Bob,

Nice catch... I have confused some dates.  I am working on rearranging to
fix this and will post to the list ASAP.


On 3/25/03 3:52 PM, "Rothenberg, Robert" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Jim,
>
> I'm a little confused (for me, probably a good situation) - am I right that we
> will meet on the third to discuss faculty peer reviews and again on the tenth
> to hear the "best practices" discussion.  Or, has the discussion for the third
> been postponed?
>
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greenberg, James
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:47 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Teaching Breakfast Agenda for Meeting of April 3
>
>
> Tbers,
>
> Our next meeting is not until April 3 at 8 am in Morris Hall but I wanted to
> get the agenda to you early so you could think it over.  Back in December of
> 2000, Dr. Jim Mills of our Geography Department presented a proposal for
> Faculty Peer Teaching Reviews to the TB.  This is an idea the group has
> talked about a number of times over the years.  Dr. Rothenberg has offered
> to try and get something like what Jim proposed started.  We would like to
> talk this over at our next meeting.  For those of you that can't find your
> copy here it is:
>
> Proposal Faculty Peer Teaching Reviews Submitted by Jim Mills, Department of
> Geography to Members of the Teaching Breakfast Group, December 2000.
>
> Rationale and Description
>
> This is a proposal to improve the quality of teaching at SUCO. The intent is
> to provide a non-threatening mechanism for faculty members to have other
> faculty members give them feedback and ideas on how to improve their
> teaching. Despite our many statements regarding the importance of quality
> instruction, we don't spend a lot of time talking to each other about how to
> do this.
>
> Specifically, faculty members rarely have the opportunity to receive
> feedback on their teaching, especially on an informal basis. Teaching is
> certainly a factor during term contract renewal, tenure, and promotion.
> However, the basis of the review at those times is largely based on teaching
> loads, student evaluations, and letters from other members of their
> departments. Such information might serve its purposes. However, it gives
> the instructor in the trenches little detailed information on the quality of
> their teaching and not much in the way of constructive ways to improve.
> Certainly, the process does little to create a shared sense of mission and
> direct communication between faculty members.
>
> This proposal might be a way to address this situation. We can develop a
> faculty directed program that provides direct feedback to any faculty member
> requesting input on teaching style, classroom performance, syllabi, and
> other aspects of teaching. Faculty might welcome peers reviews, especially
> if they knew that the comments and feedback would not go into their files or
> any criticisms used against them in considerations of merit, promotion, or
> tenure.
>
> As a faculty, such a program might also give external reviewers,
> administrators, and the general public a positive message. It might also
> have the effect of keeping such matters under our own control, rather than
> being mandated from Albany or elsewhere.
>
> Organization
>
> The program could be set up as follows:
>
> 1)  A pool of faculty members interested in participating in such a program
> is developed. It should be entirely voluntary. A coordinator would be
> needed.
>
> 2)  The process would be initiated by a request from an individual faculty
> member for a review, submitted to the coordinator. The person requesting a
> review would write a statement indicating what kind of feedback is desired
> and might include the following information:
>
>     a) course syllabus (or syllabi) and any additional comments about the
> syllabus or course for the review team
>
>     b) any difficulties or challenges being experienced in the course or
> with teaching in general
>
>     c) areas that faculty member specifically wants to improve upon
>
>     d) whether or not they want faculty members from related disciplines
> or withspecific expertise to conduct the review
>
>
>
> 3)  The coordinator arranges for team of two to three members and a team
> leader from the pool to respond to the request.
>
>
>
> 4)  The team leader contacts the faculty member and they jointly decide on a
> course of action. This could be as simple as one meeting, or might involve
> in-class observation, video-taping, or other actions.
>
>
>
> 5)  Once the review is completed, the team gives the faculty member
> constructive feedback on ways to improve the course or teaching in general.
> This feedback would be confidential, and members of the review committee
> must agree that it will not be used in any formal evaluations. The faculty
> member receiving the feedback, however, could choose to use the review
> process to justify that they have taken the initiative to improve their
> teaching when submitting their own faculty activity reports, term contract
> renewals, merit requests, and tenure applications.
>
>
>
> 6)  The faculty member who receives the review should be asked to
> participate as a reviewer for others.
>
>
>
> Basic Principles of the Program (draft)
>
>
>
> 1)  We are all good teachers. That is why we are here. The purpose of the
> program is to make us better teachers, share information and perspectives,
> and to promote a sense of collegiality.
>
>
>
> 2)  Being a better  teacher  is an on-going process.
>
>
>
> 3)  Everybody has different teaching styles. Anyone participating in the
> program should be aware that one style might be good for one instructor, and
> not so good for another. Nevertheless, we can all learn from one another and
> perhaps there are methods,techniques and approaches that would work well for
> us that we just were not aware of or haven't had the time to work on. People
> doing reviews might well learn as much as people requesting reviews. It
> might be a good idea to develop a set of readings and other resources that
> faculty members could use.
>
> 4)  We all have limited amounts of time. The process should be run
> efficiently and not make inordinate demands on any participating members.
>
> 5)  Academic freedom is valued. We are not in the business of determining
> course content.
>
> **** End of Document.
>
> Mr. James B. Greenberg
> Director Teaching, Learning and Technology Center
> Milne Library
> SUNY College at Oneonta
> Oneonta, New York 13820
>
> email: [log in to unmask]
> phone: 607-436-2701
>
> "Ignorance is curable, stupidity lasts forever"
>

Mr. James B. Greenberg
Director Teaching, Learning and Technology Center
Milne Library
SUNY College at Oneonta
Oneonta, New York 13820

email: [log in to unmask]
phone: 607-436-2701

"Ignorance is curable, stupidity lasts forever"