Role Component and the Minimum Standard of Performance - Essay Example

Various universities have formulated peer evaluation guidelines suited to the unique teaching situations existing within their departments, always with the acquiescence of faculty. The process of peer review is generally implemented in ways that are tied to individual career enhancement, as well as departmental objectives and institutional mission.
Peers usually form the primary source of data for “content expertise”, an important component of the “teaching” role of the faculty. Assessment of this role component should be based on 3 qualities namely, currency, accuracy, and inclusiveness.

Agatucci et al. (1995), describe “content expertise” as “knowledge, preparation, and understanding of the subject” (p.6) and stipulate certain criteria for the same, including (1) demonstration of a strong foundation in the content and skills of the subject being taught; (2) evidence to suggest that the instructor stays abreast of current knowledge and new developments in the subject matter field; (3) demonstration of the knowledge of the applicability of subject matter to other disciplines; (4) evidence to suggest that the instructor makes effective use of the appropriate library, multimedia, laboratory, technological and other resources, and (5) evidence to show that the instructor is willing to implement innovations, and to revise and refresh course content with contemporary knowledge. Thus, content expertise evaluation, in essence, determines the level of skills, competencies, and knowledge the instructor possesses in a specific subject area in which (s)he has acquired higher education, training, and /or experience.

The minimum standard of performance for the above-listed criteria should be Criterion #1. The quality of the content taught is a reflection of the instructor’s mastery of the subject. Therefore, an effective teacher should know the subject well enough to provide sound and illuminating answers to any questions that the best student might ask on the subject. And, also be able to motivate the students to engage in a keen discussion on the topic. Hence, the minimum standard of performance evaluation required should be “very good” or above on the performance scale of “Superior” (5), “Very Good” (4), “Good” (3), “Satisfactory” (2), and “Deficient” (1), because competent teaching involves a thorough understanding of the subject on the part of the teacher.

Criterion #2. The minimum standard required should be at least “Good” since teaching excellence is demonstrated where there is a scholarly approach to teaching. And this is possible only when the teacher keeps current with developments in the subject field and provides up-to-date knowledge to the students.

For Criteria #3, #4, and #5, as a minimum standard, teachers should be evaluated as “Satisfactory” or above. Criteria #4 and #5 determine whether the teacher is motivated enough to utilize the latest technology to augment the learning environment of the students while criterion #3 would demonstrate if the teacher is well-read beyond the subject (s)he teaches so that (s)he can promote a holistic understanding of the subject by the students.

To summarize, peer review is a valuable tool in academic institutions as teaching is a community activity. For the process to be successful, it is important to establish the objectives and criteria for the peer review before conducting the evaluation, and ensure that those involved are fully cognizant of its purpose. Read More