An interdisciplinary analysis of microteaching evaluation forms: how peer feedback forms shape what constitutes “good teaching”

Abstract

Microteaching, a standard method for developing teaching skills, places high importance on peer feedback, which is guided by post-session feedback forms. This paper focuses on how feedback forms can shape what becomes understood as important to teaching. A sample of 10 microteaching evaluation forms drawn from North American postsecondary education institutions were examined using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Through a mixed-methods, interdisciplinary approach combining quantitative form classification based on distinct teaching elements with qualitative analysis drawing on Foucauldian and post-structural feminisms, key challenges are identified in the way that peer feedback forms may shape perceptions of what constitutes “good teaching”. We interpret that the close attention paid to the management of the body and the disproportionate focus on presentation and style may foreclose other modes of teaching beyond a conventional lecture-based class. This leads to a discussion on the ways in which the evaluation forms can be enhanced to provide a more effective educational tool.

Keywords:

• microteaching
• peer evaluation
• postsecondary teacher training
• interdisciplinarity
• pedagogy

Acknowledgements

We thank our former colleagues and Megan Burnett, Assistant Director at the Centre for Teaching Support and Innovation/Teaching Assistant Training Program at the University of Toronto for supporting this project. We are grateful to Megan Burnett, Kristin Smith, Amy Gullage, and Allison Burgess for their feedback on earlier drafts of this paper.

Notes

1. Allen (1967) explains microteaching as a meta-teaching or teacher education practice originating at Stanford University in the School of Education. He explains microteaching as: “[e]ssentially constructed, but real teaching, the technique allows teachers to apply clearly defined teaching skills to carefully prepared lessons in a planned series of five to ten-minute encounters with a small group of real students, often with an opportunity to observe the results on videotape” (preface p.1).

2. While microteaching and peer evaluation are not synonymous, there are considerable similarities. Moreover, microteaching guidelines or tenets of planning, teaching, feedback, and so forth, are incorporated into many peer evaluation programmes.

3. The TATP is a peer-training programme for graduate students. The programme provides discipline-specific training workshops, topical workshops on teaching and learning, microteaching sessions, teaching dossier reviews, and in-class teaching observations. The TATP is intended to serve the 6,000 graduate students who also work as teaching assistants, course instructors, markers, language and music tutors, and laboratory demonstrators. The TATP services are available to the 15,000 graduate students enrolled at the University of Toronto. At present, approximately 700 students use the TATP on a regular basis.

4. See Table 1 for data set.

5. Bowling Green State University's Graduate Student Enhancement Program has given permission for the use of their guide in our research. Staff of the Bowling Green State University Graduate Student Enhancement Program authored the guide collaboratively.

6. The Brown University form was entirely open ended. No categories were articulated. No prompting questions or lists of suggested areas to provide feedback are included.

7. Discourse has been defined in a multiplicity of ways. Southgate (2003) explains discourses as “a theoretical tool that can account for relationships between knowledge, practice, subjectivity and power” (p. 180).

8. It is worth noting that “appropriate” eye contact is also desired (Washington University, University of Toronto).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Marie Annette Vander Kloet

Both authors contributed equally to this work.