To: C&I Faculty
From: P. Roach, Visiting Professor of Education
Subject: Peer Review Overview
Date:
The Peer Review process continues to change and adapt to meet the needs of the
review and ways in which the review data is being used to update the curriculum
and improve services to students.
Objective of Peer Review:
---improve teaching and learning
---provide vehicle for continual updating/revision of curriculum
---provide vehicle for addressing program concerns
2000-2001—Although the peer review had been in use for about 7 or 8 years, the
focus on the peer review changed direction during this reporting period.
Several changes occurred which included: peer review members were
appointed to the committee by the Dean instead of election of members
as had been done previously. In addition, the decision was made to change
from a hard copy Portfolio to an electronic copy, with limited time for
professors to feel confident with the technology required. As a result, there
was confusion over the purpose and the new direction of the review. Faculty
reported their stress and personal concerns to the chair of the Peer Review
Committee through comprehensive comments on an Evaluation of Peer
Review Process questionnaire. (See Folder Peer Review 2001)
2001-2002—Peer Review process began by establishing purpose for Peer Review.
The group returned to the 2 major purposes and elected Peer Review
Committee. Findings of the committee focused on program objectives.
Each program was analyzed in terms of teacher candidates’ perception
of course objectives taught and objectives met. Data collected included:
EDED 11 objectives reviewed 5 objectives met 45%
ECED 144 objectives reviewed 141 objectives met 98%
MLED 55 objectives reviewed 40 objectives met 73%
10 objectives not evaluated
SEED 90 objectives reviewed 89 objectives met 98%
Each faculty member was interviewed and asked to discuss strengths
and concerns of their courses and their program in general. In addition,
each faculty member was asked about preferred methods of instruction,
how technology was used in their classrooms, how they included diversity
issues in courses taught and the most common methods of evaluation.
(See Folder Peer Review-2002)
2002-2003—Peer Review process began by establishing purpose for Peer Review.
The group decided to add an additional purpose of “ providing way to
report changes to whole group rather than just focus on individual
programs” as had been done in the past. Findings of the committee
continued to focus on program objectives. Each program was analyzed
in terms of teacher candidates’ perception of course objectives taught
and objectives met. Data collected included:
ECED 144 objectives reviewed 141 objectives met 98%
Those objectives not met were due to changes that had been
made in the courses, but had not been reflected in a new
evaluation form.
MLED 65 objectives reviewed 64 objectives met 98%
Objective not met was one concerning use of democratic values;
professor reported that she had made adejustment in content/
approach to more clearly reflect objective.
SEED 90 objectives reviewed 89 objectives met 98%
Objective not met concerned computer application. The
Objective has been clarified to reflect the change in the course.
Each faculty member was interviewed and asked to discuss strengths
and concerns of their courses as well as their program in general. In
addition each faculty member was asked to complete a paper survey
indicating methods, technology, and assessment strategies most commonly
used in their courses as well as the most common strategies used to teach
students about issues of diversity. The information was compiled by
programs and shared with faculty in a general C&I faculty meeting.
(See Folder Peer Review-2003)
2003-2004—Peer Review process began by establishing purpose for Peer Review.
The group agreed to the three purposes established previously. Findings
of the committee continued to focus on program objectives. Each program
was analyzed in terms of teacher candidates’ perception of course taught
and objectives met. Data collected included:
ECED 220 objectives reviewed 218 objectives met 99%
MLED 20 objectives reviewed 20 objectives met 100%
SEED 90 objectives reviewed 89 objectives met 99%
In addition, each faculty member was asked to complete an electronic
survey to show most common methods, use of technology, evaluation
strategies, and approaches to diversity used by each program. This
information was disaggregated by program and shared with each group
to provide a better understanding of each program as a whole. The
information was shared in a general faculty meeting. (See Folder
Peer Review—2004)