The Role of Colleagues in the Evaluation of College Teaching

Cohen, Peter A.; McKeachie, Wilbert J.

doi:10.1080/00193089.1980.10533656

Cited by 59 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, many official peer observations forms contain vague statements such as “Comment on student involvement and interaction with the instructor” or ask whether the instructor was “well prepared” (Table 5; Millis, 1992; Brent and Felder, 2004). When we compare these types of questions with the components of teaching that are best evaluated by peers (Cohen and McKeachie, 1980), we see little overlap (Table 5). This observation has resulted in many universities encouraging the use of collaborative processes rather than simple peer observations (Table 6).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making the Grade: Using Instructional Feedback and Evaluation to Inspire Evidence-Based Teaching

Gormally

Martella

2016

LSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making the Grade: Using Instructional Feedback and Evaluation to Inspire Evidence-Based Teaching

Gormally

Martella

2016

LSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For practical reasons, raters are not likely to be as familiar with an appraisee's teaching as the students or the appraisee. Consequently, sampling bias is considered to be a potential problem (Cohen & McKeachie, 1981;Doyle, 1975;Scriven, 1987).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lecturing Performance Appraisal Criteria: Staff and Student Differences

Fisher

Alder

Avasalu

1998

Australian Journal of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T HE assessment of academic staff teaching performance is an area of considerable concern and debate. The questions revolve around what should be assessed and by whom. In this study. the ratings of academic staff and tertiary students in a new institution were compared on 21 criteria of lecturing. Analysis of variance demonstrated that the academics placed significantly greater importance than students on a range of performance criteria (e.g. non-sexist language. independent learning, challenging the world View).with the students placing greater importance on one criterion--pace of the presentation. Separate factor analyses of the ratings by staff and students demonstrated differences in the schematic models of these two groups. They agree that the criteria are important, but portray different pictures of the ways in which the criteria combine to produce the understanding of what is a good lecture.The findings of this study contribute to the questions on the assessment of academic staff performance. This study demonstrates that staff and students differ significantly in their interpretations of what is to be measured in the assessment of a good lecture. These findings raise questions regarding the use of student and staff ratings in performance appraisal.Since the late 1980s, there has been a movement within Australian higher education towards a formal system of academic staff appraisal. The then Education Minister, John Dawkins (1988), set out in his policy statement on higher education a requirement of tertiary institutions to initiate systematic procedures for summative staff appraisal to facilitate the rewarding of excellence, assist decision making about tenure and promotion, and ensure accountability of academic staff

show abstract

“…Identified articles and evaluation instruments were reviewed and all items were compiled into a master list. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] Prior to creating our own instrument, the Taskforce members deconstructed the elements of the Department's educational philosophy; these ultimately served as the blueprint for our evaluation instrument. The prototype for our peer-evaluation tool was constructed by linking each unique component of our educational philosophy with items from the master list that would best evaluate that component.…”

Section: Development Of the Poetmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a Peer Teaching-Assessment Program and a Peer Observation and Evaluation Tool

Trujillo¹,

DiVall²,

Barr³

et al. 2008

Am J Pharm Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives. To develop a formalized, comprehensive, peer-driven teaching assessment program and a valid and reliable assessment tool. Methods. A volunteer taskforce was formed and a peer-assessment program was developed using a multistep, sequential approach and the Peer Observation and Evaluation Tool (POET). A pilot study was conducted to evaluate the efficiency and practicality of the process and to establish interrater reliability of the tool. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated. Results. ICCs for 8 separate lectures evaluated by 2-3 observers ranged from 0.66 to 0.97, indicating good interrater reliability of the tool. Conclusion. Our peer assessment program for large classroom teaching, which includes a valid and reliable evaluation tool, is comprehensive, feasible, and can be adopted by other schools of pharmacy.

show abstract

The Role of Colleagues in the Evaluation of College Teaching

Cited by 59 publications

References 21 publications

Making the Grade: Using Instructional Feedback and Evaluation to Inspire Evidence-Based Teaching

Making the Grade: Using Instructional Feedback and Evaluation to Inspire Evidence-Based Teaching

Lecturing Performance Appraisal Criteria: Staff and Student Differences

Development of a Peer Teaching-Assessment Program and a Peer Observation and Evaluation Tool

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About