CDTL    Publications     Mailing List     About Brief

 

   

This issue of CDTL Brief is published for the purpose of informing our colleagues of the discussion concerning the recommendations for change to Student Feedback and Peer Review, and to invite further feedback to help fine-tune the proposals before they are implemented.

January 2000, Vol. 3 No. 1 Print Ready ArticlePrint-Ready
The Proposed Peer Review Checklist (2000)
 
 

This checklist consists of a quantitative part and a qualitative part. The quantitative part yields a numerical score that corresponds to an overall evaluation of the teaching quality. The qualitative part provides feedback to the teacher and verbal evaluation not covered by the qualitative part.

Part I: Evaluation of Classroom Teaching

1. Quantitative Evaluation

This part will be evaluated on a five-point scale, with values assigned as follows: 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 = satisfactory; 2 = unsatisfactory; 1 = poor. For items on which there is no information to base the judgement on, and items that you consider not relevant/inapplicable, write “x”.

  1. Effectiveness of the classroom activity in facilitating learning.
    (Please make an overall estimate on the basis of considerations such as: Is the teacher simply reading aloud written lectures without additional elaboration? Could the purpose have been served better by making available to students copies of the written lecture? If the lecture is based on a textbook or article, would it have been better to require students to read the material and come prepared for a discussion?)

  2. Effectiveness of the classroom activities in achieving the intended aims/objectives of the course.
    (“Aim” = what the teacher aims to teach in the course; “objective” = what the teacher expects the students to be able to do at the end, as a result of the learning facilitated by the course.)

  3. Degree of interaction facilitated by the teacher.

  4. Quality of teacher’s exposition.
    (Please make an overall estimate on the basis of considerations such as clarity of explanation, whether or not the examples and analogies are appropriate and interesting, sequencing of items, etc.)

  5. Quality of delivery.
    (Please make an overall estimate on the basis of considerations such as: clarity and audibility of voice, pitch variations to avoid monotony, eye contact, and appropriate use of audiovisual aids including IT. [This parameter is relevant only for lecture classes.])

  6. Teacher’s knowledge of the subject matter in relation to the content and aims/objectives of the course.

2. Qualitative Evaluation

Attach extra sheets.

  1. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the course (given the external constraints not under the control of the teacher)?

  2. Do you have any comments or suggestions for improvement not covered by (1)-(7)?

Part II. Evaluation of the Curriculum

This part is necessary only for candidates who are being considered for promotion. In the case of courses which are being taught by a team, consider only the candidate’s contribution.

1. Quantitative Evaluation

This part will be evaluated on a five-point scale, with values assigned as follows: 5 = excellent; 4 = very good; 3 = satisfactory; 2 = unsatisfactory; 1 = poor. For items on which there is no information to base the judgement on, and items that you consider not relevant/inapplicable, write “x”.

A. Course Objectives/Aims and Syllabus

(If the objectives and/or syllabus were formulated by someone other than the teacher being appraised, write “x”)

  1. Clarity of the statement of course aims/objectives. For instance, has it been made clear to the learners what they should know at the end of the course and what they should be able to do?
    (“Aim” = what the teacher aims to teach in the course; “objective” = what the teacher expects the students to be able to do at the end, as a result of the learning facilitated by the course.)

  2. Relevance and value of the items in the syllabus in terms of discipline specific goals.

  3. Relevance and value of the items in the course objectives/aims to the overall goals of the subject (or university-level goals, as the case may be).

  4. Relevance of the syllabus to the course objectives/aims.

B. Teaching Materials

  1. Adequacy and usefulness of the teaching materials (handouts, readings, videotapes, web pages, CD-ROMs, etc) for the learning required in the course.

C. Assessment

Continuous Assessment and Tutorials

  1. Overall value of the exercises (e.g. essays, tutorial exercises, assignments, quizzes, and projects) as learning experiences for students (as opposed to, say, reproduction of material in the readings) and as means of student assessment.

  2. Evidence of useful feedback from the teacher on student performance (on the basis of information gathered from students, and samples of corrected student work).

Final Examination

  1. Appropriateness of the questions with respect to the knowledge content and skills and abilities specified in the course objectives/aims and syllabus.

  2. Overall quality of the design of the questions.
    Make an overall estimate on the basis of considerations such as: (a) their discriminatory ability, (b) balance of easy and challenging questions, and (c) measures taken to guard against potential regurgitation, (d) the thinking ability being probed into in the questions, etc.

D. General

  1. Overall quality of the course with respect to adequacy and depth of knowledge content.

  2. Overall quality of the course with respect to its ability to develop the ability to think independently.

  3. Overall quality of the course with respect to its value in instilling independent life-long learning, with qualities such as openness of mind, willingness to doubt and question, intellectual curiosity, and joy of learning.

2. Qualitative Evaluation

Attach extra sheets.

  1. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the course (given the external constraints not under the control of the teacher)?

  2. Do you have any comments or suggestions for improvement not covered by (1)-(13)?
 
 
 First Look articles





Search in
Email the Editor
Inside this issue
Student Feedback & Peer Review
   
The Proposed Student Feedback Questionnaire
   
The Proposed Peer Review Checklist