jeff
Uploaded by
26 SLIDES
409 VUES
260LIKES

Effectiveness and Perceptions of a Peer Teaching Evaluation Program

DESCRIPTION

This study examines the implementation and effectiveness of a peer teaching evaluation program at Manchester University College of Pharmacy. The program emphasizes faculty development through evaluations based on various teaching aspects, including content organization, interaction, and the use of media. Faculty members expressed mixed feelings, with many reporting valuable insights while others sought more comprehensive feedback. The findings aim to enhance instructional practices and guide future developments in the evaluation process. For queries, contact Lorin Sheppard or Mary Kiersma.

1 / 26

Télécharger la présentation

Effectiveness and Perceptions of a Peer Teaching Evaluation Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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 BeingReviewed n = 15

  13. Faculty BeingReviewed n = 15

  14. Faculty as Reviewers n = 17

  15. Faculty as Reviewers n = 17

  16. Classes Evaluated

  17. Confidence

  18. 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

More Related