1. Effectiveness and Perceptions of a Peer Teaching Evaluation Program Lorin Sheppard, PhD Mary Kiersma, PhD, PharmD Manchester University College of Pharmacy

2. Poll  Is your teaching evaluated by a supervisor?  Is your teaching evaluated by a peer?  What are some of the specific areas you are evaluated on?  What is the purpose of these evaluations?

3. Background  Manchester University – Small school – Emphasis on teaching and active learning  MU College of Pharmacy – New school – Two departments

4. Demographics n = 21

5. Demographics

6. Preparation for Teaching  Teaching certificates  Faculty development teaching seminars – Basics of instructional design – Writing goals and objectives – Structuring a lesson – Teaching facts, concepts, principles, and skills – Incorporating active learning  On-site “consultants”

7. Development Process  Institutional teaching focus  Similar process at both campuses – Participation required in FW  Form developed by Curriculum and Assessment Committees – Based on factors faculty felt were important – Input from all faculty

8. Peer Evaluation Process  Who – All faculty are reviewed during the academic year – All non-chair faculty participate as reviewers  When – Class is selected by person being reviewed  How – Using form – Debrief with reviewed, reviewer(s), and Director of Instructional Design

9. Areas Evaluated  Content  Organization  Interaction  Verbal/Nonverbal  Use of Media  Strengths  Areas for Improvement

10. If you were evaluating a peer review process, what are some things you would want to know?

11. Process Evaluation Instrument  Demographics (4 questions)  Being reviewed (12)  Being a reviewer (10)  Confidence (2)  Stress (1)  Open-ended questions (3)

12. Faculty Being Reviewed n = 15

13. Faculty Being Reviewed n = 15

14. Faculty as Reviewers n = 17

15. Faculty as Reviewers n = 17

16. Classes Evaluated

17. Confidence

19. How stressful would it be for you to go through this process?

20. Stress of Evaluation

21. Uses  Guides changes to instruction  Used as support for self-evaluation  Included in promotion and tenure dossier

22. Comments  “Good process.”  “Enlightening ideas that I could utilize.”  “Better than I expected.”  “Offer training for faculty on using the tool and how to give appropriate and constructive feedback.”  “I didn’t receive quite the amount of feedback I was hoping for.”  “Make sure evaluators have lecture material prior to the class.”

23. Limitations  One semester’s data  Faculty with limited teaching experience  Experience giving feedback

24. Future Directions  Provide training on use of form  Revise form – Based on changing needs/focus – Based on different types of instruction

25. Questions?

26. Contact Information Lorin Sheppard lsheppard@manchester.edu 260-470-2670 Mary Kiersma mekiersma@manchester.edu 260-470-2668