Peer Observation of Teaching: Perceptions of the Observer and the Observed

Author(s): Gary F. Kohut, Charles Burnap and Maria G. Yon

Source: College Teaching, Vol. 55, No. 1 (Winter, 2007), pp. 19-25
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27559301 .
Accessed: 11/01/2015 20:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to College
Teaching.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 122.200.2.50 on Sun, 11 Jan 2015 20:28:51 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PEER OBSERVATION

OF TEACHING

OF THEOBSERVERAND THEOBSERVED
PERCEPTIONS
Gary F. Kohut, Charles Burnap, and Maria G. Yon

the external validation associated

peer observation of teaching is
forum,
Abstract. While with research, and the existing peer review

regarded as an important part of a faculty member's argue that the definition

process. Some and
measurement of effective are

promotion and tenure portfolio, littlehas been reported

teaching
ambiguous and
subjective (Cavanagh
on its usefulness. Results from this study indicate that 1996; Dilts 1980; Kumaravadivelu 1995;
Richlin and Manning 1996), and that the
both observers and observ?es value the peer observa evaluation is unsystematic (Seldin 1984).
tion process, are neutral about the adequacy of observ Others believe thatonce clearly identified
and criteria are estab
er training, use a variety of observation instruments but goals, expectations,
lished, the evaluation of effective teaching
favor the written narrative, and believe their peer is possible (Braskamp and Ory 1994;
Cashin 1996; Gray, Adam, Froh, andYonai
observation instruments are an effective measure of 1994; Peterson 2000).

teaching. Although observers feel more stress about Although faculty are largely internally
motivated and become more self-refer
peer observations than observ?es, both groups experi enced in their careers (Maehr and
ence minimal stress in participating in observations. Braskamp 1994), they still need the sup
port and feedback of their colleagues to
Both groups also believe that peer observation reports
develop as scholars. Only collectively do
are valid and useful. faculty have the experience and standards
that are both credible and useful to indi
vidual faculty. Thus, peer evaluation needs
is considered tobe of primary pointment, promotion, tenure, and com
Teaching to be an essential element in any faculty
importance at many institutions of pensation (Cross 1986). Despite the claim evaluation system. Palmer (1997) argues
higher education, and it is therefore a that faculty evaluation also contributes to
that professionals need shared practice and
element of evaluation. Yet improved teaching, little evidence exists to
major faculty an honest in the
dialogue among people
the evaluation of teaching effectiveness is support this contention (Cross 1986; Glas As Centra
profession. argued,
wrought with controversy. For decades, sick,Huber, andMaeroff 1997; Pew High
Unless faculty members are to
evaluation has been conducted er Education Program 1989). Even with willing
faculty to stu
leave the evaluation of
largely to make judgments about reap the substantial body of literature on the teaching
dents, who possess only a limited view, or
evaluation of teaching, there appears to be
to administrators, who often don't have
Gary F. Kohut is a professor in theDepartment of little agreement on how to define and mea the time or necessary then
background,
at the University ofNorth Carolina at to invest their time in
Management sure effective teaching in colleges and uni they must be willing
Charlotte. Charles Burnap is an associate professor believe that efforts in peer evaluation of teaching.
versities. Indeed, many faculty
of mathematics at UNC Charlotte. Maria G. Yon is (1986, 1)
an at UNC
it is far easier to evaluate the quality of
associate professor of education
Charlotte. research than of teaching associated with Evidence of effective teaching is essen
Copyright ? 2007 Heldref Publications research because of the established public tial to a faculty member's promotion and

Vol. 55/No. 1 19

This content downloaded from 122.200.2.50 on Sun, 11 Jan 2015 20:28:51 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 tenure portfolio to be reviewed by peers. (Beaty 1998; Race 2001). Considering its dents within the past twentyyears. There
However, asMagin (1998), Braskamp and importance
as evidence of effective has also been a greater
emphasis placed

Ory (1994), and Edgerton (1993) have teaching, it is critical that the peer obser on research at the university: UNC Char

observed, teachers have little experience vation process be valid and reliable. Thus, lotte has been reclassified as a Research
collecting and presenting evidence about the processes of observation and evalua II educational institutionby theCarnegie
their teaching. To present a
comprehen tion require a very high degree of profes Foundation and now offers nine doctoral

sive picture, the teaching section of the sional ethics and objectivity, and training programs in addition to baccalaureate and

portfolio usually includes several "arti in observational and analytical skills. master's programs in its seven colleges.
facts of teaching" (Edgerton, Hutchings, The literatureavailable is helpful as a The growth and reclassification of the
and Quinlan 1991, 9). These artifactsmay source of recommendations for develop university have placed
new demands on

include course syllabi, teachingmaterials, ing

a peer observation process (Braskamp its faculty.Research is now the primary
teacher-developed tests, student journals and Ory 1994; Dilts, Haber, and Bialik focus within the university, but teaching
or diaries,
videotapes of teaching, peer 1994;Mento and Giampetro-Meyer 2000; is still a priority.
observation reports, samples of student Ory 2000; Peterson, Kelly, and Caskey Peer observation has become an inte

work, and student course evaluations. 2002). Suggestions include involving gral part of the evaluation of untenured
Additional evidence of teaching effective multiple observers; having multiple class faculty in theUNC system. In 1994, the
ness may include a statement of one's room visits; offeringextensive trainingfor North Carolina General Assembly
teaching philosophy and narratives that observers; following professional ethical required that classroom observations of

help interpretthe artifacts. guidelines; and using

a process character untenured faculty be used as part of the
Colleagues are apparently better able to ized by planning, open communication, evidence presented for reappointment,

judge the research productivity of fellow feedback, and trust.

Yet we know little tenure, and promotion decisions. At

faculty than evaluations of teaching or ser about how those faculty members most UNC Charlotte, each college or depart
vice. Kremer (1990) reported that evalua intimately involved in peer observation ment was given the freedom to develop
tionsof teaching had lower reliabilitywhen perceive the process?the observers and its own peer observation process within
said were less confident those members who are a set of broad guide These
colleagues they faculty required guidelines.
about the basis for the evaluation. Many to be observed. This study follows an ear lines generally require a pre-observation

scholars have insisted that certain aspects lier examination of theperceptions of peer meeting,
a classroom observation, and a
of teaching can assessed
be only by class reviewers?deans, chairs, and peer review post-observation meeting. The process
room observation (Hart 1987) or analysis committee members?who are involved itself requires exchange and feedback
of videotapes (Perlberg 1983; Smith, inhigh-stakes decision making (Yon, Bur between observer and observ?e.

Hausken, Kovacevich, andMcGuire 1988). nap, and Kohut 2002). In this article, we We developed two surveys for this
However, peer observation usually examine the attitudes of the individuals study. One was mailed to every untenured
involves faculty peers that review an who were observed and those who con or newly tenured facultymember whose
instructor's class ducted classroom observations. classroom was observed as part of the pro
performance through
room observation as well as examination of The main goals of this study were to motion and tenure; this group included
instructional materials and course design. compare the perceptions of observers and 163 individuals and, for brevity,will be
Observations of classroom behavior are those observed regarding the process of referred to as observ?es. The second sur

intendedfor reviewing the teachingprocess peer observation, the reporting of peer vey was sent to all 343 tenured faculty
and its possible relationship to learning. observations, the usefulness of peer obser members who may have conducted peer
The focus is generally on verbal and non vation as an evaluation tool, and whether observations and will be referred to as
verbal behaviors of both the instructorand eithergroup feels thattheprocess improves observers. The surveys were similar, but
the students in the classroom. teaching effectiveness. When combined not identical. In particular, untenured fac
While peer observation of teaching is with our earlier data, we
compared the ulty
were asked about the usefulness of
common in the British higher education importance that Reappointment/Promo documents occasionally included in an
system as a means of enhancing the qual tion/Tenure (RPT) committees (including individual's teaching portfolio; these
ity of teaching and learning (Fullerton administrators) and those observed place questions
were not appropriate for tenured

1999; Wankat and Oreovicz 1993), peer on peer observation reports as well as other faculty members who were conducting
observation in theUnited States has not documents or artifacts that may be present peer observations. The results will be
enjoyed such prominence. As Hutchings ed as evidence of effective teaching. reported and compared with RPT commit
(1996) observed, however, there is now a tee opinions in a later study.

growing body of practice related to the Method In this study, survey data was used to

peer review of teaching, a

powerful set of examine the perceptions of those individ
Sample and Procedure
players,
a
growing literature on the sub uals being observed (observ?es) and of
ject, and a sense that this is indeed an idea The research was conducted at the Uni those conducting the observations
whose time has come. A number of stud versity of North Carolina at Charlotte, an (observers). Specifically, theobjectives of
ies have linked peer observation of teach institution that has increased its enroll this were to ascertain whether
study
ing to enhancing professional practice ment from 10,000 to about 20,000 stu observers and observ?es:

20 COLLEGE TEACHING

This content downloaded from 122.200.2.50 on Sun, 11 Jan 2015 20:28:51 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 View pre- and as
post-observation
TABLE 1. Responses from Untenured and Tenured Faculty
being useful parts of the peer observa
tion process

Feel that adequate training has been College Frequency

provided to conduct peer observations

Experience stress through theirpartici Untenured (Observ?es)

pation in the peer observation process Architecture 3 3.8

View the peer observation as Arts and Sciences 46.3
37
reports
effective, valid, reliable, and valuable Business 7 8.1
or useful measures of teaching Education 20.0
16

Engineering 6 7.5
Additional objectives sought to under Information Technology 3 3.8
stand whether observers: Nursing and Health 5 6.3

Missing 3 3.8
Tend to be more comfortable making
Total 80 =100.0
constructive rather than critical com

ments in peer observation reports

Tenured (Observers)
Include suggestions for improvement
in peer observation Architecture 3 2.1
reports
Arts and Sciences 57.3
82
View the peer observation process as
Business 22 15.4
improving their own teaching and the Education 16 11.2
teaching of observ?es Engineering 7 4.9
Information Technology 2 1.4
Still other objectives attempted to and Health 4 2.8
Nursing
understand whether observ?es:
Missing 7 4.9

Perceive that only positive comments Total 143 100.0

are in theirpeer observation reports
View the suggestions for improvement,
if any, as helpful mean = 2.15) and service (observer mean narratives, video, and self-analysis (for
= observ?e mean = In our The combination of narrative,
View the peer observation process as 3.44; 3.44). observ?es).
first paper cited earlier, a survey of
improving theirown teaching
and was most
videotapes, self-analysis
administrators and RPT committees prevalent in theCollege of Education.
reflected similar results. At UNC Charlotte, colleges have adopt
Results
To expedite the analysis of survey ed an observation process that includes
We received eighty responses from items, we
grouped them into three cate pre-observation and post-observation
untenured faculty (a 49.1 percent gories: (1) those that pertain to the interviews. Research has identified the
response rate) and 143 responses from process of observation, (2) the peer importance of thesemeetings in the peer
tenured faculty (a 41.7 percent response observation reports themselves, and (3) observation process (Hammersley-Fletch
rate). Table 1 shows how these responses the impact of peer observation on teach er and Orsmond 2004; Hogston 1995;
were divided among the various colleges ing effectiveness. We are aware that these Martin and Double 1998). The pre-obser
of the university.We note that the large categories are not mutually exclusive, and vation interviewallows the observer to put
percentage of responses from arts and sci some questions could be placed inmore the observed class into a broader context,
ences is consistent with the relative size than one group or moved from one group while the post-observation interview
of this college compared to the other col to another. allows an exchange of ideas between

leges in the university. observer and observ?e. The observers

Because the peer observation
Peer Observation Process were asked to agree or disagree with a
process

plays a role in RPT decisions, we asked In each survey, we asked several ques series of statements. Responses
were

both tenured observers and untenured tions about the process employed in coded on a
five-point scale, with 1 repre
observ?es to rate the importance of teach classroom observation. For and 5 represent
example, senting strong agreement
ing, research, and service inmaking such each group was asked about the type of ing strong disagreement. The observ?es
decisions. were coded on a instrument used in its academic unit. As were asked to agree or with the
Responses disagree
five-point scale ranging from 1 (very the results indicate in table 2, both statements using the same scale.

important) to 5 (not important).Not sur observers and observ?es reported that the Findings reported in table 3 suggest
prisingly, results indicate that both written narrative = 60.5 that observers have a broad of feel
(observer per range
= trained to engage in
observers and observ?es regard research cent; observ?e 52.1 percent) was the ings about being
=
as most
important (observer mean 1.33; predominant instrument employed in classroom observations. While many feel
observ?e mean = their academic units, followed by check that theywere adequately trained, roughly
1.37), followed by
= 2.46; observ?e
teaching (observer mean lists and narratives (for observers) and an equal number report the opposite senti

Vol. 55/No. 1 21

This content downloaded from 122.200.2.50 on Sun, 11 Jan 2015 20:28:51 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 paired-sample Mest showed that the dif
TABLE 2. Observation Instruments Employed inAcademic Units con
ference in content level between

structive and critical comments was also

Type Observers (%) Observ?es (%) significant.

As indicated in table 4, observ?es
Checklist/RatingForm 4.0 5.6 believe that their observed classes were
Written Narrative =
representative of their teaching (mean
60.5 52.1
Self report/Self-analysis 1.6 1.4
Other
1.63). They also believe that peer
0.8 2.8
observers were trained (mean
Checklist and Narrative 18.5 5.6 adequately
= and that both pre-observation
Narrative, Video, and Self-analysis 6.5 19.7 2.74)
Other combinations of the above 8.1 12.8 = and post-observation meet
(mean 2.62)
=
ings (mean 1.97) are useful parts of the
classroom observation process. All of

these results were different from neutral

TABLE 3. Observer Feedback
at a 95 percent confidence level.
Observ?es were more neutral
nearly
Strongly Strongly about whether peer observers included
Agree Disagree comments in their observa
only positive
12 3 4 5 Mean
tion reports (mean = 3.2). Finally,
observ?es felt that having their classes
I have been 18.9% 18.0% 24.6% 17.2% 21.3% 3.04
trained
observed was minimally stressful (mean
appropriately
=
to conduct peer 3.38).
observations.
Peer Observation Reports
When I conduct a peer 36.8% 37.6% 17.1% 8.5% 0 1.97
I follow In each survey, we asked several ques
observation,
the peer observation tions about the usefulness of peer obser
guidelines. vation reports in the or
reappointment
Pre-observation 30.0% 32.5% 18.3% 10.0% 9.2% 2.36 tenure and promotion process. Recall that

meetings are a useful a valid data,

report accurately reports
part of the peer while a reliable report is consistent across
observation process. =
observers. The means of responses (1
36.7% =
Post-observation 35.0% 14.2% 6.70% 7.5% 2.13 strongly agree, 5 strongly disagree) for
meetings are a useful various statements are in table 5.
reported
part of the peer Both observers (mean = 2.77) and
obersvation process.
observ?es (mean = 2.56) felt that their
I am comfortable 41.1% 37.9% 11.3% 4.8% 4.8% 1.94 peer observation instrument was an effec
constructive
making tivemeasure of teaching and that the peer
comments in the
observation reports are valid (observer
reports I write.
mean = observ?e mean =
2.84; 2.62; sig
I am comfortable 22.4% 29.6% 18.4% 20.8% 8.8% 2.64 nificance at 0.114). It is interesting to
making critical
note that observers were more
comments in the pessimistic

reports I write. about the reliability of theirreports (mean

=
1.6% 19.2% 27.2% 29.6% 22.4% 3.52 3.56)?although they are not really in a
Conducting peer
position to know?than were the
observations is
observ?es =
stressful for me. (mean 2.73). Finally, both
observers = and observ?es
(mean 2.71)
=
(mean 2.33) believed thatpeer observa
ment (mean
=
3.04; neutral =
3). observation reports (mean = 1.94), but felt tion reports were both valuable and use
Observers reported that they follow the less so in making critical comments ful.All of the results were significant.
established guidelines for classroom =
(mean 2.64). Finally, observers felt that
observation defined by their academic peer observations was mini Perceptions of Teaching Improvement
conducting
unit (mean = 1.97). They believe thatboth mally stressful (mean
=
3.52). As part of the evaluative process
= and Mests show thateach of in
pre-observation (mean 2.36) post Single-sample required reappointment, promotion,
observation = are these results, with the exception of the and tenure decisions, theNorth Carolina
meetings (mean 2.13)
useful to the classroom observation question on adequate training, is signifi General Assembly mandated classroom
=
process. Observers also felt more com
cantly different from neutral (mean observation. Researchers have pointed to
fortablemaking constructive comments in 3.00) at a 95 percent confidence level. A the value of such observations as addi

22 COLLEGE TEACHING

This content downloaded from 122.200.2.50 on Sun, 11 Jan 2015 20:28:51 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 written and 14 percent indicated they
TABLE 4. Observ?e Feedback were oral; approximately 21 percent of
observ?es indicated that comments were
written and 6 percent indicated theywere
oral. There results indicate that partici

pants in the peer observation process may

find it easier to communicate comments
The observed classes 54.2% 31.9% 11.1% 2.8% 0 1.63 in writing because it appears to be less
were representative of
direct and less challenging.
my teaching.
The observ?es were then asked if sug
Peer observershave 11.4% 27.1% 42.8% 12.9% 5.7% 2.74
gestions were helpful and if the peer
adequate training.
observation process helped improve their
Pre-observation 21.7% 30.4% 21.7% 15.9% 10.1% 2.62 reported that the
teaching. Observ?es
are a useful
meetings
suggestions for improvement were help
part of the peer
ful (mean = 2.40) and that their own
observation process.
teaching improved as a result of these
Post-observation 37.7% 36.2% 18.8% 5.8% 1.4% 1.97 =
are a useful
suggestions (mean 2.89).
meetings were then asked if the
The observers
part of the peer
observation process. peer observation process improved their
own teaching and the teaching skills of
Peer observers tend to 5.7% 20.0% 34.3% 28.6% 11.4% 3.2
those observed. Interestingly, the
include only positive
comments in their observers felt stronger about the peer
reports. observation process improving their own
=
11.3% 14.1% 21.1% 32.4% 21.1% 3.38 teaching (mean 2.75) than they did
Having my classes
observed was stressful. about improving the teaching of the
=
observ?es (mean 2.93). Although the
difference between these two means is rel

small, a Mest
atively paired-sample gives
TABLE 5. Usefulness of Peer Observation Reports a two-tailed significance of 0.071 to this
difference. (With 93 percent confidence,
Observers (Mean) Observ?es (Mean) this difference is statistically significant.)

Peer Observation Instrumentis 2.77 2.56 Discussion

an effective measure of teaching. As the debate about the validity of col
Peer Observation are valid. 2.84 2.62 leagues' evaluations of classroom teach
Reports
ing for personnel decisions continues,
Peer Observation Reports are 3.56 2.73
more insight is needed concerning the
reliable.
relative value of peer observations in
Peer Observation Reports are 2.71 2.33
making personnel decisions and improv
valuable/useful.
ing teaching. Rinehart (1993) reminds us
that such can
"performance appraisals"
Note. Valid = accurate; reliable = consistent. Neutral would be 3. Numbers less than 3 show agreement.
serve as demotivators, resulting in stifled
initiative, little innovation, and reduced
teamwork. At its beginning, teaching
tional evidence of teaching effectiveness observation process was
perceived
as evaluation was driven by administrative
(Bell 2002; Braskamp and Ory 1994; improving teaching. rather than faculty and student needs. In
French-Lazovik 1981; Martin and Dou Observers and observ?es were each recent years, however, several new

ble 1998; Millis 1987; Morehead and asked if suggestions for improvement or demands for teaching evaluation have
Shedd 1997). This process is unavoidably alternate teaching methods were given. emerged: public demand for greater
summative in nature. That is, classroom Approximately three-quarters of respon accountability in higher education, a
= interest in the
observation was used in making person dents (observers 77.2 percent; resurgence of national
nel decisions. We were interested in observ?es = 72.9 percent) indicated that improvement of undergraduate educa

determining whether it also had a forma such suggestions

were
given. Next, those tion, and a desire to make teaching evalu

tive aspect. Formative evaluation is who reported that suggestions were given ation fairer, more accurate, and factored

designed to improve teaching perfor were then asked how these suggestions into collegiate reward structures.

mance. To this end, our survey included were made. With respect to observers, 21 Findings in this investigation are
several questions to investigate if the peer percent indicated that comments were grouped under three areas: the peer obser

Vol. 55/No. 1 23

This content downloaded from 122.200.2.50 on Sun, 11 Jan 2015 20:28:51 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
vation process, peer observation
and perceptions of teaching improve
ment. First, within the process,
dents were asked about the instruments
currentlybeing used in theirdepartments
and their perceptions concerning the
value of the process. With all thepossible
combinations of teaching styles and
effective teaching characteristics, univer
sity teaching is clearly a complex activity
that requires a flexible, cogent system of
evaluation. Results of this study support
this assertion by noting that varied types
of peer observation instruments were
being used. Clearly, although the narra
tive form is themost preferred, it is fre
quently combined with other forms such
as video, checklists, and self-analysis.
This finding suggests a need for instru
ments to be flexible to accommodate var
ious teaching styles.
Interestingly, both observers and
reports, (1994) have posited, are vital concerns in
the process. The results of our study sup
respon port the work that suggests colleagues
who trust and respect each other can be
valuable in helping improve each other's
teaching (Austin 1992a and 1992b; Bern
stein, Jonson, and Smith 2000; Centra
1986; Rice and Cheldelin 1989; Wool
wine 1988). In the development of peer
observation reports, respondents
were
asked about the validity, reliability, and
usefulness of such reports. The results of
our study indicate that faculty expressed
trust in the process, as evidenced by their
willingness to offerboth constructive and
critical comments in peer observation
reports and through theirpositive percep
tions of validity and reliability of thepeer
observation reports.Logic suggests that if
the appraisal of teaching is to be effec
tive, itmust employ data that is perceived
to be both valid and reliable by observ?es,
Bernstein and Edwards (2001) have
argued that peer review of teaching has
not made much progress into the routine
of academic life because some faculty
believe the process takes inordinate
amounts of time, provoking skepticism
that such efforts will get noticed or
rewarded, given the dominant role of stu
dent evaluations in assessing teaching
performance. These arguments have been
supported in this and other studies. One
way to overcome such problems and give
peer review the credibility it deserves is
by developing a network of shared expe
riences among academic institutions and
understanding both the breadth and depth
of the process (Hammersley-Fletcher and
Orsmond 2004). Also, peer observation
needs to be linked to faculty reward struc
tures. Finally, multicampus conversations
on peer review could significantly
increase our
understanding of what con

observ?es reported that they valued the observers, and peer reviewers, and this stitutes excellent teaching and how to
peer observation process and the pre- and should exist in some systematic way measure it.

post-observation meetings, and followed (such as in peer observation reports).

the established guidelines. This may be Both observers and observ?es noted that Key words: classroom observation, facul
due in large part to faculty participating suggestions for improvement or alternate ty observation, peer review
in the process and creating guidelines in teaching methods were given and that
their respective academic units. Such par most of the informationwas given orally REFERENCES
ticipation is clearly advocated in the and inwriting to the facultymember. This A. E. 1992a. Supporting
Austin, junior faculty
available literature (Bernstein, Jonson, flexibilitymay point to thedifficulty some through a teaching fellows program. InNew
and Smith 2000; Braskamp and Ory faculty have when communicating
con directions for teaching and learning, No.
50: Developing new and junior faculty, ed.
1994; Travis 1997). structive information inwriting.
M. D. Sorcinelli and A. E. Austin, 73-86.
This investigation also found varied Clearly, faculty and administrators San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
responses to the trainingof observers. Such must shift from defining effective teach-.
1992b. the professor as
Supporting
a finding may point to the need tomore ing as thatwhich is based on demonstrat teacher:The Lilly Teaching Fellows Pro
explicitly trainfaculty in classroom obser ed competence to thatwhich is based on gram. Review of Higher Education
vation techniques. Hammersley-Fletcher documented achievement. The documen 16:85-106.

and Orsmond (2004), Manning (1986), and tation of effective teaching is viewed as Beaty, L. 1998. The professional development
of teachers in higher education: Structures,
Hogston (1995) all point to the benefits of encompassing a wide range of activities methods, and responsibilities. Innovations
trainingobservers. Faculty who are trained that contribute to the quality of teaching in Education and Training International 35
in observation techniques
or have experi and learning in an educational institution. (2): 99-107.
ence in observing and offeringfeedback to With no universal set of agreed-upon Bell, M. 2002. Peer observation of teaching in
Australia. Paper for LTSN Generic Centre,
faculty generally are more competent activities, one goal of a peer observation
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources.asp
(Centra 1993, 1975) and may become process should be to develop a clear
?process=full_record&section=generic&id
more accurate observers of their colleagues understanding of what is required to doc =28/ (accessed January 9, 2005).
andmore insightfulof theirown abilities as ument achievements. In this study, both Bernstein, D., and R. Edwards. 2001. We need
teachers (Keig andWaggoner 1994). How observers and observ?es noted that con objective, rigorous peer review of teaching.
Chronicle ofHigher Education 47 (17): B24.
ever, such training is not often provided ducting or participating in peer observa
Bernstein, D. J., J. Jonson, and K. Smith.
because of the lack of institutionalsupport, tion was not very stressful, and both 2000. An examination of the implementa
faculty time, and interest. Furthermore, groups noted that their own teaching tion of peer review of teaching. In Evaluat
observ?es may not know whether faculty improved as a result of theirparticipation ing teaching in higher education: A vision

members have been trained. in the process. Perhaps clear communica for the future, ed. K. E. Ryan, 73-86. San
Francisco:
It is likely that the peer observation tion and expectations as well as participa Jossey-Bass.
Braskamp, L. A., and J. C. Ory. 1994. Assess
process will influence how teaching is tion from the outset ameliorated the
ingfaculty work: Enhancing individual and
regarded in personnel decisions. Trust effects of stress and helped participants institutional performance. San Francisco:
and credibility, as Braskamp and Ory see the value of observation. Jossey-Bass.

24 COLLEGE TEACHING

This content downloaded from 122.200.2.50 on Sun, 11 Jan 2015 20:28:51 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Cashin, W. E. 1996. Developing an effective Hart, F. R. 1987. Teachers teachers. Jossey-Bass.
observing
faculty evaluation system. Manhattan: Cen In Teaching at an urban university, ed. J.H. Palmer, P. J. 1997. The courage to teach. San
ter for Faculty Evaluation and Develop Broderick, 15-24. Boston: Center for the Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
ment, Kansas State University. Improvement of Teaching, University of Perlberg, A. 1983. When professors confront
Cavanagh, R. R. 1996. Formative and summa Massachusetts at Boston. themselves: Towards a theoretical concep
tive evaluation in the faculty peer review of Hogston, R. 1995. Evaluating quality nursing tualization of video self-confrontation in
teaching. Innovative Higher Education 20 care through peer review and reflection: higher education. Higher Education 12 (6):
(4): 235-40. The findings of a qualitative study. Interna 633-63.
Centra, J. 1975. Colleagues as raters of class tional Journal of Nursing Studies 32 (2): Peterson, K. D. 2000. Teacher evaluation: A
room instruction. Journal of Higher Educa 162-72. comprehensive guide to new directions and
tion 46:327-37. Hutchings, P. 1996. The peer review of teach practices. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
-. 1986. Colleague evaluation: The crit issues, and prospects. Innov Corwin Press.
ing: Progress,
ical link. Paper presented at the annual ative Higher Education 20 (4): 221-34. Peterson, K. D., P. Kelly, and M. Caskey.
meeting of the American Educational Keig, L. W, and M. D. Waggoner. 1994. Col 2002. Ethical considerations for teachers in
Research Association, San Francisco. ERIC laborative peer review: The role of faculty the evaluation of other teachers. Journal of
Document Reproduction Service no. in improving college teaching. ASHE-ERIC Personnel Evaluation in Education
275722. Higher Education Report, no. 2. Eric Docu 16:317-24.
-. 1993. evaluation. ment Reproduction Service no. 378925. Pew Education Research
Reflective faculty Higher Program.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kremer, J. 1990. Construct validity of multiple 1989. The business of the business. Policy
Cross, K. P. 1986. Using assessment to measures in teaching, research, and service Perspectives 1:1-7.
improve instruction. Cambridge, MA: Har and reliability of ratings. Journal of Educa Race, P. 2001. The lecturer's toolkit. 2nd ed.
vard University. ERIC Document Repro tional Psychology 82 (2): 213-18. London: Kogan Page.
duction Service no. 284296. Kumaravadivelu, B. 1995. A multidimensional Rice, R. E., and S. I. Cheldelin. 1989. The
Dilts, D. A. 1980. A statistical interpretation model for peer evaluation of teaching effec knower and the known: Making the connec
of student evaluation feedback. Journal of tiveness. Journal of Excellence in College tions. Evaluation of the New Jersey Master
Economic Education 11 (2): 10-15. Teaching 6:95-113. Faculty Program. South Orange: New Jer
Dilts, D. A., L. J. Haber, and D. Bialik. 1994. Maehr, M. L., and L. A. Braskamp. 1994. The sey Institute for Collegiate Teaching and

Assessing what professors do: An introduc motivation factor: A theory of personal Learning, Seton Hall University.
tion to academic performance appraisal in investment. San Francisco: New Lexington Richlin, L., and B. Manning. 1996. Using

higher education. Westport, CT: Green Press. portfolios to document teaching excellence.
wood Press. Magin, D. J. 1998. Rewarding good teaching: In Honoring exemplary teaching: New

Edgerton, R. 1993. The re-examination of fac A matter of demonstrated proficiency or directions for teaching and learning, no.

ulty priorities. Change 25 (4): 10-25. documented achievement? International 65, ed. M. D. Svinicki and R. J. Menges.

Edgerton, R., P. Hutchings, and K. Quinlan. Journal of Academic Development San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
1991. The teaching portfolio: Capturing the 3:124-35. Rinehart, G 1993. Quality education. Mil

scholarship of teaching. Washington, DC: Manning, R. F 1986. Evaluation strategies waukee: ASOQC Quality Press.
American Association for Higher Education. can be improved with peer observation. Seldin, P. 1984. Changing practices infaculty
French-Lazovik, G. 1981. Peer review: Docu School Administrator 43 (1): 14. evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
mentary evidence in the evaluation of Martin, G, and J. Double. 1998. Developing Smith, P., C. Hausken, H. Kovacevich, and M.

teaching. In Handbook of teacher evalua higher education teaching skills through McGuire. 1988. Alternatives for developing
tion, ed. J.Mi liman, 73-89. Newbury Park, peer observation and collaborative reflec teacher effectiveness. Seattle: School of
CA: Sage. tion. Innovations in Education and Training Education, Seattle Pacific University.
Fullerton, H. 1999. Observation of teaching. In International 35 (2): 161-69. Travis, J. E. 1997. Models
for improving col
in Mento, A. J., and A. Giampetro-Meyer. 2000. A faculty resource. AS HE
A handbook for teaching and learning lege teaching:
higher education, ed. H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, Peer observation of teaching as a true devel ERIC Higher Education Report, no. 6. Eric
and S. Marshall, 226-41. London: Kogan opmental opportunity. College Teaching 48 Document Reproduction Service No.

Page. (1): 28-31. 403811

Glassick, C. E., M. T. Huber, and G I. Millis, B. J. 1987. Colleagues helping col Wankat, P. C, and F. S. Oreovicz. 1993.
Maeroff. 1997. Scholarship assessed: Eval leagues: A
peer observation program Teaching engineering. New York: McGraw
uation of the professoriate. San Francisco: model. Journal of Staff, Program, and Hill.

Jossey-Bass. Organizational Development 7:15-21. Woolwine, D. E. 1988. New Jersey Master

and P. J. Shedd. 1997. Uti research South
Gray, P. J., B. E. Adam, R. C. Froh, and B. A. Morehead, J.W., Faculty Program report.
Yonai. 1994. Assigning and assessing faculty lizing summative evaluation through exter Orange, NJ: New Jersey Institute for Colle
work. New Directions for Institutional nal peer review of teaching. Innovative giate Teaching and Learning. Seton Hall
Research 84:79-91. Higher Education 22 (1): 37-44. University.
L., and P. Orsmond. Ory, J. C. 2000. Teaching evaluation: Past, Yon, M., C. Burnap, and G. Kohut. 2002. Evi
Hammersley-Fletcher,
2004. Evaluating our peers: Is peer obser present, and future. In Evaluating teaching dence of effective teaching: Perceptions of
vation a meaningful process? Studies in in higher education: A vision for the peer reviewers. College Teaching 50 (3):

Higher Education 29:489-503. future, ed. K. E. Ryan. San Francisco: 104-10.

Vol. 55/No. 1 25

This content downloaded from 122.200.2.50 on Sun, 11 Jan 2015 20:28:51 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions