Shortly after the classroom visitation and in preparing for the postclassroom visitation meeting, the observer combines the students’ commentary with his or her observations and notes taken while the teacher was actually leading the class and prepares a written report. In writing the report, the observer should (a) note, in detail, the teacher’s strengths; (b) outline the teacher’s key areas in need of
improvement (using as much positive language as possible); and (c) offer specific suggestions for addressing each area in need of improvement. Along these lines, a good rule of thumb is to only
comment and offer suggestions for the two to three areas, which if addressed, would result in the most immediate and tangible improvement in student learning and student enjoyment of the course
(addressing every area in need of improvement, especially if there are many, might be overwhelming for the teacher and actually discourage change).
85 Step 5: Postclassroom Visitation Meeting
The final step of the peer review process is the observer’s postclassroom meeting with the teacher. This final step involves one-on-one discussion about what went well during the class and what might be improved in the teacher’s approach to instruction. It is based entirely on the observer’s written report. This meeting usually lasts for less than one hour and should transpire as a conversation between two people who respect each other and care for teaching. The meeting should not simply be a word-for- word reading of the observer’s written report. The observer may start by asking, “What do you think went well during the class I observed?” This sort of beginning to the conversation helps the teacher to focus on his or her strengths on which the observer can build. This beginning can also reinforce what the teacher says and add to the description of positive qualities and behaviors noted in the written report. The observer should also add any relevant points brought up in the discussion with the students. Once both parties have discussed the teacher’s strengths, the observer transitions to a discussion of areas of improvement by noting, for example, “Although you have several important strengths as a teacher, students have identified a few areas that might be improved.” Or, “As is true for all of us, we have both strong points as well as a few areas in which we might improve—let’s talk about a couple of things that the students suggested that might help improve your teaching.” It can be helpful, before the observer shares his/her interpretations of what students have suggested, to ask the teacher to predict what students said in this regard. This tactic helps the teacher to become more personally involved and invested in the review process. We have found that teachers can often anticipate what suggestions students offered, even while not feeling capable or empowered to make such changes. During this part of the discussion, the observer should pay careful attention to both the teacher’s verbal language and body language, and make any adjustments necessary if the teacher appears to be uncomfortable with this part of the meeting.
The observer should avoid using language that is strong, harshly critical, or authoritarian. It is important that the observer be as gentle, but frank, as possible with the teacher in order to have maximum impact improving the teacher’s instruction. Otherwise, the teacher may “tune out” the feedback, and the meeting might devolve into an unpleasant experience for both the parties.
During the discussion of areas in need of improvement, it also is often helpful for the observer to share any personal insights or experiences that might provide clarity or exemplars as to how to address these areas. We have found that using such lead-in language as “I faced the same issue in my teaching and found that ____________ helped me improve in this area,” or “I had a discussion with a colleague the other day about a similar issue she (or he) faced, and she did ____________ to resolve the issue.” Using this kind of approach lets teachers know that others also experience similar issues and that none of us are alone in discovering that some areas of our teaching need improvement.
As the conversation winds down, the observer should request that the teacher let the students know about this meeting, what was discussed during it, as well as any changes that can or cannot be made in the class based on student input to the peer-review process. In our experience, we have found that students like having a voice in shaping the nature of their class. They like knowing that their teacher is concerned about the quality of the classroom atmosphere and instruction, and they genuinely
appreciate any changes made based on their comments and advice.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the observer should provide the teacher a hard copy of the written report. The report should not be given to the teacher before the meeting because, after reviewing it, the
86 teacher may focus only on the areas of improvement (i.e., the “negative points”) and become defensive at the outset of the meeting. For confidentiality reasons, the observer should not keep copies of the report (neither hard nor electronic) after the meeting. The peer reviewer may however, keep a confidential copy of the report for a given, mutually agreed upon period of time (e.g. one semester) in case the teacher misplaces his/her copy.