Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Formative Peer Review of Teaching: Attitudes of Faculty at Liberal Arts Colleges Toward Colleague Assessment

  • Published:
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nearly all students of faculty evaluation agree that peer review should be part of a comprehensive program of faculty assessment. Faculty are particularly well qualified to critique their colleagues' teaching when the objective is to improve quality of instruction because they are in a position to assess several aspects of teaching better than students, academic administrators, and other constituencies of the academic community. Large proportions of faculty in this study indicated they would take part in four methods of formative peer review--classroom observation, videotaping of classes, evaluation of course materials, and assessment of their evaluation of the academic work of students--and they provide important information on factors that might detract from their participation, on conditions that might enhance the process, and on the benefits they and their students, colleagues, and institutions might receive as a result of their participation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrami, P.C. (1985). Dimensions of effective college instruction. Review of Higher Education, 8, 211-228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleamoni, L.M. (1981, March). Standards for evaluation of instruction. Note to the Faculty (No. 11). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Office of Instructional Research and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleamoni, L.M. (1987). Some practical approaches for faculty and administrators. In L. M. Aleamoni (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning: No. 31. Techniques for evaluating and improving teaching (pp. 75-78). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleamoni, L.M. (1999). Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(2), 153-166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arreola, R.A. (1984). Evaluation of faculty performance: Key issues. In P. Seldin (Ed.), Changing practices in faculty evaluation: A critical assessment and recommendations for improvement (pp. 79-85). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arreola, R.A. (1995). Developing a comprehensive evaluation system: A handbook for college faculty and administrators on designing and operating a comprehensive faculty evaluation system. Bolton, MA: Anker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, A.E. (1992a). Supporting junior faculty through a teaching fellows program. In M. D. Sorcinelli & A. E. Austin (Eds.), New directions for teaching and learning: No. 50. Developing new and junior faculty (pp. 73-86). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, A.E. (1992b). Supporting the professor as teacher: The Lilly Teaching Fellows Program. Review of Higher Education, 16, 85-106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J., Sweet, A., & Overholt, C. (1991). To see ourselves as others see us: The rewards of classroom observation. In C. R. Christiansen, D. A. Garvin, & A. Sweet (Eds.), Education for judgment: The artistry of discussion leadership (pp. 215-229). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, R.G. (1990). Faculty vitality beyond the research university. Journal of Higher Education, 61, 160-180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M.E., Dobson, E.C., & Gram, J.M. (1977). Peer evaluation as a method of faculty development. Journal of the College and University Personnel Administration, 28(4), 15-17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell, R., & McLean, M. (1996). Faculty observation of teaching and staff development. Higher Education Quarterly, 50(2), 156-171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, E.L. (1987). College: The undergraduate years, New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate, Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinko, K.T. (1993). The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: What is effective? Journal of Higher Education, 64, 574-593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britt, N., Jr. (1982). Faculty attitudes about colleague evaluation of teaching. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 5034A (University Microfilms No. 82-09886).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, S.C. (1981). Evaluation-based teacher development. In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 229-243). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulcock, J.W. (1984, June). Why can't we define good teaching? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Guelph, Ontario (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 248 207).

  • Cancelli, A. (1987, April). Methods for arriving at clinical judgments in peer evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 282 924).

  • Centra, J.A. (1979). Determining faculty effectiveness: Assessing teaching, research, and service for personnel decisions and improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centra, J.A. (1986, April). Colleague evaluation: The critical link. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 275 722).

  • Centra, J.A. (1993). Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chronicle of Higher Education (1997, August 29). Almanac Issue ( p. 26).

  • Cohen, P.A., & McKeachie, W.J. (1980). The role of colleagues in the evaluation of college teaching. Improving College and University Teaching, 28(4), 147-154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copeland, W.D., & Jamgochian, R. (1985). Colleague training and peer review. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 18-21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowen, D.L., Davis, G.L., & Bird, S.E. (1976, February). Peer review in medical education. Journal of Medical Education, 51, 130-131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, K.P. (1986a). A proposal to improve teaching-or-what taking teaching seriously should mean. AAHE Bulletin, 39(1), 9-14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, K.P. (1986b). Using assessment to improve instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 284 296).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressel, P.L. (1976). Faculty. In P. L. Dressel (Ed.), Handbook of academic evaluation (pp. 331-375). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellett, C.D., McMullen, J.H., Rugutt, J.K., & Culross, R.R. (1997, March). Linking personal learning environment, quality of teaching and learning, and learning efficacy: An initial study of college students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 410 770).

  • Eble, K.E. (1988). The craft of teaching: A guide to mastering the professor's art. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgerton, R. (1988). All roads lead to teaching. AAHE Bulletin, 40(8), 3-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgerton, R., Hutchings, P., & Quinlan, K. (1991). The teaching portfolio: Capturing the scholarship of teaching. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbow, P. (1980). One-to-one faculty development. In J. F. Noonan (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning: No. 4. Learning about teaching (pp. 25-40). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbow, P. (1986). Embracing contraries: Explorations in learning and teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fact Book on Higher Education. (1998). 1997 Edition (p. 151). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx.

  • Fairweather, J.S. (1993). Academic values and faculty rewards. Review of Higher Education, 17(1), 43-68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glassick, C.E., Huber, M.T., & Maeroff, G.I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golin, S. (1990). Four arguments for peer collaboration & student interviewing: The Master Faculty Program. AAHE Bulletin, 43(4), 9-10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, F.R. (1987). Teachers observing teachers. In J. H. Broderick (Ed.), Teaching at an urban university (pp. 15-24). Boston: University of Massachusetts at Boston (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 290 704).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgkinson, H. (1972). Unlock your doors, let your colleagues in: Faculty rewards and assessment systems. In J. Braun & T. A. Emmet (Eds.), The academic department and division chairman (pp. 208-215). Detroit: Balamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyt, D.P., & Howard, G.S. (1978). The evaluation of faculty development programs. Research in Higher Education, 8, 25-38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings, P. (1996). The peer review of teaching: Progress, issues and prospects. Innovative Higher Education, 20(4), 221-234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J., & Henry, M. (1988). Turning professors into teachers: A new approach to faculty development and student learning. New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keig, L.W. (1988). Faculty evaluation: Iowa Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Keig, L.W., & Waggoner, M.D. (1994). Collaborative peer review: The role of faculty in improving college teaching (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 2). Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keig, L.W., & Waggoner, M.D. (1995). Peer review of teaching: Improving college instruction through formative assessment. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6(3), 51-83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Licata, C.M. (1986). Post-tenure faculty evaluation: Opportunity or threat (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 1). Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindquist, J. (1979). Approaches to collegiate teaching improvement. In J. Lindquist (Ed.), Designing teaching improvement programs (pp. 1-22). Washington, DC: Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathias, H., & Rutherford, D. (1982a). Course evaluation at Birmingham: Some implications for the evaluation of university teaching. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 7(3), 263-266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathias, H., & Rutherford, D. (1982b). Lecturers as evaluators: The Birmingham experience. Studies in Higher Education, 7(1), 47-56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathis, B.C. (1979). Persuading the institution to experiment: Strategies for seduction (Occasional Paper No. 9). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, Center for the Teaching Professions.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeachie, W.J. (1994). Teaching tips (9th ed.). Lexington, MA: Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeachie, W.J., & Kaplan, M. (1996). Persistent problems in evaluating college teaching. AAHE Bulletin, 48(6), 5-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menges, R.J. (1985). Career-span faculty development. College Teaching, 33(4), 181-184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menges, R.J. (1987). Colleagues as catalysts for change in teaching. To Improve the Academy, 6, 83-93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millis, B.J. (1989). Colleagues helping colleagues: A peer observation program model. Journal of Staff, Program, and Organization Development, 7(1), 15-21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millis, B.J. (1992). Conducting effective peer classroom observations. To Improve the Academy, 11, 189-206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millis, B.J. (1994a). Faculty development in the 1990s: What is it and why we can't wait. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 454-464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millis, B.J. (1994b). Forging the ties that bind: Peer mentoring part-time faculty. In M. A. Wunsch (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning: No. 57. Mentoring revisited: Making an impact on individuals and institution (pp. 73-80). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millis, B.J., & Kaplan, B.B. (1995). Enhancing teaching through peer classroom observations. In P. Seldin (Ed.), Improving college teaching (pp. 137-151). Bolton, MA: Anker.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Educational Statistics. (1997). Digest of Educational Statistics (p. 244). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • New Jersey Institute for Collegiate Teaching and Learning. (1991). Partners in Learning. South Orange, NJ: Seton Hall University.

    Google Scholar 

  • ”Peer review of teaching institute.” (1993). AAHE Bulletin, 46(10), 16, 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlberg, A. (1983). When professors confront themselves: Toward a theoretical conceptualization of video self-confrontation in higher education. Higher Education, 12, 633-663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pew Higher Education Research Program. (1989). The business of the business. Policy Perspectives, 1, 1-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, K.M. (1995). Faculty perspectives on peer review. Thought and Action, 11(2), 5-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, K.M. (1996). Involving peers in the evaluation and improvement of teaching: A menu of strategies. Innovative Higher Education, 20(4), 299-307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, R.E., & Cheldelin, S.I. (1989). The knower and the known: Making the connections: Evaluation of the New Jersey Master Faculty Program. South Orange, NJ: Seton Hall University, New Jersey Institute for Collegiate Teaching and Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M.S. (1980). The evaluation of college teaching. Syracuse, NY: National Council of States on Inservice Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 203 729).

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M.S. (1983). Evaluation ideologies. In G. R. Madaus, M. S. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation. (pp. 242-249). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhof.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M.S. (1985). New frontiers of evaluation. Evaluation Practices, 7(1), 7-44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seldin, P. (1984). Changing practices in faculty evaluation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seldin, P. (1990). How administrators can improve teaching: Moving from talk to action in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seldin, P. (1998, March). How colleges evaluate teaching, 1988 vs 1998. AAHE Bulletin, 50(7), 3-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shatzky, J., & Silberman, R. (1986). Master-students: A teaching technique. Journal of College Science Teaching, 16, 119-120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skoog, G. (1980). Improving college teaching through peer observation. Journal of Teacher Education, 31(2), 23-25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snedecor, F.W., & Cochran, W.G. (1967). Statistical methods (6th ed.). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soderberg, L.O. (1986), March). A credible model: Evaluating classroom teaching in higher education. Instructional Evaluation, 8, 13-27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoner, M., & Martin, L. (1993, November). Talking about teaching across the disciplines: How cognitive peer coaching makes it happen. Paper presented at the 79th annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Miami, FL.

  • Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education. (1984). Involvement in learning: Realizing the potential of American higher education. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education/U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, J.M. (1976). A report on the development and use of a faculty peer evaluation/development program. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 5458A (University Microfilms No. 76-30, 408).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, J.M., & Grasha, A.F. (1979). Improving teaching through faculty development triads. Educational Technology, 19(2), 54-57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weimer, M. (1987, April). Translating evaluation results into teaching improvements. AAHE Bulletin, 39(8), 8-11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R.C., Dienst, E.R., & Watson, N.L. (1973). Characteristics of effective college teachers as perceived by their colleagues. Journal of Educational Measurement, 10, 31-37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolwine, D.E. (1988). New Jersey Master Faculty Program research report. South Orange, NJ: Seton Hall University, New Jersey Institute for Collegiate Teaching and Learning.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Northern Iowa, USA

    Larry Keig

Authors
  1. Larry Keig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Keig, L. Formative Peer Review of Teaching: Attitudes of Faculty at Liberal Arts Colleges Toward Colleague Assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 14, 67–87 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008194230542

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008194230542

Keywords

Search

Navigation