Peer review processes
I observed my colleague’s teaching twice (24 and 31 January, 2019) and I was, in turn, observed twice by her (15 and 28 January, 2019). First, we had an initial planning meeting in December to set the date for the observations. In that meeting, we also discussed the nature and structure of the courses (including the topic and content of the lectures to be observed), class size, and backgrounds of the students. A day before the observation, the teacher being observed sent the filled-in first part of the peer-evaluation form to the observer. Then, we had a meeting to discuss learning objectives, planned teaching/learning activities, the designed roles of the teacher and students during the session and, not least, the specific feedback that the teacher would like to get from the observer.
On the first day of observation, the teacher introduced the observer to the class, and informed the students about the objective of the observation, asking permission for that. After the observation, we had a meeting to discuss the lecture/session, particularly focusing on the aspects the teacher wanted to get feedback on. We discussed what went well and what did not go as planned. We also openly discussed whether another method/approach could have been used, or whether there was any scope for improvement for better learning outcomes and to make the class more interactive. We also discussed challenges and limitations (e.g., background knowledge of students, diversity of classroom, and other resources) and ways to solve them. After the meeting, the observer provided the teacher with the filled-in second part of the peer-evaluation form. We also had a short meeting/discussion after looking at the observer’s written feedback. All meetings/discussions were held in an informal setting.
Sitting on the last row, my observer engaged in the session as ‘normal’ student. Neither my students nor I felt the presence of an outsider or judge/observer in the classroom. I also tried to behave as a ‘normal’ student when I was the observer.
Feedback and self-evaluation
I was observed in the undergraduate-level GIS course. The first session I was observed in was Introduction to GIS. The students had some background on the topic from the course introduction session (that they had attended a week previously), where they had explored the basic concept and its importance during a group exercise. The students were provided with some materials to read before the class as preparatory work for the session. The planned and implemented activities involved an interactive discussion based on the preparatory work, a lecture, a think-pair-square-share, and a feedback survey.
The second session was used as a kind of flipped classroom. The students had been provided with two videos (12 and eight minutes long), made by the author of a book (recommended reading), as well as two pages of reading materials beforehand. The planned activities in the session were a computer lab using hands-on exercises (with/without instructor guidance), a mini lecture to highlight the key take-home messages (about 15 minutes, including a two-minute video), and group discussions. At the end, a short quiz (using Socrative) was used as a formative assessment.
In both sessions, I asked my observer to give feedback particularly on three aspects in particular: i) the effectiveness of my teaching/learning activities; ii) my management of the students’ participation and interactiveness; and iii) areas for improvement.
In general, I got very positive feedback about my teaching (both sessions) from the observer. The overall conclusion was that the teaching/learning activities were well organized and functioned as planned. The observer was also very positive about the use of different activities to make the class more interactive and effective; however, she did suggest that I speak a bit slower. I completely agree with her, and am fully aware of this being a problem; I will focus on improving my speech tempo in the future. As she pointed out, I also needed to be very careful to use the board effectively, especially when choosing the marker pen/chalk color (colors that contrast with the board) and the size of the letters, so as to maintain good legibility. Besides these, she also gave some constructive suggestions, such as to include a summary slide at the end of the class and to wait a bit longer for the students to respond to the questions.
I also learned how to use the blackboard/whiteboard effectively while I was the observer/reviewer for my peer’s two lectures. Her lectures were well structured, and she was also very effective in briefly reviewing the last lecture’s main points at the start of the class. I also learned a lot from our post-observation discussions about her experiences and challenges. During the post-observation meetings, we discussed how interactive teaching methods, such as group/class discussion and think-pair-share, could be used in these small, but diverse (in terms of academic background and origin of the students), classes to make them interactive. We also discussed some issues about how we could encourage and motivate the students, as well as increase student attendance.
Reflections
Although we were working in the same institute, we had different academic backgrounds than the sessions we observed. The teaching peer-review did not cover the content of the sessions, as such, nor was that our goal. Both of us were aware that purpose of the peer-review/evaluation was not to judge the teacher, but to help each other improve our teaching by providing a critical and constructive review of the teaching methods and share our experiences. I found it to be an opportunity to develop self-awareness and reflect on my own teaching and my professional advancement.
From the peer-review/evaluation process, I ended up confirming my belief that active learning could be more effectively achieved through diversification of the teaching methods (adapted to the content and objectives of the session) and an effective combination of the use of lecture slides, videos, blackboard/whiteboard, in-class exercises, class discussions, and digital tools. Moreover, the peer-review/evaluation, as a collaborative learning process between colleagues with reciprocal benefits, served as a formative assessment of the teaching, and should be revisited continuously.
The filled-in forms for the peer-evaluation/review can be found below (as password-protected documents):