TY - JOUR
T1 - Faculty peer review of teaching taskforce
T2 - A quantitative descriptive research study for the peer review process
AU - Jenkins, Emerald
AU - D'Aoust, Rita
AU - Elias, Sabrina
AU - Han, Hae Ra
AU - Sharps, Phyllis
AU - Alvarez, Carmen
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported in part by a grant from the Maryland Higher Education Commission ( NSP II-17-107 ).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021
PY - 2021/11
Y1 - 2021/11
N2 - Background: Peer review of teaching is important for both the faculty and student experience. Enhanced awareness of student learning experiences and a deeper reflection on teaching makes this process attractive to faculty leaders, staff and students. Evidence suggests that teachers who are reviewed gain confidence, anticipate improvement in teaching and are inclined to discuss their teaching with colleagues in the future. Objective: To describe the development of a peer review of teaching process by the Faculty Peer Review of Teaching Taskforce at a school of nursing. Methods: A five-step Design for Six Sigma methodology was used and includes: Define, Measure, Analyze, Design, Verify (DMADV). In keeping with this methodology we: (1) established a Faculty Peer Review of Teaching Taskforce; (2) conducted a literature review on best practices; (3) reviewed peer institution practices; and (4) surveyed faculty to obtain their perspectives on the qualities of good teaching and the peer review of teaching process. Twenty-seven of the 68 full-time faculty members returned Qualtrics surveys (return rate = 39.7%). Results: Review of the literature yielded four major themes, including post-observation discussion and systematic assignment of peer review pairs. Variation in practices across institutions was identified, from formal structured processes, to peer review conducted only in special circumstances. Survey findings revealed that faculty members overwhelmingly endorse the qualities of good teaching, agree that the peer review process should be required, and that peer reviewers should have several years of teaching experience. Conclusions: Our faculty were supportive of a peer review teaching process. As teaching demands continue to increase given the evolving complexities of nursing care, teaching platforms (i.e. online, hybrid), and diverse student body, we hope the process we develop may serve as a model for other higher education schools to enhance and maintain excellence in teaching for both the faculty and student experience.
AB - Background: Peer review of teaching is important for both the faculty and student experience. Enhanced awareness of student learning experiences and a deeper reflection on teaching makes this process attractive to faculty leaders, staff and students. Evidence suggests that teachers who are reviewed gain confidence, anticipate improvement in teaching and are inclined to discuss their teaching with colleagues in the future. Objective: To describe the development of a peer review of teaching process by the Faculty Peer Review of Teaching Taskforce at a school of nursing. Methods: A five-step Design for Six Sigma methodology was used and includes: Define, Measure, Analyze, Design, Verify (DMADV). In keeping with this methodology we: (1) established a Faculty Peer Review of Teaching Taskforce; (2) conducted a literature review on best practices; (3) reviewed peer institution practices; and (4) surveyed faculty to obtain their perspectives on the qualities of good teaching and the peer review of teaching process. Twenty-seven of the 68 full-time faculty members returned Qualtrics surveys (return rate = 39.7%). Results: Review of the literature yielded four major themes, including post-observation discussion and systematic assignment of peer review pairs. Variation in practices across institutions was identified, from formal structured processes, to peer review conducted only in special circumstances. Survey findings revealed that faculty members overwhelmingly endorse the qualities of good teaching, agree that the peer review process should be required, and that peer reviewers should have several years of teaching experience. Conclusions: Our faculty were supportive of a peer review teaching process. As teaching demands continue to increase given the evolving complexities of nursing care, teaching platforms (i.e. online, hybrid), and diverse student body, we hope the process we develop may serve as a model for other higher education schools to enhance and maintain excellence in teaching for both the faculty and student experience.
KW - DMADV
KW - Design for six sigma
KW - Higher education
KW - Peer review
KW - Peer review of teaching
KW - Survey
KW - Taskforce
KW - Teaching
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85111869343&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85111869343&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105055
DO - 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105055
M3 - Article
C2 - 34304102
AN - SCOPUS:85111869343
VL - 106
JO - Nurse Education Today
JF - Nurse Education Today
SN - 0260-6917
M1 - 105055
ER -