Skip to main content
Social Sci LibreTexts

5 - Peer Mentoring and Evaluation Training

  • Page ID
    16753
  •  

    Learning Objectives

    Participants will be able to:

    • provide feedback on how to make classes more active and student-centered using a mentoring rubric
    • provide an objective snapshot of the current use of engaged pedagogies using an evaluation rubric
    • develop a 1-year plan for visiting the classes of your peer-mentor using these rubrics to help one another develop reflective practices

     

    Videos for viewing active learning

    Wendy Dustman – University of Georgia teaching Microbiology for Biology Majors using the flipped classroom model and collaborative student working groups

    • Tessa Andrews – University of Georgia teaching introductory biology for non-science majors using a series of problem-based challenges related to sex determination 
    • Mara Evans – University of Georgia teaching ecology and competition in an introductory course for biology majors using a categorizing table
    • Erin Dolan – University of Georgia introducing a peer review activity on vaccines for an introductory biology course for non-science majors.
    • Paula Lemons – University of Georgia teaching regulation of energy transformation pathways for a Biochemistry course for biology majors.

    Erin Dolan –University of Georgia teaching regulation on energy transforming pathways for a Biochemistry course for biology majors using model building, clickers, and collaborative learning.

    Peggy Brickman – group testing  University of Georgia

    Peer Evaluation Feedback Guide

    Adapted from J. Momsen, NDSU, FIRST IV 

    1. Is the instructor doing something that the students should do for themselves, i.e., describing a graph?
    2. Does the cognitive demand of the learning activities warrant class time, i.e. could student complete these tasks out of class without the help of the instructor?
    3. What could the instructor do to make the class more active and/or student-centered?

     

    Blurb for Annual Evaluation

    Authored by Peggy Brickman, UGA

    "As part of participating in the Mobile Summer Institute, faculty members will be undergoing peer evaluation of their teaching using the Course Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS). This protocol was recently highlighted in Science magazine as an answer to the repeated calls for improved data collection on the use of evidence-based instructional practices by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (Stains et al., 2018). The COPUS along with the peer mentoring and observation provided by the participants can provide data for peer reviews of teaching such as those that are becoming a required step for promotion and tenure at many institutions across the country (CU Boulder, UT Austin, University of Arizona). This observation conducted by the participants of the Mobile Summer Institute can provide that evaluation.  In addition, we know that peer evaluation can help provide evidence of performance on aspects of teaching such as depth of subject knowledge and appropriateness of course material that are better assessed by peers rather than students (Berstein 2008; Peel 2005). Studies examining peer evaluation have also documented several positive outcomes for faculty involved in the process including: improved self-assurance (Bell and Mladenovic 2008); collegiality and respect (Quinlan and Akerlind 2000); and improved classroom performance (Freiberg 1987)."
    References for Blurb

    • Bell, Amani, and Rosina Mladenovic. 2008. "The Benefits of Peer Observation of Teaching for Tutor Development." Review of. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning 55 (6):735-52.
    • Berstein, Daniel J. 2008. "Peer Review and Evaluation of the Intellectual Work of Teaching." Review of. Change 40 (2):48-51.
    • Freiberg, H. Jerome. 1987. "Enriching Feedback to Student-Teachers Through Small Group Discussion." Review of. Teacher Education Quarterly 14 (3):71-82.
    • Peel, Deborah. 2005. "Peer Observation as a Transformatory Tool?" Review of. Teaching in Higher Education 10 (4):489-504.
    • Quinlan, Kathleen M., and Gerlese S. Akerlind. 2000. "Factors Affecting Departmental Peer Collaboration for Faculty Development: Two Cases in Context." Review of. Higher Education 40 (1):23-52.
    • Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E., ... & Levis-Fitzgerald, M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science359(6383), 1468-1470.

     

    Session Slides