoiding response bias

General Guidelines for Peer Review Process

• Each observation should be conducted by a content expert and an expert in pedagogy; those criteria could be met by one reviewer

• Non-participant observation would occur at least once, preferably twice, in the course

• Date, time and length of the observation should be negotiated by reviewer and reviewee

General Guidelines for Peer Review Process(continued)

• Data/materials to be provided by the reviewee to the reviewer(s):

• Number of students in the class

• Description of the classroom environment

• A copy of the course syllabus and class materials, including power point presentation if relevant

• A list of issues/concerns/strategies on which the reviewee wishes to have the reviewer(s) focus

JHU SON Peer Review Scale categories*

• Content and organization

• Communication style

• Questioning skills

• Critical thinking skills

• Rapport with students

• Learning environment

• Teaching methods

* Berk, Naumann, & Appling (2004); Appling, Naumann & Berk (2001)

Use of Peer Review Form

Rating scale on a continuum from Excellent to Needs Improvement

Rater to decide on note-taking strategy (personal choice):

• On form

• Notes hand-written or on laptop for later transcription

Peer Review Process Feedback

Creation of a written

report for reviewee

Reviewer debriefing

with reviewee

Development of goals for reviewee

Identification of resources of value in

meeting goals

Use of reviewer and

reviewee Satisfaction

Scales

Issues Going Forward

• Does the review need to be “live” or can a video recording be used?

• Should online teaching, seminars, simulation and clinical teaching be peer-reviewed?

• How should reviewers be recruited? Rewarded?

• Should reviewers be recruited from other programs such as teacher education?

• Should peer review be linked to mentoring?

• Should peer review be formative or summative or both?

References

• Appling, S.E., Naumann, P.L,, & Berk, R.A. (2001). Using a faculty evaluation triad to achieve evidence-based teaching. Nursing and Health Care Perspectives, 22 (5), 247-251.

• Arreola, R.A. (2007). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system. A guide to designing, building, and operating large-scale faculty evaluation systems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Anker Publishing Co. Inc.

• Berk, R.A., Naumann, P.L., & Appling, S.E. (2004). Beyond student ratings: Peer observation of classroom and clinical teaching. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 1(1), Article 10.

• Briggs, C.L. & Murley, L.D. (2018). Synergizing with teacher educators to provide peer evaluations for nursing faculty. Nurse Educator, 43 (6), 289-291l

• Chickering, A.W. & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin.

• Chism, N.V.N. (2007). Peer review of teaching. A sourcebook. Bolton, MA: Anker.

• Hornstein, H.A. (2017). Student evaluations of teaching are an inadequate assessment tool for evaluating faculty performance. Cogent Education, 4, 1-8>

• Mager, D.R., Kazer, M.W., Conelius, J., Shea, J., Lippman, D.T., Torosyan, R. and Nantz, K. (2014). Development, implementation and evaluation of a peer review of teaching (PRoT) initiative in nursing education. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 11(1), 1-8.

• Shelton, L.R. & Hayne, A.N. (2017). Developing an instrument for evidence-based peer review of faculty teaching online. Nursing Education Perspectives, 38 (3), 157-158.