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"