Peer review in Social Medicine

1
Peer review in Social Medicine

• Yoav Ben-Shlomo
• 01/11/2006

2
Process

• Peer review guidelines approved by Faculty Board
• Responsibility of HoT to ensure all relevant
  staff are reviewed at least once over a three
  year period. HoT will determine reviewer/teacher
  pair.
• Peer review rather than peer observation
• Reports will be collated centrally and also sent
  to relevant element leads
• Reviews can be done either at request of staff
  member of as follow-up if a problem has been
  identified

3
(No Transcript)
4
Instructions for peer review process   1. These
instructions relate to the small group teaching
(5-50 students) 2. What to observe? If the
teacher teaches in a variety of settings then the
most frequent setting should be selected.
Settings should alter over time so the same type
of teaching is not reviewed again and again
(unless there is a problem). 3. The reviewer
should arrange with the teacher the specific
session to be observed. 4. On the day of the
session, the teacher should introduce the
reviewer to the group and explain that the
observation is a routine part of the UoB QA
process.  
5
5. The reviewer must not in any way interfere
with the observed session but merely observe
it. 6. After the session, the reviewer must
debrief the teacher and go through all the
comments. This should ideally occur immediately
after the session but if this is not convenient
then as soon as possible after this.  7. The
teacher must write whether they feel that the
process was done fairly and whether they agree
with the comments made by the reviewer.   8.
After the process is completed the reviewer
should return the completed form to the HoT
administrator (Debbie Hawkings) 
6
9. The unit/element lead should read the report
and if necessary discuss this with the teacher.
If further actions are required (e.g. further
training) then this should be arranged with the
HoT for the department, who should provide any
relevant resources. 10. If the teacher is in a
different department from the unit/element lead,
then the unit/elememt lead may need to discuss
with the HoT for the teachers department rather
than their own HoT.
7
Preparation Prompt arrival of teacher? Prompt
arrival of students? Appropriate action taken by
teacher for late arrival of students? Initial
contact with class appropriate and established
positive mood? Did the students have to prepare
before session? If YES was this checked during
session?
8
Tutorial structure Were objectives and
organization of the session stated clearly at the
beginning? Was the material presented in a
logical progression? Appropriate time taken for
discussion of topics? Was there appropriate use
of visual aids? Were the handouts/overheads fit
for purpose? Did the tutor demonstrate command of
subject matter? Concepts explained
clearly? Enthusiasm for topic? Additional
examples given over and above that in handouts or
course books?
9
Interaction with Students Used forenames of
students? Encouraged students to
learn? Encouraged critical thinking and analysis
by using questioning techniques? Responded well
to student queries and listened? Clarified
technical and new terms/concepts? Handled
difficult students appropriately? Summarised
periodically and ensured that students understood
material before moving onto new topic? Encourage
student-student interaction? Did the tutor show
respect in dealing with students? Provide
students with a sense of achievement? Engage all
students and maintained eye contact?
10
Teaching Effectiveness Was level and content
appropriate? Managed time appropriately? Were
objectives covered by presented material? Did
tutor recap and summarise key points? Emphasized
major points? Additional reading suggested? Did
tutor ensure that students understood and
reinforce materials?
11
Patient/volunteer involvement Was a
patient/volunteer involved in the session (If NO
then other questions are N/A) Did the teacher
ensure that they and the students showed due
respect to the subject Were the students given
time to ask questions and learn from the
subject? Was it worth having the subject at the
session as they added educational value
12
Summative assessment of observed session   Major
issues that need to be addressed Good session
with minor issues Excellent session (role
model)   Do you think further action is
required? Yes ? No ? If YES, please suggest what
further action is required _______________________
___________________  Comments by Teacher about
the peer review process and opinions of the
reviewer ________________________________________
__
13
Summary

• Peer review should be a positive experience that
  helps improve teaching quality
• The reports are useful documents that can be used
  as part of annual appraisal, teaching portfolios
  and for promotion
• If generic issues or individual problems are
  raised, then either the Dept or UoB will provide
  staff support through further training