Summative Peer Review of Teaching Report

UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA – DEPARTMENT OF ASIAN STUDIES TEACHING PEER REVIEW REPORT – 12-MONTH LECTURER

DEPARTMENT OF ASIAN STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

SUMMATIVE PEER REVIEW OF TEACHING REPORT

12-MONTH LECTURER

For Reviewers

How to use this form:

1) After being assigned a review: Read through pages 2-3 for important background information.

2) At the pre-observation meeting: Share all pages with the reviewee at the pre-observation meeting and discuss how the form will be used in the peer review process.

3) During the observation(s) of teaching: Record your individual notes on pages 4-8. These pages can be shared between reviewers.

4) Prior to writing the report: Use the completed information on pages 4-8 to reflect on the reviewee’s teaching and to debrief the observation with the other reviewer. Then use the information to help craft your joint report. If you perform two observations of teaching, you will still write only 1 report but it will draw from the two observations of teaching you conducted jointly with the other reviewer.

5) When completing the joint report: Use pages 10-17 to complete the report which will be shared with the reviewee and submitted to the Department Head. Create a new file with only pages 10-17.

6) At the post-observation meeting: Share pages 10-17 with the reviewee.

7) Submitting the joint report to the Department Head: Submit pages 10-17 only to the Department Head. Please send a copy to the reviewee.

Information for Reviewers and Reviewees:

The information below is intended to help you understand how to use this form. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Isabeau Iqbal at or by phone at 604 827 0648.

Please also consult the Checklist for Reviewers and Checklist for Reviewees, which provides details about the overall Peer Review of Teaching process.

Guidelines for using this form:

A note about the distinction between the formative teaching consultations and the summative peer reviews of teaching.

The formative review is “reviewee-driven”. Reviewees are strongly encouraged to reflect on and discuss their approach to teaching and assessment, the course context and any specific challenges/issues. The summative review is “criteria-driven”.Reviewers and reviewees will go through all the criteria on the summative review form, in addition to discussing the reviewees’ approach to teaching, course content, specific challenges, etc.

Discussion of the blank form at or before the pre-observation meeting

Reviewees should be familiar with the criteria in this form as they are required to use a version of it in their second formative teaching consultation. Nevertheless, it is important that the reviewers and reviewees discuss the contents of this form prior to the observation. This will allow the reviewee to be familiar with the expectations and to highlight any areas that may not be applicable to their own teaching.

Reviewers should craft the report together

The report consists of pages 10-15 of this document (we recommend you create a separate document just with those pages). The reviewee should receive a single report that is jointly written by both reviewers. It is up to the reviewers to decide how best to craft the joint report. Please note that reviewers should not include written statements that indicate whether they would recommend or not recommend the instructor for reappointment.

Sharing the report at the post-observation meeting

Reviewers should share the report (pages 10-15) with the reviewee at the post-observation meeting. By sharing it at the meeting, and not beforehand, the reviewers and reviewee can develop a shared understanding of the comments. Some reviewers have found that sharing the report ahead of time leads to misunderstandings; as a result, the Department process is that the report be printed and shared at the post-observation meeting.

Passing the review

A successful Summative Review entails obtaining a cumulative score of at least 20/25 across all five categories with no more than two areas receiving less than a 4 on the Peer Review of Teaching Report.

A score of 1 or 2 in any one area will be considered an unsuccessful review.

Signing the report

Reviewees must sign the report at the post-observation meeting. They have the choice of:

1) Signing and accepting the report as is.

2) Signing and indicating they will dispute the report. Disputing the report means the instructor will submit a written response to the department head within 2 weeks of the post-observation meeting.

3) Signing and taking 5 business days to determine whether they want to respond. If the instructor opts to respond, s/he must submit their response within 2 weeks of the post-observation meeting.

Other

• The Reviewer should rate each set of criteria using the rating scale given below.

• The criteria are guidelines only and we trust that reviewers will use their best judgment to determine whether, in their particular case, these apply or not.

• For each set of criteria, the Reviewers should circle the appropriate rating, and provide written explanation of the assessment.

• Please provide a written overall review & additional comments at the end of the form or through an attachment.

Scale to use

N/A / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Not at all / Inconsistently / Adequately / Very well / Extremely well

(1) Course Materials

Please review the pedagogical value of the instructor’s course materials, considering criteria such as the following:

Reviewers: Please note that the numerical scale in this table is meant as a tool to keep track of your impressions of the specific criteria listed below. You are not expected to tabulate results from the table to derive an overall rating below.

Course materials are aligned with course overall goals and specific lesson objectives / N/A / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Materials are at the appropriate level of complexity
Course materials are up-to-date
Audio-visual materials support student learning
Homework assignments/exercises prepare learners for upcoming lessons
Homework assignments/exercises support learning from previous classes and course work.
Quizzes/exams/projects are aligned with course goals and session learning objectives
Grading criteria are clear and informative

Overall Rating:

N/A / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Not at all / Inconsistently / Adequately / Very well / Extremely well

Specific comments regarding the Instructor’s course materials:

(2) Opening and Closing of Class Session

Please review how the instructor began and ended the class session, considering criteria such as the following:

Starts class on time / N/A / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Begins in a manner that stimulates students’ interest and attention
Checks students’ prior knowledge of the topic
Clearly states purpose/objectives of the lesson
Presents overview of lesson sequence
Relates lesson to previously covered material
Summarizes/reviews major points and learning objectives
Links the content covered to upcoming lessons
Concludes on time

Overall Rating:

N/A / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Not at all / Inconsistently / Adequately / Very well / Extremely well

Specific comments regarding the opening and closing of class session:

(3) Language Instruction

Please review how effectively the Instructor fostered learning, considering criteria such as:

Use of target language is effective / N/A / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Maximizes use of target language at level appropriate for the class
Explanations of grammatical/linguistic structures are clear and concise
Introduction and reinforcement of vocabulary are comprehensive and engaging
Incorporates relevant and stimulating cultural elements
Demonstrates sensitivity to intellectual and cultural issues
Provides strong examples of target language usage (conventions, formalities, contextual and situational factors)
Integrates four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing) as appropriate to the lesson

Overall Rating:

N/A / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Not at all / Inconsistently / Adequately / Very well / Extremely well

Specific comments regarding the Instructor’s language instruction:

(4) Learner Engagement and Rapport

Please review how effectively the Instructor fostered learner engagement and rapport, considering criteria such as:

N/A / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Involves learners through a variety of activities
Is attentive to diverse learners
Encourages student questions and discussion
Periodically checks students’ comprehension
Responds appropriately to non-verbal cues of confusion, boredom and curiosity

Overall Rating:

N/A / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Not at all / Inconsistently / Adequately / Very well / Extremely well

Specific comments regarding ways the Instructor engages students and builds rapport:

(5) Instructional Strategies

Please review how effectively the Instructor fostered learner engagement and rapport, considering criteria such as:

N/A / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Stimulates interest in the course subject
Selects teaching techniques that are appropriate for stated learning objectives
Nurtures student-centered learning
Provides clear directions for practice, group work or other forms of active learning
Checks for student understanding regularly
Provides materials (e.g. handouts, presentation slides, board work etcetera) that support student learning
Effectively holds the class’ attention
Uses appropriate pacing

Overall Rating:

N/A / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Not at all / Inconsistently / Adequately / Very well / Extremely well

Specific comments regarding the instructional strategies used:

Overall Review:

(1) Course Materials Rating __/5

(2) Opening and Closing of Class Session Rating __/5

(3) Language Instruction Rating __/5

(4) Learner Engagement & Rapport Rating __/5

(5) Instructional Strategies Rating __/5

TOTAL: ______

Reminder:

Additional Comments:

Please provide an overall written review of the Instructor’s teaching and include any additional comments in the space below, or through an attached document.

DEPARTMENT OF ASIAN STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

SUMMATIVE PEER REVIEW OF TEACHING REPORT

12-MONTH LECTURER

FINAL REPORT

Instructor Name:
Rank: / Course Number:
Course Name:
Reviewer(s) Name & Rank: / Date of Review:
Duration of Class: / Class Location:
Nature of Teaching Observed: (e.g.,
lecture, discussion, performance / screening, seminar, tutorial, etc.)
/ Course Enrollment:
Number of Students in Attendance:

Reviewers:

We have met with the Instructor to discuss this peer review prior to submission.

Reviewer name:

Signature: ______Date: ______

Reviewer name:

Signature: ______Date: ______

Instructor:

Please check one:

☐ Option One: I do not intend to dispute this review.

☐ Option Two: I intend to dispute this review. (see Note 1)

☐ Option Three: I will take up to 5 business days to decide whether I will dispute this report. (see Note 1)

Note 1: If disputing, I understand that I need to submit a written response to the department head within two weeks of today.

Instructor name:

Signature: ______Date: ______

(1) Course Materials

Criteria:

· Course materials are aligned with course overall goals and specific lesson objectives

· Materials are at the appropriate level of complexity

· Course materials are up-to-date

· Audio-visual materials support student learning

· Homework assignments/exercises prepare learners for upcoming lessons

· Homework assignments/exercises support learning from previous classes and course work.

· Quizzes/exams/projects are aligned with course goals and session learning objectives

· Grading criteria are clear and informative

Comments:

Overall Rating:

N/A / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Not at all / Inconsistently / Adequately / Very well / Extremely well

(2) Opening and Closing of Class Session

Criteria:

· Starts class on time

· Begins in a manner that stimulates students’ interest and attention

· Checks students’ prior knowledge of the topic

· Clearly states purpose/objectives of the lesson

· Presents overview of lesson sequence

· Relates lesson to previously covered material

· Summarizes/reviews major points and learning objectives

· Links the content covered to upcoming lessons

· Concludes on time

Comments:

Overall Rating:

N/A / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Not at all / Inconsistently / Adequately / Very well / Extremely well

(3) Language Instruction

Criteria:

· Use of target language is effective

· Maximizes use of target language at level appropriate for the class

· Explanations of grammatical/linguistic structures are clear and concise

· Introduction and reinforcement of vocabulary are comprehensive and engaging

· Incorporates relevant and stimulating cultural elements