Using student peer evaluations to evaluate team taught lessons.

In order to assess whether students fully grasped the six teaching standards in the Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics (NCTM, 1991), the researcher had each student submit peer evaluations of the team lessons that were taught in a Methods and Materials of Teaching Mathematics in the Middle Grades class during the Fall semester of 2003. The intent of this study was to observe the consistency between the student peer evaluations and instructor evaluation of each team lesson based upon the six teaching standards that were addressed during the first ten weeks of class. The class consisted of twenty-one students, four of whom were traditional students with no prior teaching experience and 17 of whom were special licensure students who were currently teaching in area public schools. The class was divided into nine teams of two students. Three students decided to present individually. Students were given a list of topics to select for their presentations. The teams developed twenty-minute lessons to present to their classmates. After reviewing the comments given during each lesson it was evident that at least 70% of the students in the class could recognize and state evidence of the six teaching standards. After reviewing the results the researcher concluded that students definitely need to put into practice the theory, strategies and techniques learned during the semester in which the methods course is being taken.

**********

Purpose

The intent of this study was to observe the consistency between student peer evaluations and instructor evaluations of team taught lessons based upon the six teaching standards in the Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics (NCTM, 1991). The six standards, which include: (1) worthwhile mathematical tasks, (2) teacher's role in discourse, (3) student's role in discourse, (4) tools for enhancing discourse, (5) learning environment and (6) analysis of teaching and learning, were addressed during the first ten weeks of the fall 2003 semester in the Methods and Materials of Teaching Mathematics in the Middle Grades class.

Review of Literature

Peer evaluation has long played a significant role in leader nomination and performance measurement among business, education, medical, and research professionals (Kramer, 1990).

Outside of these spheres, however, peer evaluation has been approached with trepidation, resulting generally, from the perception that peer evaluations are nothing more than a popularity contest (Sherrard & Raafat, 1994).

Deming contends that levels and standards of performance should not be imposed by a hierarchical authority (i.e. professor) but rather achieved at through coalition building and empowerment of employees (Spragins, 1991).

Having peers evaluate performance and establish standards increases their involvement. helps them adopt a supervisory perspective, and enhances both the accuracy of the ratings as well as the quality of the feedback (Leavitt, 1964).

Previous research has illustrated the potential for peer assessment to improve evaluation accuracy by including the perspective from individuals of the same level (Kane & Lawler, 1978; Lewin & Zwany, 1976; Reilly & Chao, 1982).

Klimoski and London (1974) also indicate that coworkers/peers make finer distinctions among different aspects of performance than do supervisor evaluations.

As a result, feedback from peers is more effective in eliciting behavioral changes than supervisor ratings (DeNisi, Randolph, & Blencoe, 1982).

Methodology

The class consisted of twenty-one students. Four students were traditional students with no prior teaching experience and seventeen were special licensure students who were currently teaching in area public schools. Each semester the students present team taught lessons. However, students were asked for the first time to evaluate each other in teams.

The class was divided into nine teams of two students. Three students decided to present individually. Students were given a list of topics to select from for their presentations. Each team developed a twenty-minute lesson to present to the class.

Students were allowed to comment on each others" group lesson. This method was used for the first time since the beginning of classes during fall 2003. Students not presenting were given an evaluation sheet to record comments about each team lesson. Students were given a grade based on a combination of peer and instructor evaluations of the presentation. The basic criteria for evaluation was based on the six national standards set forth by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). During the 15th week of the semester, each individual or team was allowed to review the grades and comments made by their fellow classmates and instructor.

Results

After reviewing the comments made by the peer evaluators, it was evident that at least 70% of the students recognized and stated evidences of the six teaching standards.

The peer evaluations were very consistent with the instructor evaluation of each team taught lesson. Some peers seemed to be much more critical of the teams than the instructor. Others gave excellent feedback and suggestions for improving the lessons.

It was evident, through observation, that students really enjoyed this form of teaching. By using the peer evaluations, students felt they had some input in the assignment of grades.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This exercise reinforced good teaching practices for middle grades mathematical classrooms. After reviewing the results, it could be concluded that students need to associate more theory with practice, strategies and techniques with method and assessment techniques embedded in lessons.

Students also need training in sensitivity and how to give constructive criticism to their peers based upon the certain types of negative comments that were written by the peer evaluators. The main concern is that the harsh criticism given to each other is an indication of how they are with their own students. Math is a course most students hate because of the attitude and disposition of the teacher.

References

DeNisi, A. S., Randolph, W. A. & Blencoe, A. G. (1982). Level and source of feedback as determinants of feedback effectiveness. Proceedings of the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, 175-179.

Kane, J. S. & Lawler, III, E. E. (1978). Methods of peer assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 555-586.

Klimoski, R. J. & London. M. (1974). Role of the rater in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 445-451.

Kramer, J. F. (1990). Perceived similarity and accuracy of peer ratings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 213-218.

Leavitt, H. J. (1964). Managerial psychology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lewin, A. Y. & Zwany, A. (1976). Peer nominations: A model, literature critique, and a paradigm for research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 29, 423-447.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

Reilly, R. R. & Chao, G. T. (1982). Validity and fairness of some alternative employee selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 35, 1-62.

Spragins, E. E. (1991). Measuring performance: Making peer reviews work. Inc., 13(10),161.

Thompson, B. L. (1991, July). An early review of peer review. Training Magazine, 42-46.

Kimberly Smith Burton, Department of Middle Grades, Secondary and Special Education. Fayetteville State University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kimberly Smith Burton, Department of Middle Grades, Secondary and Special Education, Fayetteville State University, 1200 Murchison Road, Fayetteville, NC 28301.