The Main Form of Teaching Evaluation: Teachers Teaching Skills and Abilities - Research Paper Example

2.1 Literature Review Teaching is a challenging profession that introduces instructors to demanding environments and contexts. Donnelly (2007) argues that in this millennium, academic staff and faculty face a number of philosophical issues that sometimes include contrasting beliefs in the role of higher education itself. These issues are further augmented by increased “marketization” of knowledge in the present globalized economy (Donnelly 2007, p. 117). In this scenario, teachers and academics have to constantly remodel their teaching methodologies to meet the needs of culturally and philosophically divergent students, and to live up to the expectations of modern educational standards. Therefore, the most important question concerning academics is – ‘how can teaching practices be improved’ and ‘what constitutes good teaching’. Innumerable studies have investigated these questions and the answers to them are not as elusive as one may expect. Several studies have elaborately discussed the qualities of good teaching and have also revealed ways in which teaching can be improved. One such method that has gained immense credibility and scholarly approval is Peer Review of Teaching (PROT). It can be defined as the process where a peer observes ones teaching with the intention offering feedback, which may lead to reflection and improvement on the part of the observed. The term ‘peer review’ itself has different connotations in different contexts, and PROT also has varying definitions based on who is defining it and in what context. It is defined as “constructive criticism” by some and “a tool for change” by others, while it is also defined as participatory appraisal, or a method of identification and sharing of good teaching practices for the evaluation of teaching (Cole 2003, Roberts 2002, Pagani 2002, Blackmore 2005 cited in Goldberg et al. 2010, 71). Teaching has been described as “a complex cognitive ability that is not innate but can be both learned and improved upon” (Saroyan & Amundsen 2001, p. 344). Therefore, it is certain that teaching can be improved with the right approach. Peer review is a process for faculty development that is widely used in training and other professional contexts. The basic idea in PROT is that a person concerned about some aspects of his/her own work invites a colleague to review the quality of his/her teaching and instruction. The colleague or peer provides constructive criticism and feedback to the instructor so that the individual can improve his/her teaching practices. Peers and colleagues can share their expertise through four different perspectives, as identified by Weimer (1990). Firstly, the colleagues have been students themselves for a fairly long time. Therefore, they can view the instruction process from the perspective of a student. Secondly, colleagues are more objective and receptive as they attend the class for the sake of observation and not for credit. Thirdly, the colleagues are teachers themselves and so can better understand the requirements and demands of teaching. And lastly, colleagues have knowledge and expertise in the taught discipline, and so can offer better suggestions on improvement. The main form of teaching evaluation that existed earlier to the inception of PROT was evaluation by students for the purpose of assessing novice teachers’ teaching skills and abilities. Some may argue that students are better judges of their teachers rather than colleagues. In contradiction to this, Fernandez & Lu (2007) argue that students cannot appropriately judge course content and the teacher’s use of acceptable teaching strategies. He therefore suggests that peers are “the most appropriate source of information” (p. 154). According to Webb (1996), the more teachers share their experiences with each other, the higher is the possibility that they could gain a better comprehension what is required of their profession. Studies by Donnelly (2007) and Gibbs & Coffey (2001) have shown that teachers who engage in PROT find it easier to improve their teaching practice as a result of peer criticism and advice. Peer observation or review is now a common feature in higher education, since the last 10 years or more. It is a quite recent development in the UK, which introduced the concept in its universities after finding evidence of its success in Australia and the U.S. (Lomas & Kinchi 2006; Hatzipanagos & Lygo-Baker 2006). The main reason for its introduction is the growing need to raise teaching quality standards through development and sharing of good practices, apart from government initiatives that sought to enhance professionalism in teaching (Hatzipanagos & Lygo-Baker). Peer review of teaching prior to the last two decades had not been practiced but now, peer review has become more prevalent in the UK and several other countries. This may be due to several reasons. One of the reasons may be that UK has taken a quality enhancement stance towards education rather than a quality assurance stance (Lomas and Kinchin 2006). A more succinct way of looking at the whole process of PROT is that it is the observation by a colleague of what goes on in the class with a view to instigating reflection and promotion of best practices, continuous professional development through a sharing of experiences and peer learning. Teaching connotes both traditional and modern methods of instruction and PROT should encompass all these methods. 2.2 Peer Review of Teaching and Reflective Practice The concept of reflective practice was introduced by Donald Schon in 1987 who defined it as a critical process that leads to a refinement of one’s craft in a particular discipline (Joan 2000). Reflective practice involves a thoughtful consideration of one’s own practices and methodologies, and results in learning from one’s own experiences. Research has shown that reflection is linked with better and more efficient teaching practices as well as professional growth (Joan 2000). Effective self-reflection is an essential requirement for achieving excellence in teaching (Bell, Mladenovic & Segara 2010; Loughran 1999). Hutchings (1996) opines that there are several ways to engage in PROT for promoting reflection and collaboration, which include team teaching, reciprocal class observation, and lastly, curricular development and review. In their study, Hatzipanagos & Lygo-Baker (2006) have proved that “criticality of thought” through reflective processes brings academics to “professional realization” that results from a deeper understanding of the theories of teaching practice (p. 100). Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond state that reflective practice involves the evaluation of both – the teaching process and the thinking involved in it, rather than a mere reflection of the teaching alone (cited in Donnelly 2007). Reflective practice in PROT not only helps in refining the teaching skills of the one observed but also that of the observer, as evidenced by Donnelly’s study (2007). As shown by Donnelly, when an observer writes or verbally criticizes the teaching practice of the one observed, he/engages in reflective practice that involves analyzing his/her own teaching practices and how they can be refined. Reflection can also be facilitated through ‘directed reflective process’ as suggested by Kahn et al. (2006). This form of reflection may ensue from peer observation and review, apart from other processes such as mentoring. Sparks-Langer and Colton (1991) have identified three important elements involved in the process of reflective thinking. These include the cognitive element, the critical element and the teacher narrative. The cognitive element of reflective practice describes how instructors and teachers make decisions and process information as part of their teaching practice. The critical element of teaching reflection refers to the motivations that drive thinking during teaching practice. The teacher narrative, the third element of reflective practice in teaching, refers to the teacher’s own interpretation of events occurring during the teaching practice. Effective PROT thus includes reflective practice that includes all these three elements of reflection. Teacher cognition is an important element of reflective practice and evaluating cognition is thus an essential part of peer review. Teacher cognition encompasses the knowledge, beliefs, assumptions, attitudes, and theories that teachers have about all aspects of their work (Borg 1999). Teacher’s cognition involves “personally-defined practically-oriented” understanding of the process of teaching as well as learning, and has an immense influence on the instructional decisions made by teachers (Borg 1997, p. 22). Understanding and evaluating teacher cognition is thus another essential perspective of PROT. 2.3 Purposes of Peer Review The main purpose of PROT is pedagogical improvement (Perlman & McCann 1998). It is aimed at quality improvement rather than quality assurance (Blackmore 2005). Thus, PROT aims at examining teaching faculty for enabling self-improvement through a systematic assessment of teaching performance as an activity at the professional level (Perlman & McCann). It can be two pronged, firstly to affirm or certify/communicate usually to an external audience the current standards of teaching, and to aid discussions on tenure and promotion (summative evaluation). Secondly, PROT can be aimed towards learning and improvement (formative evaluation). The summative and formative evaluations involve the review or scrutiny of current trends/activities, and professional judgment of performance. The summative evaluation entails ensuring that students achieve what a course demands them to achieve, in other words it is quality driven. Formative evaluation on the other hand uses feedback on good quality teaching as a means of instigating reflection and subsequent improvement of teaching (CELT 2011; Lomas & Kinchin 2006). Formative assessments are more effective when they are more confidential and are the sole property of the evaluated instructor (CELT 2011). On the other hand, summative evaluations are not confidential and are used for making decisions such as appraisals. PROT is more of a formative assessment rather than a summative assessment (Lomas and Kinchin 2006). On the whole, the purpose of PROT whether summative or formative is to bring about perfection in teaching practices, improvement in teaching quality, sharing of best practices and to carry out professional development. It assists good teachers in becoming better as well as adding professionalism to the process of teaching evaluation, in which teachers help other teachers reflect on their pedagogy. 2.4 Models of Peer Review Gosling (2002) identified three models of peer observation of teaching as follows: 1. The evaluation model – In this model, senior staff evaluates the academic staff. 2. The development model – In this model, educational developers evaluate the teachers. 3. The peer review model – In this model, teachers observe each other. The purpose of the evaluation model is to identify lack of performance, confirmation of probation, quality assessment, promotion and appraisal (Gosling 2002). On the other hand, the purpose of the development model is to demonstrate teaching competency and to assess teaching practice. The peer review model involves an active engagement of the teacher who is being evaluated and his/her evaluator, and stems from discussion and self/mutual reflection (Gosling). While the evaluator in the evaluation model is of higher authority, the evaluator in the peer review model is equal in status to the one evaluated. The peer review model exists between staff, wherein, each member observes the others and offers constructive criticism. Such a model can be easy to establish and can incorporate a larger group of instructors (Blackmore 2005). A few disadvantages of this model are that it may lead to a lesser focus on the subject and there is lack of confidentiality (Blackmore). Each of the three models of teaching observation has its own advantages and disadvantages. The choice of incorporation of the appropriate model however depends on the needs of the assessment and the context of evaluation. 2.5 Advantages of Peer Review As already discussed, the purpose of PROT is to enhance and improve teaching practice through feedback and self-reflection. The advantages and benefits of peer review are immense. Firstly, it enables increased focus on student-centered improvement in teaching. It facilitates improvement in presentational skills and instruction. It not only helps in the improvement of the one who is being evaluated but also the one who is evaluating. It enables learning from one’s own and other’s experiences and also enables networking among colleagues. It facilitates mentoring of the less experienced instructors by senior academics. Most importantly, it promotes professional development and quality enhancement in teaching practice (Gilbert 2011). PROT adds professionalism to the process of teaching evaluation (Perlman & McCann 1998). Talking and sharing experiences with colleagues enables teachers in sharing their pedagogy and helps them in taking the responsibility of their own teaching methodologies. Teachers who engage in PROT develop confidence in their teaching approach, apart from demonstrating an increase in self-assurance and in the zest for exploring their practice even further (Donnelly 2007). Many studies have demonstrated how PROT has led to improvements in teaching practices and educational standards of students. Some of these studies are reviewed in the later sections. 2.6 Perceptions of Peer Review Studies have shown that some instructors perceive the peer review process in teaching as unauthentic and useless (Chism 1999, McManus 2001 cited in Goldberg 2010). Such a perception has resulted from the lack of valid and reliable peer review processes and the huge diversity in peer review definitions (Goldberg 2010). In a study by Kell and Annetts (2009 cited in Magno 2012) that was conducted to assess the perceptions of teachers with regard to PROT, it was found that teachers felt the process as being formative and useful for professional development and improvement. However, on the contrary, newer staff found PROT to be “summative and audit-like” (p. 105). Most instructors criticized it for lack of time and the possibility of biased reviews. Some of the affective issues cited were the fear of pulling of ranks or the possibility of “undercurrents of power-gains” (Magno 2012, p. 106). Therefore, it can be ascertained that while teachers perceive PROT as being helpful and developmental, they do experience uncertainties and insecurities about the review process. Some also perceive that the review process hampers academic freedom (Goldberg 2010). Some teachers are also found to perceive that PROT introduces the possibility of lack of accurate feedback and reinforcement of less effective teaching methodologies by reviewers onto those being reviewed (Goldberg 2010). As is evident, there exist mixed perceptions on the review process involved in PROT. 2.7 Concerns about Peer Review Although the peer review process in teaching has many proven advantages and benefits, it does have some concerns and negative implications. A major concern in the implementation of PROT is instructors’ lack of faith in the process itself. Cosser (1998 cited Hatzipanagos & Lygo-Bake) argues that there is little evidence supporting the claim that teachers consider peer observation of teaching as being developmental. He supports his arguments by citing several other studies such as that of Van Patten (1994), which suggests that observation of teaching is ineffective, that of Lieberman (1986), which suggests that the process in detrimental, and that of Fleming et al. (2004), which suggests that the process is just a “managerial vehicle” (p. 97). Cosh (2002) also argues that there is no evidence suggesting improvements in people as a result of others’ judgments. According to him, the natural reaction of teachers, especially experienced teachers, to criticism would be to become defensive and hostile to suggestions that advice change. Thus, a major cause of concern is how can PTOR be made more acceptable and constructive. Other concerns over PTOR include limited availability or resources, such as time, for carrying out peer review, fear of overburdening faculties that are already under immense workload, lack of training in peer review, skepticism and anxiety in instructors, difficulties in scheduling the process, etc (Fernandez & Lu 2007). Although these concerns are detrimental to the efficient incorporation of PROT, they can be eliminated through systematic planning and with the development of better peer review frameworks. 2.8 Framework for Best Practice in Peer Review The purpose of peer review is to enable an improvement in teaching style and strategy in the best way possible, enabling better learning in students. To maintain the quality of PROT and for ensuring best practices, Perlman and Lee (1998) list out a few guidelines that can be incorporated in a best practice framework. These are summarized as follows: There should not be any surprises and the faculty must know when a review will be held. Moreover, the reviewer and the instructor should agree on the review process. Merely knowing a subject is not enough for excellent teaching, and so teachers will have to strive for improving their teaching skills rather than just increasing their subject knowledge. The peer review process itself should be well thought out and planned. It should be considered as a collaborative process where both the teacher and the reviewer are mutually benefiting. Peer review should not be restricted to the process of teaching itself, but should also evaluate the reason why a teacher teaches in a particular way. Peer review should not be based on biased or personal judgments, but instead, must be based on “reasoned opinions” through reflection (p. 6). The peer reviewer should not only identify weaknesses and shortcomings of the teacher but should also identify his/her strengths to help build on those strengths. A good peer review requires the reviewer to be honest about issues at hand, but tender upon who is reviewed. Reviewers must be patient and should provide feedback in a thoughtful manner. The reviewers themselves may benefit from the review process, as they are likely to develop ideas to improve their own teaching. Apart from these, several other guidelines for best practices are found in literature. Goldberg et al. (2010) have identified seven components of a good best-practice framework that are important for effective peer review. Firstly, the faculty and reviewers should be well educated about the process of peer review prior to participating in the review. Secondly, a culture of “trust and empowerment” should be facilitated (p. 72). Thirdly, the review should be implemented annually. The improvements in practice as a result of the review should be clearly documented and linked with a reward system. A regular review should be conducted and all participants including administrators should be included in the review process. There should be systematic changes in the reviewer and the reviewed, with constant focus on inclusion of those missed out. And finally, it should also include student feedback. Blackmore (2005) provides a comprehensive best practice framework for peer review to enable enhancement in teaching performance in higher education (HE) institutions in the UK. This framework incorporates all the best practice guidelines summarized above. Samson and McCrea (2008) provide a framework for incorporating formative assessment in teaching strategies. Many scholars have proposed several best practice frameworks and the underlying principles for best practices are usually the same. The frameworks vary from institution to institution based on the kind of assessment and the resources available. 2.9 Studies on Peer Review Many studies have investigated the efficacy of peer review of teaching in improving teaching practice. Pelliccione et al. (2009) have shown that PROT has been successful in blended learning environments that blend face-to-face teaching and online teaching. This finding is particularly important as modern day educational institutions focus on the incorporation of e-learning methodologies over the internet. Due to globalization of education, distance courses have become prevalent. It is thus essential to improve teaching methodologies and strategies not just in face-to-face teaching environments but also in online environments. McKenzie, Pelliccione and Parker (2008) provide a framework for developing PROT in blended learning environments and also enlist challenges that may be encountered in such an endeavor. Shaughnessy (1994) and Bernstein et al. (2006) have shown how faculty in their teaching environments can incorporate PROT most effectively. Irby (1983) describe the designing, development and implementation of methodologies and procedures for PROT. McManus (2001) puts forth a rather important perspective on PROT. He opines that the two paradigms of education, namely the Learning-Centered Paradigm and the Teaching-Centered Paradigm, may lead to unfair and misleading reviews. He goes on to explain that when a teacher teaches in conformation to a certain paradigm, his educational responsibilities, teaching strategies, etc. are determined by the paradigm he/she follows. When an instructor following a certain paradigm is reviewed by a peer who follows another paradigm, there is a high possibility of unfair review. Therefore, as McManus points out, there is a need to align appropriate tools in peer review to address the issues of paradigm choice. References Bell, A, Mladenovic, R, Segara, R 2010, ‘Supporting the reflective practice of tutors: what do tutors reflect on’, Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 57-70. Bernstein, D, Burnett, A, Goodburn, A & Savory, P, Making Teaching and Learning Visible: Course Portfolios and the Peer Review of Teaching, Industrial and Management Systems Engineering Faculty Publications, University of Nebraska Lincoln, viewed 29 November 2011, http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/imsefacpub/64/. Blackmore, JA 2005, ‘A critical evaluation of peer review via teaching observation within higher education’, International Journal of Educational Management, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 218-23. Borg, S 1999, ‘Studying teacher cognition in second language grammar teaching’, System, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 19-31. CELT, 2011, Summative Peer Evaluation of Teaching: Literature Review and Best Practices, Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, viewed 29 November 2011, http://www.celt.iastate.edu/pet/homepage.html. Cosh, J 2002, ‘Peer observation in higher education – A reflective approach’, Innovations in Education and Training International, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 171-176. Donnelly, R 2007, ‘Perceived impact of peer observation of teaching in higher education’, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 117-129. Fernandez, CE, Yu, J 2007, ‘Peer review of teaching’, The Journal of Chiropractic Education, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 154–161. Fernandez, CE, Yu, J 2007, ‘Peer review of teaching’, The Journal of Chiropractic Education, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 154–161. Gibbs, G & Coffey, M 2001, ‘The impact of training on university teachers’ approaches to teaching and on the way their students’ learn’, EARLI Symposium 2001, Training University Teachers to Improve Student Learning. Gilbert, K 2011, Benefits of PROT, EKU Libraries, viewed 29 November 2011, http://libguides.eku.edu/content.php?pid=146190&sid=1242749. Goldberg, LR, Parham, DF, Coufal, KL, Maeda, M, Scudder, RR & Sechtem, PR 2010, ‘Peer review: The importance of education for best practice’, Journal of College Teaching & Learning, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 71-84. Gosling, D 2002, Models of Peer Observation of Teaching, LTSN Generic Center, viewed 29 November 2011, http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/resource_database/id200_Models_of_Peer_Observation_of_Teaching Hatzipanagos, S, Lygo-Bake, S 2006, ‘Teaching Observations: A Meeting of Minds?’, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 97-105. Hubbal, H, Clark, A 2011, ‘Scholarly Approaches to Peer-Review of Teaching: Emergent Frameworks and Outcomes in a Research-Intensive University’, Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1–32. Hutchings, P 1996, ‘The peer review of teaching: Progress, issues and prospects’, Innovative Higher Education, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 221-234. Irby, DM 1983, ‘Peer review of teaching in medicine’, Journal of Medical Education, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 457-461. Jaon, FM 2000, Reflective Practice and Professional Development, Eric Digest, viewed 29 November 2011, http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/reflective.htm. Kahn, P, Young, R, Grace, S, Pilkington, R, Rush, L, Tomkinson, B & Willis, I 2006, The role and effectiveness of reflective practices in programmes for new academic staff: a grounded practitioner review of the research literature, UK: The Higher Education Academy, Manchester. Lomas, L, Kinchin, I 2006, ‘Developing a Peer Observation Program with University Teachers’, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 204-21. Loughran, JJ (ed) 1999, Researching teaching: methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy, Routledge, Oxon. Magno, C 2012, ‘Assessing Higher Education Teachers through Peer Assistance and Review’, The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 104–120. Maranhão, T 1992, ‘Reflection, dialogue and the subject’, in F Steier (ed), Research and reflexivity, Sage Publications, London. McKenzie, J, Pellicione, L & Parker, N 2008, ‘Developing peer review of teaching in blended learning environments: Frameworks and challenges’, Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008: Concise paper. McManu, DA 2001, ‘The Two Paradigms of Education and the Peer Review of Teaching’, Journal of Geoscience Education, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 423-434. Pellicione, L, Dixon, J, Siragusa, L, Howitt, C, Atweh, B, Dender, A, Jillian, S & McKenzie, J 2009, ‘Academic peer review: Enhancing learning environments for global graduates’, Teaching and learning forum 2009. Perlman, B, McCann, L 1998, Peer review of teaching – an overview, Society for the Teaching of Psychology, viewed 29 November 2011, http://www.teachpsych.org/otrp/resources/perlman98.pdf. Samson, S & McCrea, D 2008, ‘Using peer review to foster good teaching’, Reference Services Review, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 61-70. Saroyan, A & Amundsen, C 2001, ‘Evaluating university teaching: Time to take stock’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 341-353. Shaughnessy, MF 1994, Peer Review of Teaching, Opinion paper, viewed 29 November 2011, http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED371689&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED371689. Sparks-Langer, GM & Colton, AB 1991, ‘Synthesis of Research on Teachers' Reflective Thinking’, Educational Leadership, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 37-44. Webb, G 1996, Understanding staff development, The Society for Research into Higher Education & the Open University Press, Buckingham Weimer, M 1990, Improving college teaching: Strategies for developing instructional effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Read More