<\/a>possible limitations of peer review?<\/h2>\nlimitations of peer observations. <\/strong><\/span>while peer review may be a process that allows for a more rigorous evaluation of a teaching portfolio, it is worth noting that peer observations alone are often insufficient data on which to base an entire teacher\u2019s assessment.\u00a0 peer observations represent merely a snapshot of teaching, and thus must be only one component of a teaching portfolio that is subject to peer evaluation, including student evaluations, evidence of student learning, course materials, and self evaluations, just to name a few.<\/p>\n
bias. <\/strong> <\/span>surely, all methods of teaching evaluation risk biases of one form or another.\u00a0 one common criticism of peer review processes is that they may invite some bias if they involve limited or unprofessional approaches to information collection and analysis.\u00a0 this may occur because of several reasons.\u00a0 personal relationships between reviewers and those being reviewed can create either hyper- or hypo-critical approaches to evaluation.\u00a0 standards of excellence or their application can be highly subjective and individual teaching styles may vary widely, therefore evaluations can be contentious if standards are not defined in advance through rigorous research and open, collaborative processes.\u00a0 power relations in departments or programs also can unduly influence open and thorough evaluation.\u00a0 other factors may cause peer evaluator bias as well.\u00a0 therefore, to avoid the worst cases of bias, peer review must be established via processes that guarantee the greatest rigor, openness, and transparency.<\/p>\n
collegiality issues. <\/strong><\/span>under the best of circumstances, peer review can shape a dialogue about teaching that fosters a teaching community among educators and can lead to more growth-oriented forms of professional development.\u00a0 however, when it is implemented in less collaborative and more adversarial forms, or when it involves unavoidable consequences such as promotion or job security, anxieties and frustrations can be triggered for both reviewers and those being reviewed.\u00a0 therefore peer review must adhere to the highest standards of transparency, integrity, and care for the sake of those under review.<\/p>\n
time and effort. <\/strong><\/span>possibly the most common critique of peer review processes, and the reason they are not more commonly used in the academy, is that they require significant time and effort.\u00a0 departmental and campus administrators must define the process, establish standards, train and prepare reviewers, perform peer observations, review portfolios, draft assessments, and have multiple dialogues with those under review.\u00a0 each step requires preparation if it is to be fair, transparent, and professional.\u00a0 any shortcut may compromise the rigor, care, or goals of the evaluation. \u00a0however, there are\u00a0several shortcuts each with\u00a0potential costs.<\/p>\n
rely on the expertise of senior colleagues, administrators, and the 2022年世界杯中国小组赛积分.<\/strong> there are typically those on campus that my have sufficient knowledge to assist in defining departmental learning or teaching goals, in determining what data to include in a teaching portfolio, in training peer observers, in drafting assessments, etcetera.\u00a0 these sources of expertise may be helpful in streamlining the process with little cost to its integrity, as long as their suggestions may be tailored to the needs of the department or program in question.<\/p>\n
use predefined standards for teaching and learning. <\/strong>rather than spend significant time adjudicating which learning and teaching goals are appropriate, department or program leaders may decide to use existing language in university or departmental missions, course catalogs, accreditation reports, other constituting documents, or the operating principles of the 2022年世界杯中国小组赛积分.\u00a0 this may grant some efficiency with limited costs to the integrity of the peer review process.\u00a0 however, vague and imprecise learning goals that sometimes characterize constitutional documents (e.g., \u201ccritical thinking\u201d) may be of little help in benchmarking a specific set of courses or teaching strategies.\u00a0 likewise, departments and programs may have particular teaching challenges that broad standards may not take into consideration.\u00a0 both difficulties can leave departments or programs open to unclear standards, unfair or inconsistent judgments, and miscommunications.<\/p>\n
collect data judiciously. <\/strong>one of the more time consuming tasks of peer review is combing through all facets of a teaching portfolio, particularly if it includes samples of student work.\u00a0 to save time, some peer review processes rely largely upon peer observation, in addition to student evaluations of teaching, and do not collect teaching portfolios or examples of student work.\u00a0 others collect only limited samples of student work, such as grade distributions and examples of student work at a, b, c and d levels to evaluate an instructor\u2019s assessment and grading strategies.\u00a0 other data collection short cuts may be possible as well.\u00a0 however, more limited data may allow fewer contextual interpretations of a teaching career, and peer observations alone are merely in-class snapshots of instructional performance, not a more encompassing perspective on all phases of teaching.\u00a0 these may lead a department or program to make less informed and fair judgments.<\/p>\n
use templates for written peer evaluation reports. <\/strong>final written reports need not be highly expansive analyses, but may represent more of a thorough check list with brief sections of commentary on challenges and successes that become points of discussion between peer reviewers and the instructor under review.\u00a0 this form or report can save valuable time, but it also may provide limited feedback to the instructor under review, possibly affording him or her less useful guidance on where to improve his or her teaching.<\/p>\n
only summative evaluation. <\/strong>a department or program may limit peer evaluation to only summative and not formative assessments of teaching.\u00a0 this would limit opportunities for faculty development, hinder\u00a0data collection, create more tensions between reviewers and those being evaluated, and thwart the formation of collegial cultures that improve teaching for entire departments and programs. however, many departments and programs have used this shortcut to conduct peer review.<\/p>\n