1. Peer Review of Classroom Teaching Anne E. Belcher, PhD, RN, AOCN, ANEF, FAAN Director, Office for Teaching Excellence Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing Baltimore, Maryland

2. Introduction Background of Peer Review Hallmarks of Excellence in Classroom Teaching General Guidelines for Peer Review Peer Evaluation Form Mock Review Written report and debriefing Satisfaction scales Issues going forward

3. Background of Peer Review Is formative evaluation of classroom interactions, clinical instruction, and/or teaching materials Is intended to be developmental rather than judgmental Offers the teacher the opportunity to receive feedback from colleagues that is complementary to student course evaluations

4. Hallmarks of excellence in classroom teaching Learner-teacher contact Cooperation among learners Active learning Prompt feedback Time on task High expectations Diverse talents and ways of knowing *Chickering and Gamson, 1987

5. General Guidelines for Peer Review Each observation would be conducted by a content expert and an expert in pedagogy The non-participant observation would occur at least once in the course with the date, time, and length of the observation negotiated by the faculty reviewers and reviewee

6. General Guidelines for Peer Review (continued) Data/materials to be provided by the reviewee to the reviewers would include: Number of students in the class Description of the classroom environment A copy of the course syllabus and “lesson plan” Power point presentation and other handouts A list of issues/strategies/concerns on which the reviewee wishes to have the reviewers focus (as needed)

7. Use of Peer Evaluation Form Rating Scale on a continuum from Excellent to Needs Improvement Rater to decide on note-taking strategy (personal choice) On form Notes to transcribe

8. JHU School of Nursing Peer Evaluation Scale Content and Organization Communication Style Questioning Skills Critical Thinking Skills Rapport with Students Learning Environment Teaching Methods

9. Peer Review Feedback Creation of a Written Report Participant Debriefing

10. Issues Going Forward Does the review need to be “live” or can a recording be used? Will on-line courses be reviewed? Should peer evaluation be formative or summative or both?

11. 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. 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. Chickering, A.W. & Gamson, Z.F.(1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin. Felder, R.M. & Brent, R. (2004). How to evaluate teaching. Chemical Engineering Education, 38(3), 200-202. Reis, R. (January 3, 2008). Why introducing or sustaining peer review of teaching is so hard, and what you can do about it. http://ctl.standford.edu/Tomprof/postings.html.