CALL FOR PROPOSALS:

ORGANIZERS

  • Harvey Thorleifson, Chair
    Minnesota Geological Survey
  • Carrie Jennings, Vice Chair
    Minnesota Geological Survey
  • David Bush, Technical Program Chair
    University of West Georgia
  • Jim Miller, Field Trip Chair
    University of Minnesota Duluth
  • Curtis M. Hudak, Sponsorship Chair
    Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC

 

Paper No. 14
Presentation Time: 4:45 PM

A PEER REVIEW OF COURSE DESIGN


REID, Leslie Frances, Geoscience, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada, MEYER, Rudi, Department of Geoscience, University of Calgary, 844 Campus Place Northwest, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada and NICHOLLS, James, Dept. of Geoscience, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada, nichollj@ucalgary.ca

A new pilot program for peer review of teaching is being developed in the Department of Geoscience at the University of Calgary. The purpose of the program is to provide feedback to instructors on their teaching practices through a review of their course design using a course portfolio.

We chose the course portfolio for review because it provides data needed to evaluate how an instructor designs a course that will provide opportunities for student learning over a semester. The portfolio describes the course elements that are tied to improved student learning outcomes.

A program for peer review of course design addresses two aspects: improvement of course design using the model of Understanding by Design (Wiggens and McTighe, 2005) and feedback to the instructor highlighting areas of excellence and areas for improvement. The program also serves as a learning experience for the peer reviewer, who is a colleague of the instructor being reviewed. The process has developed such that the instructors can be informed on course improvement and can also supply the substance of the review as evidence of teaching improvement when applying for tenure or promotion.

The process starts with the instructor preparing a 10-page course portfolio on a course of their choice. Once the portfolio is completed it goes out to two peer reviewers. The reviewers use rubrics to evaluate the three critical design elements: the learning objectives for the course, the assessment strategies, and the learning activities performed by students to enhance learning. The rubrics guide the informed assessment by the peer reviewers. The peer reviewers also write reports on the course portfolio in which they elaborate on their views of the course design.

The final stage of this process is a meeting between the instructor and an educational professional with expertise on instructional design. The instructor and professional decide how to rank and implement the recommendations of the review.

Over the next year we will collect and use feedback from our first participants (instructors and reviewers) to identify areas for improvement in the structure and implementation of the program.

Meeting Home page GSA Home Page