Sophia University Junior College Division Faculty Journal
第 37 号, 2016, 1-30

Peer and Supervisory Observation for Faculty
Development:
Ways of Providing Written Feedback
Melvin Andrade
Abstract
This paper describes the initiation and development of peer and supervisory
observation programs in the Junior College Division of Sophia University. There areseveral ways to provide written feedback on teaching depending on the aims of theobservation and the roles of the participants: unstructured, semi-structured, itemized
checklist, informed narration, and combined forms. The author argues that to provide
fair and balanced assessment of teaching for supervisory purposes, it is desirable tocombine an observation checklist with narrative accounts of teaching performance. Suchfeedback, however, needs to focus on teaching behaviors that research has found to be
associated with positive learning outcomes and student satisfaction.
Key words: assessment, evaluation, faculty development, observation, supervision, teaching

Introduction
The usefulness and importance and classroom observation for the professional
development of teachers at all levels of instruction, primary school through university,
is well documented in the literature (e.g., Bilash, 2011; Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004;
Felder & Brent, 2004; Holdaway, Henderson, & Cameron, 2009). For the purpose ofthis essay, classroom observation of instruction has been divided into two main types1,

peer observation and supervisory observation. The primary aim of peer observation
is to foster mutual professional growth by sharing information and practical teachingknowledge. Supervisory observation, on the other hand, aims to assess or evaluate theperformance of the instructor. Examples of supervisory observation are pre-service
observation of teacher trainees to access their attainment of basic teaching skills andin-service observation to access compliance with school policies and standards. At
the college and university level, in-service observation of tenure-track and tenured
faculty members is commonly one component of periodic performance evaluations (e.g.,
Gaston College (2011) and Dusquene University (2010) faculty handbooks). Both peer

─1─

Melvin Andrade

and supervisory observation can have other purposes as well, for example, identifying
candidates for good teaching, innovation, and other types of awards.
As chair of the Faculty Development (FD) Committee and later as chair of the
Department of English Language at Sophia University Junior College Division 2(academic years 2009–2014), I worked with the FD Committee members and faculty
at large to establish and implement both peer observation and supervisory observation
programs. The two programs we established are described below. This paper has two
aims: (1) to familiarize current and newcomer faculty members with the background ofthese programs and (2) to serve as a reference for other departments that may wish tostart their own programs.

Establishing a Peer Observation Program
In 2009, the FD committee started an “English Teachers Symposium” eventthat is held twice a year, at the end of each semester: September and February. This
event typically has included an invited guest speaker from another college, a researchpresentation by one of our own faculty members, and two Welcome to My Class,presentations, one by a full-time and one by a part-time instructor. The Welcome to My
Class persentations have covered compulsory and semi-compulsory English courses
so there has been a considerable degree of mutual interest in how one’s colleagues
conducted the same and related courses.
After several of these symoposia, the FD committee came to a consesus that allteachers could benefit from having more opportunities to experience what and how
their colleagues teach. At the February 2010 symposium, guest speaker Christopher
Stillwell (2009) of Kanda University of International Studies presented a model ofpeer observation in his presentation “Peer Observation: 360° of Teacher Awareness.”
Afterward, the FD Committee reviewed the relevant professional literature in both
Japanese and English and drafted its own proposal for a peer observation program
under the name “Open Class Days.” A key resource for the proposal was Taguchi etal.’s (2003) article “Five Types of Open Classes as Faculty Development Activities.” Theprogram was accepted by the Faculty Board at the end of 2010 and went into effect at
the the start of the 2011 academic year.
The Open Class program has undergone a few minor revisions since 2011, but
its aims and components have remained essentially the same. Before the start of
the academic year, every teacher receives a set of guidelines that clarify the aims of─2─

Peer and Supervisory Observation for Faculty Development: Ways of Providing Written Feedback

the program, the roles of the teacher and observers, and the nature and method of
exchanging feedback between teacher and observer. They also receive a questionnaireasking them to designate which days will be their Open Class days. At present, eachteacher designates two days each semester as Open Classes (originally one day eachsemester).
In addition to increasing the number of Open Class days, there have been threeother revsions. One was changing the days when the observation period should begin
and end. For example, starting too early in the semester did not give teachers andstudents enough time to adjust to each other. The next one was changing how to informthe observers of which days are open for observation. These days have been published in
the course catelog, posted on the bulletin board in the Teachers Lounge, and prepared
as a handout. The last revision was changing how many days in advance teachers will
be informed that there will be observers: from two weeks to one week. Letting teachers
know in advance that there will be observers allows the teacher time to brief themon the aims and content of the lesson. Another reason for advance notice is to makeadjustments if too many observers plan to come on the same day. Faculty members whowant to observer a class send an email to the office staff member responsible for faculty
development affairs, and the staff member informs the teacher.

Guidelines for Peer Observation
The guidelines for participating in peer observation are divided into three sections.
The first section clarifies the aims of peer observation: (1) “to share information,practical teaching knowledge, and teaching tips” and (2) “to encourage instructors andobservers to reflect on general principles of ‘good teaching practice’ while recognizing
there are many different ways to achieve excellence in teaching and learning dependingon the circumstances.” This section also explains that peer observation is not intended
to be a performance evaluation: “Valid performance evaluation requires specialized
knowledge, training, and experience. Moreover, observing one or two classes does notprovide a well-balanced picture of a teacher’s effectiveness.”
The second section clarifies the roles of the teacher and the observer. The

teacher’s role is “to present a typical or model lesson that represents the teacher’sconcept of ‘good teaching practice’ in relationship to the topic, class level, and othercircumstances of the course.” In addition, “the teachers should make an effort to informthe observers before the class of the purpose of the lesson and what they plan to do.”─3─

Melvin Andrade

Due to misunderstandings that the peer observer was a “visiting teacher,” the following
clarification to the guidelines needed to be added: “In principle, the teacher should
not ask the observer to help teach the lesson (to be an assistant teacher), nor ask theobserver to participate with the students. However, if such approaches are desirable,
they can be arranged beforehand by mutual agreement.”
In contrast, the observer’s role is “to learn by observing and to share information
for mutual benefit.” This guideline also makes explict that the observer is there “as apeer or guest, not a supervisor or evaluator.” The observer is instructed to abide by thefollowing rules: “Arrive at the classroom a few minutes ahead of time and stay for theentired class. Sit where directed by the insturctor and be as unobstrusive as possible.
Refrain from photographing or recording the class unless you have received permissionin advance.”
The third section presents the what, how, and where of discussing the lesson
and providing feedback to the teachers. The guidelines present it this way in threesubsections:F rom the observor: (1) What would you like to know more about? (2) What
information do you have that the teacher may be interested in (e.g., materials,
websites, teaching techniques you use). (3) What did you learn that you would liketo apply to your own teaching? To maintain a positive relationship with the teacher
avoid giving directives (such as “You should...” or “You should not...”) and avoid
asking the teacher to defend why he/she did something.

From the teacher: (1) Did your lesson go according to your plan? (2) Was there
anything that was unexpected or not typical of your class?” (3) Were you satisfied
with your lesson? (4) Was there anything you would have done differently?

F eedback venue: The instructor and observer should arrange to meet at aconvenient time and place to discuss the class. If a face-to-face meeting isinconvenient, participants can communicate by email or other means.
Since the program began, the majority of peer observers have been full-time
instructors who are on campus four or five days a week. In contrast, part-time
instructors come only one or two days a week, and many of them arrive just before classand leave just after class because of teaching obligations at other schools. Consequently,

─4─

Peer and Supervisory Observation for Faculty Development: Ways of Providing Written Feedback

many part-time teachers have few opportunities to be peer observers, although they
may want to do so. Nevertheless, full-time instructors are able to observer their classes
and both are still able to benefit from the experience. Although a formal assessment of
the peer observation program has not yet been conducted, my personal experience andcomments from participants suggest to me that both teachers and observers have foundthe observations beneficial.

The Need for Supervisory Observation
The need for adding a supervisory observation program became evident to the
FD Committee during the 2013 and 2014 academic years. At that point, our efforts
to promote better teaching had included the following: (1) The availability of peer
observation for professional development. (2) Symposia (described above). (3) FD
lectures and workshops by guest speakers and in-house faculty. (4) Mid-semester andend-of-semester course evaluation questionnaires that students used to evaluate theircourses and instructors. (5) Lunchtime meetings at the midpoint of each semester for
full- and part-time teachers to reflect on the results of the midterm course evaluationquestionnaires and discuss other issues. (6) Feedback sheets (formative assessment) inwhich teachers reported to the FD committee on what actions they planned to take basedon the results of the mid-semester course evaluation questionnaire. (7) Reports to the
Faculty Board on the results of the end-of-semester course evaluation questionnaires.
Subsequent FD Committess have continued to develop and improve on these and other
FD programs.
Anecdotal reports suggest that these activities and events have been well received
and have benefited many teachers. On the other hand, despite these efforts, results ofthe mid- and end-of-semester questionnaires indicated that a small number of teachers
received low ratings from students. Contrary to our expectations, it was sometimes thecase that the feedback these teachers received from their students on the mid-semester
questionnaires did not lead to positive changes in student satisfaction by the end of
the course. In addition, on a few occasions, reports from students to their advisers or to
office personnel about the performance of a few teachers prompted the FD Committee toconsider adopting supervisory observation.
Another reason for adding supervisory observation was the inauguration in 2013 of
the Good Teaching Award. Because of the short deadline for drafting and approving thestandards for selecting the candidates, it was decided that the first year’s award would

─5─

Melvin Andrade

be based on the results of the average score over several recent semesters on selected
items related to teaching and students’ comments on the end-of-term course evaluationquestionnaire. The FD Committee and Faculty Board, however, realized the limitationsof bestowing a “good teaching” award based solely on students’ satisfaction and personal
opinions. Accordingly, the Faculty Board approved a provisional award program withthe understanding that classroom observations, syllabus review, learning outcomes, andother factors would be included in a revised program to be enacted later. (See Appendix
2 for proposed criteria.)

Development of the Supervisory Observation Guidelines
Stillwell put the difference between Peer Observation and Supervisory Observation
this way:There is a major distinction between observation for personal development andobservation for evaluation. Basically, the literature on peer observation says thatpeer observation should not be evaluative. Many of the texts go to great lengths totease apart the concepts of observation and evaluation, to show that observation can
be non-judgmental, it can be part of the observer’s learning process, it can promotereflection and growth...”(Personal communication, Feb. 19, 2010)

With this distinction in mind, the FD Committee added the following information to theClass Observation Guidelines:
For the purpose of implementing the Teaching Improvement Assessment Policy,
a new category of observation, Supervisory Observation, will be established.
[The aims] of Supervisory Observation [are] (1) To provide support and advice
for teaching improvement as indicated by the results of the midterm and end-ofterm course evaluation questionnaires, and other sources. (2) To collect data on“good teaching practices” to share with the faculty. These observations will be
implemented by the FD Committee members and department chair.
The guidelines further explain that in contrast to Peer Observation, which takes place
on designated days, Superisory Observation can take place anytime during the semester.
To assist with implementing Supervisory Observation in an objective and fair-─6─

Peer and Supervisory Observation for Faculty Development: Ways of Providing Written Feedback

minded manner, an observation checklist that could be used for indentifying goodteaching candidates as well as for providing explicit feedback to teachers whose teaching
and classroom manner need improvement needed to be developed. In the fall of 2014,
a pilot version of the checklist (See Appendix 1) based on Andrade (2014) was used bymembers of the FD Committee and the department chair to assess the performanceof several teachers who needed support and advice on improving their teaching. In
addition, copies of the checklist were distributed at FD events to raise awareness of theteaching factors associated with positive learning outcomes and student satisfaction(e.g., Canale, Herdklotz, & Wild, 2012; Feldman, 1989). A Japanese translation of thechecklist was also prepared.
The pilot version of the supervisory observation guidelines was written based ona review of the literature in English and Japanese related to classroom observation,
faculty development, good teaching, teacher evaluation, and similar keywords. The
resources found included academic articles and books, in-house faculty handbooks,
faculty development websites, and checklists used at colleges and universities inAustralia, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States (e.g., Bilash, 2011;

Gaston College Faculty Handbook, 2011; Little, Goe, & Bell, 2009; MIT Guidelines,2008). An important consideration was that the checklist be constructed so that it could
be used with any type of academic courses taught at the college, both content-centered(e.g., history) and skill-centered (e.g., foreign language) courses (Chickering & Gamson
1987; Learning and Teaching Unit, 2004; McKinney, n.d.).
Although basic principles of effective teaching and learning can apply to any course,
it is more likely that content courses strive to develop higher order and critical thinking
skills (Paul & Elder, 2008), in contrast to physical education and beginning level foreign
language courses, where the emphasis is on learning basic skills. In the latter case,methodologies appropriate for second language acquisition, may not necessarily apply
to content-centered courses. Other considerations included objectivity, easy of use, andusefulness for providing concrete feedback for improving teaching and fairly judging
candidates for the Good Teaching Award.

Providing Written Feedback
Finding time after the observation to meet in person with the teacher to provide
feedback has often been a problem owing to the differences in times and days teachersand observers have classes, meetings, and other obligations. Consequently, written

─7─Melvin Andrade

feedback, often by email, has been a common way to communicate. In my experience,
there are several ways to provide written feedback on teaching depending on the aimsof the observation and the roles of the participants: unstructured, semi-structured,itemized checklist, informed narration, and combined forms. Examples of each type are
below. These examples are edited and revised versions of multiple feedback samples andshould not be associated with any individual teacher. They are provided for the purposeof illustrating each genre of feedback.

Unstructured feedback refers to feedback that does not follow any designatedform. It is more likely to be used in peer observation. Observers freely write whatever
they think is appropriate. As a peer, the writer employs a friendly, informal tone, often
sharing feelings and experiences, as illustrated in Example 1.

Example 1: Unstructured Feedback
1. The students seemed comfortable with the class and interested in the lesson.
From my vantage point, nearly all of them stayed on task for the duration of theclass. You clearly have a good relationship with them. (The student at the backwho fell asleep was in my class last year, and she fell asleep in my class, too!
Every time!)
2. I noticed that you didn’t collect the previous homework assignment for which
they wrote an original story about one of the characters in the textbook. Was
it intended to be just a warm-up assignment, or will you collect it later forevaluation?
3. I imagine that if I had taught the lesson, I might have asked a few students toread aloud the story they wrote for homework (about the textbook character)—but maybe that would have embarrassed them or created too much anxiety. Whatdo you think?
4. As for the in-class assignment in which they wrote about a picture they brought(or you gave them), I was imagining what kind of story I would write. The firstthought that popped into my head was, “Where in the story is this picture? At
the beginning, middle, or end?” I’d be curious to know how the students position
the picture in their stories. I’d also be curious to know the tone and theme of
their stories: Adventure-Action? Drama? Romance? Comedy? Tragedy? Thriller?
Heroism? Horror? Heartwarming vignette? Unclear?
5. I picked up that the focus of the lesson was correct use of verb tenses (probably

─8─Peer and Supervisory Observation for Faculty Development: Ways of Providing Written Feedback

something that was emphasized in the textbook). I imagine, therefore, thestudents will be putting emphasis on the narrative aspect of their stories (whathappened first, next, then, after that...) rather than the descriptive aspect(adjectives—which is probably another lesson).
6. I haven’t had a chance to look at the textbook yet (I will drop by the book storeand have a look next week). What do you think of it so far? Or is it too early tosay?
7. If there is anything specific you would like me to comment on, please let meknow.
Note that although the peer observation guidelines provide a list of questions
for guiding the observer’s responses, they are not evident in the feedback here.
Nevertheless, as peer-to-peer feedback, these comments were appreciated, as confirmed
by email correspondence with the instructor.
The second type of feedback, semi-structured, can be employed in either peer orsupervisory observation. In Example 2 below, the writer used the aims and roles of theparticipants as stated in the peer observation guidelines above to structure the feedback.
Example 2: Semi-Structured Feedback
1. Why did you choose to observe this class? Answer: Many of my advisees ask me
about this course. I wanted to have firsthand experience with it in order to givethem good advice.
2. What did you like about the lesson in particular? Answer: The smooth flow fromtask to task. No activity went on too long.
3. What did you learn that you would like to apply to your own teaching? Answer:
Perhaps I will try a simple research topic as part of one lesson, instead of a moreelaborate project that requires a few weeks to prepare.
4. What would you like to know more about? Answer: Do you plan to cover thewhole book? Do you have any supplementary materials? Did the class go as you
expected? Was there anything that you would have changed?
5. What information do you have that the teacher might be interested in (e.g.,materials, websites, teaching techniques you use)? Answer: I have nothing torecommend now. I think you’ve got it all covered!
─9─Melvin Andrade

Example 2 exhibits a similar tone to Example, 1 but lacks detail and elaboration.
Perhaps the guide questions constrained the observer’s responses. On the other hand,the observer may have used them for convenience and to save time. Another possibility
is that the observer may have been reluctant to comment in detail on a colleague’s
performance. The paucity of content in this feedback makes it is difficult to judge theimpact of the observation experience.
Another type of semi-structured feedback appears in Example 3. This type uses alimited number of general categories based on features of the classroom experience thatthe observer thinks are important to consider.

Example 3: Semi-Structured Feedback Based on General Categories
Thank you for allowing me to observe your class. For the purpose of “sharing
information and learning from each other,” here are my comments and questions.
1. Student-Teacher Relationship. The students seemed comfortable with the classand interested in the lesson. From my vantage point, all of them stayed on task
for the duration of the class. You clearly have a good relationship with them.
2. Teacher-Talk and Teacher-Student Interaction. Nearly the entire class wastaught in English. It seemed to me that your explanations were clear, well paced,and easy for the students to follow. (I think sometimes I may talk too fast in myclasses.) There was a lot of one-to-one teacher-student interaction, mainly when
you called on a student directly, but not many volunteers when you asked aquestion to the class as a whole. I suppose they felt some anxiety about having anobserver in the classroom (me).
3. Student-Student Interaction. I didn’t observe so much one-to-one oral interaction(student-to-student), namely pair work and small group work—although there
was some. Compared to my classes, I think you probably put more emphasis on
accuracy, whereas in my classes I use more student-centered work and put moreemphasis on fluency. Because I observed only one class, my impression may notaccurately reflect the overall balance of activities and techniques that you use.
4. Activities and Pace. I think your lesson plan was easy for the students to follow.
You used several tasks, and each one built on the previous one in a logical way
and moved from simple to more complex. As the tasks became more difficult,
you provided individual help to students who seemed to be having trouble.
In my classes, I have students read aloud in “chunks” as well—both after me─ 10 ─

Peer and Supervisory Observation for Faculty Development: Ways of Providing Written Feedback

and on their own. Before reading aloud, we listen to the CD, and then after
reading aloud, we listen again with books closed for listening practice. I practicevocabulary similar to the way you did it. I also have students re-tell the story(summarize) both orally and in writing. Something like this: “This is a story about( ). I think there are (three) main points. First ( ). Second ( ). Finally ( ). My opinion is ( ).
I have them take notes and write down the opinions of their classmates, which
they re-tell to check for accuracy and comprehension: “You said ( ). Is that right?”
5. Your Impression? How did you feel about the class? Did the students accomplish
as much as you expected? Was it typical?
Thank you again for allowing me to observe your class. Although I observed
only one class, it seems that we have similar approaches and ways of teaching. If
there is anything specific you would like me to comment on, let me know.
Compared to Example 2, this semi-structured feedback using general categories
displays more detail and elaboration. In addition, the observer is more engaged andreflective. The aim of “learning from each other” is more evident.
The next example is a combination of narrative and semi-structured feedback. It
begins with a narrative description followed by the observer’s responses to the aims androles found in the Peer Observation Guidelines. The strength of this type of feedback isthat the narration serves as a mirror, much like a video recording, allowing the teachers
to see themselves through the eyes of a colleague.
Example 4: Combined Narration and Semi-structured Approach

Part 1: Lecture-discussion (60 min.)
The main topic of the lesson was “Small Talk.” Subtopics were presented
as a slide show. First, the definition, reasons for, and importance of small talkwere taken up. Next, a more detailed description and the “how” of small talk were
presented, for example, “get informed,” “greet appropriately,” “greetings vary,”and “be polite.” Concerning greetings, the role of nonverbal communication was
also taken up (handshake, air-kiss). Besides UK-Japan interaction, the possibilityof interaction with other nationalities while in the UK (e.g., Koreans) was alsomentioned.
Examples of appropriate and inappropriate topics were mentioned, inparticular politics and religion. BBC News was mentioned as a source of useful─ 11 ─

Melvin Andrade

information. It was compared to NHK. From time to time, students asked questions
or provided comments and examples following the teacher’s prompts. During thelecture, nearly all students appeared to be highly attentive. During about thelast third of the lecture, students began to take notes as the topics became more
concrete.

Part 2: Pair Practice of Small Talk (20 min.)The students were paired-up following the teacher’s directions. They
immediately and enthusiastically began practicing small talk with each other. It
appeared that all groups stayed on task in English for about 8 minutes. After that,some groups began speaking in Japanese. Then, several minutes later, some pairs
began to merge into larger groups of 4 to 6 members, speaking mainly in Japanese.
I could not hear what they were talking about (the class topics or something else?).
The teacher worked intensively with at least two groups.

Part 3: Whole class debriefing (10 min.)
The teacher asked for feedback from the students. There was a discussion ofmoney, traveler’s checks, and credit cards.

Guideline Questions for the observer
1. Why did you choose to observe this class? Answer: I was interested in
the connection between English II (“Understanding and Respecting Others”) andthis course. Both deal with intercultural and cross-cultural communication andcomparison.

2. What did you like about the lesson in particular? Answer: In particular, I
was impressed by the relaxed but still serious atmosphere, and the good rapport
between the teacher and students, as well as among the students themselves. The
students are preparing for a real-life adventure (studying abroad), so they arehighly motivated. Asking students to define and provide examples of the topics
contributed to active learning.

3. What did you learn that you would like to apply to your own teaching?
Answer:I liked the video clip on nonverbal communication. I plan to find out

more about the differences between British and American culture and include that
information in my English II course.

4. What would you like to know more about? Answer: I never thought before
about the differences between American and British style “small talk.” After class, I
searched the Internet and learned something new.

─ 12 ─

Peer and Supervisory Observation for Faculty Development: Ways of Providing Written Feedback

5. What information do you have that the teacher might be interested in(e.g., materials, websites, teaching techniques you use)? Answer: The Americancounterpart to NHK and BBC is PBS: http://www.pbs.org. In English Essentials,
the first chapter deals with “small talk” so it might be a good place to start this
topic. Then, using the following website, compare British and American styles ofcommunication: “Small Talk” in Debrett’s Guide to British Behavior (Everyday
Etiquette).
Although the observation above was peer observation, the narrative account of thelesson makes this type of feedback useful for supervisory observation as well. It captures
the atmosphere of the class and to an extent the teacher’s classroom management andinstructional skills.
Example 5 below is also a narrative account but differs from Example 4 in that theobserver provides comments on the narration followed by comments without specificreference to guideline questions or categories.
Example 5: Narration with Comments

First part of the class: Presentations
During the class, seven students made three-minute presentations.
1. Teacher explained today’s procedure, making reference to the short lectures thestudents had previously observed as models for students to follow.
2. Teacher listed on the board the presenters for today.
3. E ach presenter was accompanied by an MC (timekeeper), who briefly introduced
the presenters and distributed a one-page handout to the class members.
4. Student MC introduced the presenter. Presenter started presentation.
5. MC signaled the end of the presentation time. MC asked questions that seemed tohave been prepared in advance. Some presenters seemed to have responded withprepared answers, and other presenters’ answers appeared to be impromptu.
6. T eacher sometimes interrupted to advise MC to keep to the time limit bydirecting the the presenter to move on to the next topic.
7. After all the speakers had finished, the teacher provided summative comments
for the group of presenters as a whole, not individual comments. Comments, forexample, referred to the use of visual aids and time management.
8. Teacher announced practice session for next week’s presenters, using email to─ 13 ─

Melvin Andrade

make individual arrangements.

My comments on the first part of your class (items 1-8):
Everything went smoothly. I think this class was a good example of classmanagement skills. I have not used MC and timekeepers in my classes, but after
observing your class, I think I will try it. Prof. OOOO uses a similar system in hiscourse, which I have observed. In that course, a group of about three students is
assigned to be “mentors” (peer advisers), who read the presentation beforehand andprepared questions to ask the presenter. One of them also was a timekeeper.
Regarding item 7 above, I also provide summative comments for the group asa whole. I think it is an efficient use of time and does not embarrass a particular
student. Nevertheless, one-to-one feedback is probably more effective in the longrun--provided that we have enough time.
Regarding item 8 above, I think your students are very lucky to have a chance
to practice with you beforehand. I’m sure this activity has a positive impact on
their performance and attitude toward the course. Furthermore, it provides anopportunity for the one-to-one feedback that I mentioned in the previous comment.

Second part of the class: Essay writing
9. Teacher checked the homework assignment from Essentials, page 63, regarding
the Biblical Parable of the Talents (Mathew 25, 14-30).
10. A ctivity 1: On the blackboard, the teacher explained the basics of a story
grammar (elements of a story).
11. A ctivity 2: A few students read aloud their homework assignment to theclass. The assignment appeared to have been to write a four-paragraph essay.
Teacher’s response to the read-aloud: mainly praise provided in a friendly
manner with much encouragement. Teacher’s comments were smooth, neither
too fast nor too slow, and showed the teacher’s enthusiasm.
12. Activity 3: Students participated in a chain-story activity with each student
adding to the story following the elements of the story grammar. Teacher
interacted with each student to correct, improve, and guide each each link in thestory. Teacher used the blackboard to write down key points and used questions
to elicit previously learned knowledge. At the completion of the story, theteacher rhetorically asked what is the main point or message of the story, andthen provided several examples as opinion (iken) or interpretation (kaishaku).

─ 14 ─

Peer and Supervisory Observation for Faculty Development: Ways of Providing Written Feedback

Next, there was a short period of time for silent writing to write down the moralof the story. Students then read aloud their ideas. When one student got stuckand could not express herself clearly, the teacher asked others to help her out.
The teacher rephrased the students’ comments to model appropriate answers.
13. Wrap-up. Teacher summarized on the blackboard the structure of an essay andthe function of each paragraph. She drew a picture on the board (schematic)
showing the layout of a one-page essay, including the approximate number ofwords (kanji) in each paragraph.
14. End of class. The teacher appeared to cut short her explanations for item 5
above, because she needed to make several announcements at the end of class.

My comments on the second part of your class (items 9-14):
Regarding item 12, I thought this part of the class especially was an excellent
model of good teaching practice. I use a similar method when a student gets stuckand does not know how to respond. Usually I will provide a few hints, hoping thatthe student will be able to self-correct. If that scaffolding does not work, I will ask
other students to help her, as you did. Then, if the result is still not satisfactory, I
will provide a direct correction or model answer. Modeling and re-phrasing are goodtechniques.
Regarding item 13, I do the same thing. It is sometimes difficult to decided how
many words students should write in each section. I usually provide a range (forexample, 100-200 words) and explain that “A” students usually write longer rather
than shorter paragraphs (but length is not the only criteria). Here are some criteria
I use when assessing writing in Required English I and II: (1) Was the assignment
on time? (2) Was it complete? Was anything missing? (3) Were the contents
accurate, appropriate, and clearly expressed? Did the contents include enoughdetails, examples, and support where needed? (4) Was the format correct (margins,font, line spacing, title, date, layout, page numbering, etc.)? Was the paper neat?
(5) Were the grammar, punctuation, and spelling correct? (6) If the assignment
required note taking or writing a comment, was it well done?
Overall, I was impressed with the class. I thought it was a good example of“a model lesson” except perhaps for being pressed for time at the end. Maybe theannouncements could be made at the start of the class instead of at the end? Inother classes I have observed, teachers tended to run overtime as well.

─ 15 ─

Melvin Andrade

Among the five types of feedback above, Example 5, narration with comments,
provides the richest account so far of what the class was actually like. Accordingly, it
could be used along with other data to support a teacher’s candidacy for a Good Teaching
Award (See Appendix 2). However, for that purpose, what it and the other types of
feedback so far lack is explicit reference to those factors that research has shown to
be associated with positive learning outcomes and student satisfaction. Example 6
illustrates a solution to this problem. In this example, the observer provides feedback
based on a detailed checklist of factors divided into 12 categories (Appendix 1).

Example 6: Feedback Based on an Itemized Checklist (See Appendix 1)

1. Start of Lesson (Opening)
Teacher had students’ attention from the start. Friendly manner and
immediate engagement with the students. No review of previous lesson. No settingof goals or advance organizer of today’s lesson. (Content and activities of today’s
lesson not clear in the syllabus.)

2. Time Management
Many short teaching episodes and variety of tasks kept students interested
and engaged. (In my opinion, more time could have been spent on some tasks to“optimize” learning of the content, e.g., Episodes 4 and 9).

3. Contents and Organization
Systematically followed the textbook except for Episodes 8 and 9: Free
conversation and “ask me a question” seemed unrelated to the course objectives.
Link of past and present not evident. Transitions clear. Content appropriate to the
topic, but “meaningful” to the students was hard to judge.

4. Delivery
Orally delivery appeared fine, except voice was too loud on occasion (almost
shouting). Classroom doors were left open, so noise may be a problem for otherclasses. Energetic. Not dull. Pace appeared fine. Rarely used the board—cannot
judge. Did not use slides, etc. (More use of the board might enhance student
understanding.)

5. Instruction
Whole class, pair work, and silent individual work are evident. Little one-toone practice between teacher and student except for off-lesson free talking. Students
were active (e.g., reading aloud, repeating, writing), but little evidence of applied─ 16 ─

Peer and Supervisory Observation for Faculty Development: Ways of Providing Written Feedback

learning (e.g., making original sentences, unscripted role-play). Very little one-toone Q&A to assess a student’s understanding.

6. Interaction
Many chances for students to ask questions, but the teacher did not elicit
comments or opinions about the contents of the lesson. Wait time is short. Did notmonitor progress by questioning. No evidence of using different question types.
The class is small and students spoke audibly so no need for teacher to repeat
the question (except to correct grammar or pronunciation). Feedback was sparse.
Participation appeared equal. Little elaboration on the contents. Did not personalize
the lesson contents (“compare to your experience”).

7. Class Management and Atmosphere
Students appeared interested. Teacher appeared to enjoy teaching and wasin control of the class. Maintained attention but did not call on students by name.
Teacher was respectful and fair. Students spoke out without hesitation. They
seemed confident. No evidence of “high expectations” in the sense of pushing andencouraging the students to perform with more accuracy, fluency, complexity, andelaboration. No disciplinary problems.

8. Materials and multimedia
This class used only a textbook with the accompanying audio CD. The textbook
appeared “attractive.”

9. End of Lesson (Closing)
The lesson ended (the bell rang) while students were engaged doing a written
task in the textbook. Told students to finish the lesson for homework. There was no
mention of other homework. No review, no reflection, no preview, and no questiontime.

10. Cognitive Level of Instruction
Today’s lesson involved only lower-order thinking skills, which appeared
appropriate for learning foreign language (English) vocabulary, grammar, andsentence patterns. High-order language skills needed to perform well in theworkplace were not the focus of the textbook lesson.

11. Critical Thinking
As above, today’s lesson involved only lower-order thinking skills, whichappeared appropriate for learning foreign language (English) vocabulary, grammar,
and sentence patterns.

─ 17 ─

Melvin Andrade

12. Promotes Second Language Acquisition
Teacher and students used English 99 percent of the time. Today’s lesson was
limited to dialogue and sentence level practice, primarily oral practice. Content was
not personalized, except for elementary-level free conversation not related to thelesson. Cultural comparison was not evident and probably not needed. There waslittle evidence of teacher modeling, scaffolding, examples, prompts, and feedback
during whole-class activities. Error correction, etc. (if any) was done during pairwork when the teacher circulated around the room.

13. Other comments
The students were attentive, cooperative, and engaged throughout the class.
They seemed to enjoy it and the teacher did, too. The topics and activities in thesyllabus did not appear to match today’s lesson.

The itemized checklist above can be used as an assessment tool for supervisory
observation as well as for personal reflection and self-monitoring of good teachingpractices (Richards & Lockhart, 1994; Richards & Farrell, 2005). As an assessment tool,
it can help ascertain the presence, absence, and extent of “good teaching” practices. In
addition, it can help provide a more balanced picture of teacher whose course evaluation
results indicate need for improvement.
The next example includes excerpts from a narrative account of the same classobserved in Example 6. It allows the reader to create a mental picture of what direct
observation of the class was like. Unlike the narration in Examples 3 and 4, thisnarration takes into account the explicitly stated factors associated with positive
learning outcomes and student satisfaction covered in Example 6. In this regard, asa supervisory tool, this form of “informed narration” combined with the summative
responses in the checklist (Franklin, 2001). provide the good way to assess candidates
for the Good Teaching Award (Appendix 2) and to provide support for teachers needing
faculty development support for some aspects of their instruction practices.
Example 7: Informed Narration Based on the Itemized Checklist (Excerpts)

Opening (9:20). I arrived about 8 min. before class began. The teacher waschatting in a friendly manner with several students. At about 9:15, the teacher
turned on the CD player and did a sound check. Class began promptly at 9:20.
Sixteen Students were present and one more arrived a few minutes late. The

─ 18 ─

Peer and Supervisory Observation for Faculty Development: Ways of Providing Written Feedback

teacher began by asking students one by one about who had taken the recent
TOEIC test. He had brief, conversational exchanges with some students. At 9:27,
the teacher took attendance, calling students by their given names and chatted
briefly with each one (e.g., How are you? Have a nice weekend? Who went to bed
after midnight?).

Episode 1 (9:30). Written task. The teacher began the textbook lesson. No
review of the previous lesson. He confirmed orally that all students were on theright page (p. 36). Teacher lent a textbook to student who forgot hers. (Did notscold student but treated her politely.) Teacher read aloud the guide questions andtold students to write their answers in the book. Teacher told them working with apartner was OK and that if they needed help to raise their hand. Teacher circulatedaround the room and gave advice to several students. Students worked quietly andstayed on task. I did not notice anyone working with a partner. Teacher asked if
anyone needed more time. No one raised a hand, so the teacher proceeded to thenext activity.

Episode 2 (9:42). Oral practice (read aloud and role-play). Teacher told thestudents to “Do the conversation with your partner. Put the book between you.
Both of you read it.” The teacher circulated around the room listening to each pair.
He told them to correct any mistakes they noticed. A student asked what “correct”
meant, and he wrote on the board “Correct = Make something right.” After a few
minutes, he assigned new partners, played the CD, and students listened withbooks closed. Next, the students did a role-play using the textbook. One student was
the “Manager” (book open) and the other student was the “Customer” (book closed).
After a short time, the teacher told them to switch roles. A few minutes later, theteacher stopped the activity and briefly summarized the content and language
functions. There was no one-to-one oral practice between teacher and student
as a whole-group activity. (While students were practicing, he gave additional
instructions, but he did not get their attention first, so some pairs continued talking
and didn’t hear them.)

Episode 4 (10:05). Written task. The teacher directed students to do thematching exercise in the textbook (written task). After a few minutes, the teacher
read aloud the number of each question (1, 2, 3, etc.) and its corresponding answer (A,B, C, etc.). The words were not read aloud, just the numbers and letters. There wasno practice or discussion of the content of the exercise.

─ 19 ─

Melvin Andrade

Episode 8 (10:30). Free conversation (unrelated to the lesson). The teacher
announced “free talking” about “anything that makes you happy.” The teacher
circulated among the students and answered a few questions. All students wereactively engaged in speaking English.

Episode 9 (10:34). Written task. The teacher directed the students to lookat Exercise 1 on page 42, read aloud the instructions, and told them to fill in theblanks. After 5 minutes, the teacher read aloud the answers and asked if there
were any questions or any different answers. The wait time was very short (about
3 seconds). There was no practice or discussion of the content of the exercise. The
teacher directed the students to look at the next exercise.

Closing (10:49). The teacher told the students to finish the exercise forhomework and ended the class. A few students approached the teacher to ask
questions. The others waited for the bell to ring before leaving.

Narrative descriptions such as the one above can be used to compare teacher
behaviors and teaching practices. These comparisons can serve as material for
professional development discussion groups where participants discuss the pro andcons of various classroom practices and consider alternative approaches. To illustrate,compare the Opening and Episode 1 in Example 7 above with those in Example 8 below (aclass taught by a different teacher).

Example 8: Informed Narration of an Opening and Episode 1

Opening (9:20–9:25). Twenty-three students were present at the start of theclass, and two more arrived late. Students sat scattered throughout the classroom.
The teacher entered classroom on time and began distributing attendance slips
silently. The teacher told students to return slips. These words were the first words
the teacher spoke since entering.

Episode 1 (9:25–9:45). Correcting textbook exercise. The teacher announced
the start of the lesson (unit and page). Using the attendance slips, the teacher
called on a student to provide an answer to a textbook exercise. There was a longpause, and the student finally answered in low voice. (I sat behind the last row,and it was hard to hear the student’s voice. Perhaps some others students could
not hear her clearly as well.) The teacher explained the correct answer and why thestudent’s response was incorrect. (Note: all explanations were in Japanese.). The

─ 20 ─

Peer and Supervisory Observation for Faculty Development: Ways of Providing Written Feedback

teacher commented on vocabulary (e.g., practice = training vs. practice = profession(e.g., medical practice). The teacher compared the current grammar pattern withprevious grammar patterns. The teacher wrote vocabulary items on board andpointed out easily confused items (bring up vs. grow up). The teacher continued
using the attendance slips to call on students one by one to respond to the textbook
exercise items. About 10 minutes after class began, two students in the back beganchatting. Teacher did not notice. The teacher rarely made eye contact with theclass. After calling on students, in most cases, the teacher paused until the student
responded. Sometimes the pause was very long, but eventually the students madean effort to answer. The teacher continued to add vocabulary items to the board as
they came up during the lesson. The teacher’s writing was legible.

Two comparisons, among several that could be pointed out, are the ways these twoteachers differ in the emphasis they put on rapport building and time management at
the start of the class. The first teacher chats in a friendly manner with the students
before and during the taking of attendance. In contrast, the second teacher skips any“warm up” activities and gets the students immediately involved in the first leaningtask (correcting homework), marking attendance while calling on students one-by-one toanswer questions. How these and other teacher actions affect student satisfaction andlearning outcomes, as well as reflect good teaching practices, need to be thoughtfully
considered.

Conclusion
Imagine that at your college or university you have the opportunity to observea colleague teach, and you are expected to provide written description to the teacher
and/or to your faculty development committee on what you observed. If you are givenno advice on how to write such feedback, what do you do? First of all, ask yourself:
What is the purpose? What is my role? How will this information be used? When
providing feedback in peer observation, you have considerable freedom to share personal
experiences on what and how to teach without being judgmental. When providing
feedback for supervisory purposes, it is important to provide a fair and balanced
assessment by combining an observation checklist with narrative accounts of teaching
performance. In either case, feedback needs to focus on teaching behaviors that research
has found to be associated with positive learning outcomes and student satisfaction.

─ 21 ─

Melvin Andrade

End Notes
1. O ther types of observations, for example, are (a) the Open Class, during which
members of the campus community and prospective students observe a model or“typical” lesson, and (b) ethnographic, naturalistic, and other methods for collecting
detailed data on teacher and student behavior for research purposes.
2. Sophia Junior College was renamed as Sophia University Junior College Division in2012.

─ 22 ─

Peer and Supervisory Observation for Faculty Development: Ways of Providing Written Feedback

Appendix 1

Supervisory Observation Itemized Checklist
Teaching Factors Associated with Positive Learning Outcomes and Student Satisfaction

Instructor:

Date:

Course:Observation time (start-finish):Type of course:

Room:

Enrollment:

Attendees:

Period:Observer:To the observer: As appropriate, consider whether the following behaviors were Highly
Evident (5), Evident (4), Somewhat Evident (3), Seldom Evident (2), Not Evident (1), or
Not Applicable (0) to this class. Write your comments to support your judgment
1. Start of Lesson (Opening) 5 4 3 2 1 NA
Gets students’ attention, greeting, attendance, review, today’s goals, homework check, etc.
2. Time Management 5 4 3 2 1 NA
Starts on time. The pace of the lesson is appropriate. Optimizes instructional time.
Finishes on time.
3. Contents and Organization 5 4 3 2 1 NAContents appropriate to the course goals and objectives. Has a clear lesson plan.
Topics presented in logical sequence with clear transitions. Links past and present
learning. Content is meaningful.
4. Delivery 5 4 3 2 1 NA
Speaks clearly, audibly, and at an appropriate pace. Adequate eye contact,
effective body language, etc. Writing on the board, slides, etc. is legible and not too
small, etc.

─ 23 ─

Melvin Andrade

5. Instruction 5 4 3 2 1 NA
Gives clear directions. Clearly explains the material. Uses a variety of techniques
to convey information (questions, explanations, models, visuals, etc.). Uses examples
and relates new ideas to familiar concepts and previous learning. Emphasizes
important points and key vocabulary. Summarizes from time to time. Lesson hasvariety of formats (lecture, whole class discussion, Q&A, pair work, small groupwork). Active learning is evident. Assesses students’ understanding (quiz, etc.).
6. Interaction 5 4 3 2 1 NA
Asks questions to monitor students’ progress. Provides sufficient wait time forstudent’s response. Gives satisfactory answers to students’ questions. Uses a varietyof question types (literal, analytical, interpretive, etc.) Provides opportunities forstudents to ask questions and make comments. Makes sure student’s questions andcomments are heard by all (teacher repeats, paraphrases, etc.). Keeps discussions on
track and encourages equal participation. Provides appropriate feedback (praise,hints, corrections, requests for elaborate, etc.).
7. Class Management and Atmosphere 5 4 3 2 1 NA
Calls students by name. Maintains student attention. Makes class session
stimulating and interesting. Shows enthusiasm and interest. Shows interest,
concern and respect for students. Treats students fairly. Maintains classroom
climate conducive to learning. Helps build students’ confidence. Students feel it is“safe” to speak. Communicates high expectations. Maintains discipline (no private
chatting, mobile phones, off-task behavior, etc.).
8. Materials and multimedia 5 4 3 2 1 NA
As needed, provides attractive, organized, and useful outlines, handouts, visual aids,
slides, etc. Instructional media and/or materials are appropriately cited (source andcopyright).

─ 24 ─

Peer and Supervisory Observation for Faculty Development: Ways of Providing Written Feedback

9. End of Lesson (Closing) 5 4 3 2 1 NA
Reviews key points. Encourages students to reflect on what they learned today.
Relates today’s lesson to future lessons. Makes clear the homework assignment for
the next class. Allows time for questions, etc.
10. Cognitive Level of Instruction 5 4 3 2 1 NA
(Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy). As appropriate, includes several cognitive levels, lower tohigher: (1) Remembering: recognizing, listing, describing, identifying, retrieving, naming,
finding, defining. (2) Understanding: comparing, explaining, classifying, exemplifying,summarizing. (3) Applying: implementing, carrying out, using. (4) Analyzing: comparing,organizing, outlining, finding, structuring, integrating. (5) Evaluating: checking,hypothesizing, experimenting, judging, testing, monitoring. (6) Creating: making,designing, constructing, planning, producing, inventing. (Overlaps Critical Thinking)
11. Critical Thinking 5 4 3 2 1 NA(Paul and Elder). As appropriate, promotes the following: (1) Elements of Thought:
Purpose, problem or issue, assumptions, point of view, information and evidence,
concepts and ideas, inferences and assumptions, implications and consequences. (2)Intellectual Standards: Clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, significance, depth,
breadth, logic, fair-mindedness. (Overlaps Cognitive Level)
12. Promotes Second Language Acquisition 5 4 3 2 1 NA
Integrates all language skills (reading, writing, listening, speaking). Uses English
as comprehensible input as much as possible. Students use English as much as
possible. Relates contents to the students’ background experiences and lives.
The use of language is realistic and authentic. Provides cultural instruction asneeded. Provides support (modeling, scaffolding, examples, prompts, and feedback).
Deals with errors appropriately.
13. Other comments
14. Narrative summary. Describe the flow of the lesson including the opening,
instructional episodes, and closing. Note approximate time for each episode (e.g., 10:05–10:15).

─ 25 ─

Melvin Andrade

Appendix 2
Sample Criteria for Selecting Candidates for the Good Teaching Award
1. Eligibility and number of awards: The candidate must be a currently employedfull- or part-time instructor. There is no limit on the number of awards given each year,
provided that all evaluation criteria are met.
2. Evaluation Period and Course Load. Full-time Instructors: One academic
year and a minimum of 8 courses. In the case of a sabbatical, the fall semester of theprevious academic year will be included. However, data from a previous award cannot
be applied to subsequent awards. Part-time Instructors: At least 4 semesters of teaching
and a minimum of 8 courses. If the teacher has not taught 8 courses during that period,
then courses from early years can be included. A part-time teacher who has received
an award can be considered for another award after 4 or more semesters of teaching.
However, data from a previous award cannot be applied to subsequent awards.
3. End-of-Semester Course Evaluation Questionnaires. To be considered for anaward, the following criteria must be met: (1) In principle, at least a 50-percent response
rate in all courses and at least 100 respondents in total during the evaluation period.
(2) A total average score of at least 4.5 (out of 5.0 with 5 being the best score) rounded
up on both overall satisfaction and items related to instruction and content with nocourse less than 4.0. See note below. (3) The number and contents of positive comments.
(4) The number and seriousness of negative comments. (5) If a questionnaire was not
administered in a course, or if the response rate was less than 50 percent, the instructor
must submit a written explanation, and the FD Committee will decide if the instructor
will lose eligibility or not.
4. Syllabus Evaluation. Based on the course evaluation results of the springsemester, the FD Committee will evaluate the syllabi of the top scoring candidates
on the following criteria: (1) compliance with the syllabus guidelines, (2) compliancewith the diploma policy, (3) appropriateness and explicitness of learning objectives andevaluation criteria, (4) appropriateness of teaching and learning activities, and (5) otherrelevant criteria. Evaluation scale: “Exceeds expectations,” “Meets expectations,” “Doesnot meet expectations.”
5. Supervisory Observation (Fall Semester). Based on the results of the springsemester course evaluations and syllabi review, candidates will be observed, in principle,
on at least two occasions during the fall semester using the Good Teaching Guidelines

─ 26 ─

Peer and Supervisory Observation for Faculty Development: Ways of Providing Written Feedback

Observation Form. The observer on each occasion will be different.
6. Final Review. Based on data from all the relevant Course Evaluation
Questionnaires, syllabi, and observations, the FD Committee will rank the top scoring
candidates and present its findings and recommendations to the president for final
selection of the winners of the good teaching award.

Selected references: Barre (2015), Centra (2003), Eiszler (2002), Felder & Brent(2004), Greenwald & Gillmore (1997), Mori & Tanabe (2011, 2012), Spooren, Brockx, &Mortelmans (2013), Stehle, Spinath, & Kadmon (2012).
References
Andrade, M. (2014, Feb. 4). “What Makes a Good Teacher? Ideas, Strategies, andRecommendations from the Faculty Development Literature.” A presentation given
at the English Teachers Symposium. Sophia University Junior College Division.
Hadano, Japan.
Andrade, M. (2015, Nov. 22). Writing Feedback About Teaching: Peer and Supervisory
Observation of College and University Instructors. Presentation given at the JALT
41st Annual International Conference, Granship, Shizuoka, Japan.
Barre, E. (2015). Student ratings of instruction: A literature review. Center for
Teaching Excellence. Rice University. Retrieved from http://cte.rice.edu/
blogarchive/2015/02/01/studentratings
Barre, E. (2015). Rice CTE student ratings of instruction literature review. Retrieved
from https://youtu.be/DEOruot_gcM.
Bilash, O. 2011. Best of Bilash: The value of observation. University of Alberta.
Retrieved from http://www.educ.ualberta.ca/staff/olenka.bilash/ best%20of%20
bilash/observation.html.
British Council. (2015). Continuing professional development (CPD) framework forteachers. Retrieved from http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/
CPD%20framework%20for%20teachers_WEB.PDF.
British Council. (2015). Continuing professional development for teachers. http://www.
teachingenglish.org.uk/teacher-development/ continuing-professional-development.
Canale, M., Herdklotz, C., & Wild, L. (2012). Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness.
Office of Faculty Career Development. The Wallace Center at Rochester
Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://nortonsafe.search.ask.com/
web?q=Evaluation+of+Teaching +Effectiveness.+Office+of+Faculty+Career+Develo

─ 27 ─

Melvin Andrade

pment.+The+Wallace+Center&o=apn10506&prt=cr.
Centra, J. A. (2003). Will teachers receive higher student evaluations by giving higher
grades and less course work?” Research in Higher Education, 44 (5), 495–518.
Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven Principles of Good Practice inUndergraduate Education. Washington News Center. Retrieved from http://www.
lonestar.edu/multimedia/SevenPrinciples.pdf.

Duquesne University Faculty Handbook. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.asjmc.org/
contemporary/tenure/university%20wide%20t_p/Duquesne%20University.pdf.
Echevarria, J. J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. J. (2004). Making Content Comprehensible

for English Learners: The SIOP Model (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Eiszler, C. F. (2002). College students’ evaluations of teaching and grade inflation.

Research in Higher Education, 43 (4), 483–501.
Felder, R., & Brent, R. (2004). How to evaluate teaching. Chemical Engineering

Education, 38 (3), 200-202. Retrieved from http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/
Columns/ Teacheval.pdf.
Feldman, K. A. (1989). The association between student ratings of specific instructional
dimensions and student achievement: Refining and extending the synthesis of datafrom multisection validity studies. Research in Higher Education, 30 (6), 583–645.
Franklin, J. (2001). Interpreting the numbers: Using a narrative to help others read
student evaluations of your teaching accurately.” New Directions for Teaching and

Learning, 87, 85–100.
Gaston College Faculty Assessment and Evaluation System . (2011). Texas: Gaston
Community College.
Learning and Teaching Unit. (2004). Guidelines on Learning that Inform Teachingat UNSW. Sydney: University of New South Wales. https://teaching.unsw.edu.au/
guidelines.
Holdaway, M., & Henderson, H., & Cameron, S. (2009). Classroom Observations:

The Basics . Arizona Charter Schools Conference (Arizona Charter Schools
Association). Retrieved from http://sekmodernlanguagedepartment.wikispaces.
com/file/view/ Cameron_ ClassObservationBooklet.pdf/239286853/Cameron_ClassObservationBooklet.pdf.
Greenwald, A. G., & Gillmore, G. M. (1997). “No pain, No gain? The importanceof measuring course workload in student ratings of instruction.” Journal of

Educational Psychology, 89 (4), 743–51.

─ 28 ─

Peer and Supervisory Observation for Faculty Development: Ways of Providing Written Feedback

Lewis, K. G. (2001). Making sense of student written comments. New Directions for

Teaching and Learning, 87, 25–32.
Little, O., Goe, L., & Bell, C. (2009). A Practical Guide to Evaluating Teacher

Effectiveness . Washington, D.C.: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher
Quality.
McKinney, K. (comp.) (n.d.). A sampling of what we know about learning fromscholarship of teaching and learning and educational research. Handout Materials,
Papers, Tutorials, and Bibliographies. The Office of the Cross Chair in The
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Illinois State University. Retrieved 2014
from http://sotl.illinoisstate.edu/resources/materials/.

MIT Guidelines on Learning that Inform Teaching. (2008). Cambridge, MA: Teachingand Learning Laboratory. Retrieved from https://tll.mit.edu/sites/default/files/
guidelines/ learning-guidelines-2008.pdf.
Mori, S., & Tanabe, Y. (2011). Students’ course evaluations and the their roles in faculty
development (2): Analyses of students’ perceptions toward required English classes.

Kinki University English Journal, 7, 17-36.
Mori, S., & Tanabe, Y. (2012). Effects of perceived teacher personality on student classevaluations. Kinki University Center for Liberal Arts and Foreign Language

Education Journal, Foreign Language Edition, 3 (1), 163-181.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts

and Tools. Foundation for Critical Thinking Press. Retrieved from https://www.
criticalthinking. org/store/products/critical-thinking-concepts-amp-tools/156.
Protocol for Classroom Observations. (2004). Anneberg Institute for School Reform at
Brown University. Retrieved from http://www.annenberginstitute.org.
Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective Teaching in Second Language

Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2005). Professional Development for Language

Teachers: Strategies for Teacher Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Spooren, P., Brockx, B., & Mortelmans, D. (2013): “On the validity of student evaluationof teaching: The state of the art. Review of Educational Research, 83 (4), 598–642.
Stehle, S., Spinath, B., & Kadmon, M. (2012) “Measuring teaching effectiveness:correspondence between students’ evaluations of teaching and different measures ofstudent learning.” Research in Higher Education, 53 (8), 888– 904.
Stillwell, C. (2009). The collaborative development of teacher training skills. ELT

─ 29 ─

Melvin Andrade

Journal, 63 (4), 353-362. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccn068.
Student motivations and attitudes: The role of the affective domain in geosciencelearning. (2015). The Geological Society of America. Retrieved from http://serc.
carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/affective/motivation.html.
Taguchi, M., Fujita, S., Shinto, T., & Mizukami, S.. (2003). FD to shite no kokai jugyo
no ruikeika: 13 daigaku no jitsurei wo moto ni [Five types of open classes as
faculty development activities: A study of 13 cases]. Nihon Kyoiku Kogakukai
Ronbushi(Nihon Kyoiku Kogaku Zashi 27, SuppD: 25-28. Retrieved from http://
ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110003026524 .

─ 30 ─