Peer Review System Found Effective for Teaching.
The research of our faculty is peer-reviewed. Why not hold their teaching to the same standards?
At the end of 2010, the Department of Global Health implemented a peer review of teaching (PRT) system to coincide with the start of a School-wide redesign of the master of public health curriculum.
“We talk a lot about making sure that we have the best science for public health,” says Taryn Vian, associate professor of international health. “We also need the best science for teaching.
“We need to practice what we preach.”
In the system, a course is observed by teams of two faculty members, who first meet with the instructor to discuss goals for the review. After the classroom observation, the team may meet again with the instructor to reflect on the experience before writing a review memo for the faculty chair. The review does not become part of the instructor’s personnel file or annual performance review—it is only used to improve teaching.
After seven semesters with PRT, Vian and Paul Gk. Ashigbie, a research fellow in global health, evaluated the program through a contextual analysis of PRT memos and a survey of participating faculty. The findings were published in the Journal of Health Education Teaching.
Their findings were positive. Faculty had favorable attitudes toward peer review, especially the opportunity to learn by observing others teach.
“Peer review of teaching creates community,” says Vian, who is also associate chair of education for global health. More than 80 percent of reviewers said PRT helped them understand the department’s courses, becoming better advisors to students, while 78 percent of reviewers and 72 percent of instructors noted the peer review process helped them get to know other faculty as colleagues.
While building community was the biggest benefit found in PRT, the researchers also noted the ability of peers to take a big-picture view of a colleague’s class. Beyond small technical feedback, reviewers also reminded instructors to show their students why the material matters.
Vian says a literature review of evaluations of PRT at other institutions shows the culture of the department also makes a peer review system more welcome. “We have a lot of interdisciplinary teams in public health in general and in global health in particular.” Faculty are used to working together for research, so working together to improve teaching isn’t a stretch.”
While the researchers found responses to PRT to be mainly positive, some faculty complained PRT was difficult to fit into their schedules and workloads, suggesting staff support and other measures should be implemented.
Other negative responses to PRT arose from confusion regarding how the evaluations would be used. More than one-quarter of respondents incorrectly believed the peer review feedback would be used in the faculty performance review and planning process. The PRT system was implemented for improving teaching, not evaluating teachers, but the researchers found this had not been adequately communicated.