UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA – DEPARTMENT OF ASIAN STUDIES
TEACHING PEER REVIEW REPORT – 12-MONTH LECTURER
DEPARTMENT OF ASIAN STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
SUMMATIVE PEER REVIEW OF TEACHING REPORT
12-MONTH LECTURER
For reviewees
Instructor Name:
Course Number:
Rank:
Course Name:
Reviewer(s) Name & Rank:
Date of Review:
Duration of Class:
Class Location:
Nature of Teaching Observed: (e.g.,
Course Enrollment:
lecture, discussion, performance / screening,
seminar, tutorial, etc.)
Number of Students in Attendance:
September 2016
1
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA – DEPARTMENT OF ASIAN STUDIES
TEACHING PEER REVIEW REPORT – 12-MONTH LECTURER
Reviewers:
We have met with the Instructor to discuss this peer review prior to submission.
Reviewer name:
Signature: _________________________________
Date: ___________________
Reviewer name:
Signature: _________________________________
Date: ___________________
Instructor:
Please check one:
☐ Option One: I do not intend to dispute this review.
☐ Option Two: I intend to dispute this review. (see Note 1)
☐ Option Three: I will take up to 5 business days to decide whether I will dispute this
report. (see Note 1)
Note 1: If disputing, I understand that I need to submit a written response to the department head within two
weeks of today.
Instructor name:
Signature: _________________________________
September 2016
Date: ___________________
2
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA – DEPARTMENT OF ASIAN STUDIES
TEACHING PEER REVIEW REPORT – 12-MONTH LECTURER
Information for Reviewers and Reviewees:
The information below is intended to help you understand how to use this form. If you have any
questions, please contact Dr. Isabeau Iqbal at [email protected] or by phone at 604 827 0648.
Please also consult the Checklist for Reviewers and Checklist for Reviewees, which provides details
about the overall Peer Review of Teaching process.
Guidelines for using this form:
A note about the distinction between the formative teaching consultations and the summative
peer reviews of teaching.
The formative review is “reviewee-driven”. Reviewees are strongly encouraged to reflect on and
discuss their approach to teaching and assessment, the course context and any specific
challenges/issues. The summative review is “criteria-driven”. Reviewers and reviewees will go
through all the criteria on the summative review form, in addition to discussing the reviewees’
approach to teaching, course content, specific challenges, etc.
Share the blank form with the reviewee at or before the pre-observation meeting
Reviewees should be familiar with the criteria in this form as they are required to use a version of it in
their second formative teaching consultation. Nevertheless, it is important that you discuss the
contents of this form prior to the observation. This will allow the reviewee to be familiar with the
expectations and to highlight any areas that may not be applicable to their own teaching.
Share the completed form with the reviewee at the post-observation meeting
Reviewers should share the completed form with the reviewee at the post-observation meeting. By
sharing it at the meeting, and not beforehand, the reviewers and reviewee can develop a shared
understanding of the comments. Some reviewers have found that sharing the report ahead of time
leads to misunderstandings; as a result, the Department process is that the report be printed and
shared at the post-observation meeting.
Reviewers should craft the report together
The reviewee should receive a single report that is jointly written by both reviewers. It is up to the
reviewers to decide how best to craft the joint report.
Complete all sections of the report, including the cover page.
All sections of this form should be complete, including the signatures.
Passing the review
A successful Summative Review entails obtaining a cumulative score of at least 20/25 across all five
categories with no more than two areas receiving less than a 4 on the Peer Review of Teaching
Report.
A score of 1 or 2 in any one area will be considered an unsuccessful review.
Signing the report
Reviewees must sign the report at the post-observation meeting. They have the choice of:
1) Signing and accepting the report as is.
2) Signing and indicating they will dispute the report. Disputing the report means the instructor will
submit a written response to the department head within 2 weeks of the post-observation meeting.
3) Signing and taking 5 business days to determine whether they want to respond. If the instructor
opts to respond, s/he must submit their response within 2 weeks of the post-observation meeting.
September 2016
3
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA – DEPARTMENT OF ASIAN STUDIES
TEACHING PEER REVIEW REPORT – 12-MONTH LECTURER
Other
•
•
•
•
The Reviewer should rate each set of criteria using the rating scale given below.
The criteria are guidelines only and we trust that reviewers will use their best judgment to
determine whether, in their particular case, these apply or not.
For each set of criteria, the Reviewer should circle the appropriate rating, and provide written
explanation of the assessment.
Please provide a written overall review & additional comments at the end of the form or
through an attachment.
September 2016
4
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA – DEPARTMENT OF ASIAN STUDIES
TEACHING PEER REVIEW REPORT – 12-MONTH LECTURER
Scale to use
N/A
1
2
3
4
5
Not at all
Inconsistently
Adequately
Very well
Extremely well
(1) Course Materials
Please review the pedagogical value of the instructor’s course materials, considering criteria such as the
following:
• Course materials are aligned with course overall goals and specific lesson objectives
• Materials are at the appropriate level of complexity
• Course materials are up-to-date
• Audio-visual materials support student learning
• Homework assignments/exercises prepare learners for upcoming lessons
• Homework assignments/exercises support learning from previous classes and course work.
• Quizzes/exams/projects are aligned with course goals and session learning objectives
• Grading criteria are clear and informative
Overall Rating:
N/A
1
2
3
4
5
Not at all
Inconsistently
Adequately
Very well
Extremely well
Specific comments regarding the Instructor’s course materials:
September 2016
5
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA – DEPARTMENT OF ASIAN STUDIES
TEACHING PEER REVIEW REPORT – 12-MONTH LECTURER
(2) Opening and Closing of Class Session
Please review how the instructor began and ended the class session, considering criteria such as the
following:
• Starts class on time
• Begins in a manner that stimulates students’ interest and attention
• Checks students’ prior knowledge of the topic
• Clearly states purpose/objectives of the lesson
• Presents overview of lesson sequence
• Relates lesson to previously covered material
• Summarizes/reviews major points and learning objectives
• Links covered content to upcoming lessons
• Concludes on time
Overall Rating:
N/A
1
2
3
4
5
Not at all
Inconsistently
Adequately
Very well
Extremely well
Specific comments regarding the opening and closing of class session:
September 2016
6
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA – DEPARTMENT OF ASIAN STUDIES
TEACHING PEER REVIEW REPORT – 12-MONTH LECTURER
(3) Language Instruction
Please review how effectively the Instructor fostered learning, considering criteria such as the
following:
• Use of target language is effective
• Maximizes use of target language at level appropriate for the class
• Explanations of grammatical/linguistic structures are clear and concise
• Introduction and reinforcement of vocabulary are comprehensive and engaging
• Incorporates relevant and stimulating cultural elements
• Demonstrates sensitivity to intellectual and cultural issues
• Provides strong examples of target language usage (conventions, formalities, contextual and
•
situational factors)
Integrates four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing) as appropriate to the
lesson
Overall Rating:
N/A
1
2
3
4
5
Not at all
Inconsistently
Adequately
Very well
Extremely well
Specific comments regarding the Instructor’s language instruction:
September 2016
7
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA – DEPARTMENT OF ASIAN STUDIES
TEACHING PEER REVIEW REPORT – 12-MONTH LECTURER
(4) Learner Engagement and Rapport
Please review how effectively the Instructor fostered learner engagement and rapport, considering criteria
such as:
• Involves learners through a variety of activities
• Is attentive to diverse learners
• Encourages student questions and discussion
• Periodically checks students’ comprehension
• Responds appropriately to non-verbal cues of confusion, boredom and curiosity
Overall Rating:
N/A
1
2
3
4
5
Not at all
Inconsistently
Adequately
Very well
Extremely well
Specific comments regarding ways the Instructor engages students and builds rapport:
September 2016
8
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA – DEPARTMENT OF ASIAN STUDIES
TEACHING PEER REVIEW REPORT – 12-MONTH LECTURER
(5) Instructional Strategies
Please review how effectively the Instructor fostered learner engagement and rapport, considering criteria
such as:
• Stimulates interest in the course subject
• Selects teaching techniques that are appropriate for stated learning objectives
• Nurtures student-centered learning
• Provides clear directions for practice, group work or other forms of active learning
• Checks for student understanding regularly
• Provides supporting materials (e.g. handouts, presentation slides, board work etcetera) that
•
•
support student learning
Effectively holds the class’ attention
Uses appropriate pacing
Overall Rating:
N/A
1
2
3
4
5
Not at all
Inconsistently
Adequately
Very well
Extremely well
Specific comments regarding the instructional strategies used:
September 2016
9
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA – DEPARTMENT OF ASIAN STUDIES
TEACHING PEER REVIEW REPORT – 12-MONTH LECTURER
Overall Review:
(1) Course Materials
Rating __/5
(2) Opening and Closing of Class Session
Rating __/5
(3) Language Instruction
Rating __/5
(4) Learner Engagement & Rapport
Rating __/5
(5) Instructional Strategies
Rating __/5
TOTAL:____
Reminder:
A successful Summative Review entails obtaining a cumulative score of at least 20/25 across all
five categories with no more than two areas receiving less than a 4 on the Peer Review of
Teaching Report. A score of 1 or 2 in any one area will be considered an unsuccessful review.
Additional Comments:
Please provide an overall written review of the Instructor’s teaching and include any additional comments in
the space below, or through an attached document.
September 2016
10