Using Video-Annotated Peer Review to Support the Diffusion of Evidence-Based Instruction Practices in Faculty Communities of Practice James J. Pembridge, PhD Lisa Davids Yosef Allam, PhD Research Questions How is faculty level of concern of evidence-based instructional practices influenced by learning communities? How is faculty level of use of evidence-based instructional practices influenced by learning communities? How do faculty innovation configurations vary from course to course? Abstract The Video-Annotated Peer Review (VAPR) project addresses a growing need to support the diffusion of research-based instructional practices and to create a formative feedback process to enhance faculty development. This project has developed an asynchronous, video-based peer feedback process using existing software to record post-secondary faculty in their teaching practice, followed by a network of faculty members reviewing the videos using the software to subsequently annotate the video with time-stamped comments and flags. The process enables participating faculty and their peers to identify specific instances of good practices, opportunities for improvement, and opportunities where research-based instructional practices can be included in their classroom.   Utilizing a mixed-methods case-study that includes interviews, observations, and quantified classroom observation protocols, faculty change as a result of peer-review is explored across a three-year period. Exploration of faculty change is being guided by the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM). Outcomes & Evaluation Motivation / Framework Many instructors are unaware of alternatives to teaching a course and have difficulty translating a practice to their context and discipline [1]. VAPR relies on both individual and environmental change systems [2] by encouraging reflexivity by the object of the review and social reflexivity by the reviewers. By requiring the participants to perform both a pre and post observation reflection, we are encouraging self reflexivity. However, the VAPR process is designed to inspire not only self reflexivity, but social reflexivity as well. The process of reviewing peer instructors and witnessing the review of those instructors by other peers will result in a reflection of how their own teaching is related to what they observe. Learning communities and CBAM [3] provide a framework to assess the faculty change through assessment of progression through stages of concern, levels of use, and configuration of the pedagogical technique. VAPR Process 2x Figure 2. Integrated VAPR process Objects of Review Faculty engage in the process twice per term Complete a pre and post observation analysis to support reflective practice Reviewers Utilize a table of attributes to guide the feedback. Attributes include: instructor’s organization, knowledge of subject matter knowledge, clarity, pace, professionalism and the instructional atmosphere Peer review excludes summative assessment; focuses on formative feedback Review of peers’ instructional practice encourages social reflexivity [4] References [1] Felder, R.M., Brent, R. and Prince, M.J. (2011). Engineering instructional development: Programs, best practices, and recommendations. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1): p. 89– 122. [2] Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. A. (2011). Increasing the impact and diffusion of STEM education innovations. Paper presented at the Impact Diffusion Transformative Engineering Education Innovations, New Orleans, LA. [3] Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (Eds.). (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. SUNY Press. [4] Davids, L., Pembridge, J., & Allam, Y. (2015) Video-Annotated Peer Review (VAPR): Considerations for Development and Implementation. American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Seattle, WA Comment headings Tagging capability Personalization to identify CTL and reviewer Asynchronous video Duration timestamp FLAGS: GOOD PRACTICES & SUGGESTIONS Figure 1. Concerns-Based Adoption Model [3] Acknowledgements The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the National Science Foundation for their support of this work under Grant No. 1244852. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors would also like to thank the Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction Organization (CALI) for their permission to use MediaNotes as the video annotation review platform for this study. Detailed peer comments FLAGS: RBIS Scalable time bar and video controls Comments insert Figure 3. MediaNotes Software Platform Ability to print comments from reviewers