Teacher Peer Assessment

Teacher peer assessment is a common practice for performance appraisal of teachers in the public schools. Teacher peer evaluation is conducted by a peer or colleague to assess or evaluate the professional performance, competence, and the instructional quality of a practicing teacher. Teacher peer assessment follows an expertise-oriented model, making use of teachers as expert judges of student instruction. Peer assessment is typically implemented district-wide under a school-system's site-based management program. Among the common components of peer assessment are a pre-assessment conference, an in-class formal observation of teaching and a post-assessment conference.

Keywords Competency-Based Assessment; Continuous-Progress Improvement; Evaluation Instrument; Expertise-Oriented Model; Formative Assessment; Heuristic Device; Peer Assessment; Peer Coaching; Peer Evaluators; Performance Appraisal; Personal Construct Theory; Post-Assessment Conference; Summative Assessment; Teacher Evaluation; Tuckman Teacher Feedback Form (TTFF)

Teacher Education > Teacher Peer Assessment

Overview

Teacher peer assessment or teacher peer evaluation is one means of assessing a teacher's instructional quality, competence, performance, effectiveness and/or proficiency. As a system, process or practice, teacher peer assessment is dynamic, innovative and flexible. Teacher peer assessment is an alternative to traditional performance assessments/evaluations and is a component of a comprehensive evaluation process that uses multiple sources of data. There is growing use of teacher peer assessment in U. S. public schools (Edwards, 1986; Grossnickle & Cutter, 1984; Peiperl, 1999). The assessment, evaluation or appraisal of teachers and teaching by peers is an expertise-oriented model that makes use of expert judges-other teachers or colleagues-to make judgments regarding what constitutes expert performance (Lattuca, 2005).

A teacher peer-assessment system typically serves many different purposes. Broadly speaking, there are dual main purposes of teacher peer assessment:

• An administrative or summative function

• A developmental or formative function.

The most important and positive purpose of teacher peer-assessment is the continuous-progress improvement of instructional practice. Teaching is, in essence, no different than any profession which develops performance standards for the preparation, practice, licensing and continuing peer evaluation for accountability and public assurance (Case, Lanier, & Miskel, 1986; Davis, Kumtepe, & Aydeniz, 2007; Mertler & Petersen, 1997; Milanowski, 2005; Sullivan, 1995).

As a general process, teacher peer assessment/evaluation is necessary as a critical component of educational practice which can greatly impact educational-reform efforts. Teacher peer assessment is an indispensable part of teacher evaluation, but it is only one part. In addition, other assessments and evaluations are made by administrators, principals, department chairs and students (Davis, Kumtepe, & Aydeniz, 2007; Schneider, 1975).

History

A major contributor to the concept of teacher peer evaluation was B. W. Tuckman, who applied the psychology of personal constructs to teaching. He developed the Tuckman Teacher Feedback Form (TTFF), a measurement device which can be used in determining teacher behaviors during observations and evaluations. Tuckman designed the TTFF and a series of five related propositions (Table 1) based on the American psychologist George A. Kelly's (1955) psychology of personal constructs and postulates. Kelly's classic work, The Psychology of Personal Constructs, considered "the bible of personal construct theory" and "personal construct psychology," was reissued in 1992. The TTFF used a series of 28 adjectives, later expanded to 65, paired with its approximate opposite. Each pair of adjectives represents a personal construct that can be used to construe teacher behavior. The TTFF can be used by a peer teacher, a trained observer, a supervisor or a student to describe teacher behavior over a time period of about 45 minutes. Tuckman's series of five propositions based on Kelly's postulates used in the TTFF are as follows:

• The teacher relates to the environment by means of personal constructs used for processing incoming information.

• These personal constructs mediate between information the teacher receives and behaviors that he/she emits.

• The kinds of personal constructs the teacher uses to construe his/her environment will also be the ones used by an observer to construe the teacher classroom behavior.

• The constructs are organized into more stable and meaningful systems or clusters of constructs.

• The relative predominance of construct systems will reflect the characteristics of the situation, the disposition of the teacher and the previous history of the teacher (Tuckman, 1971; 1976).

Applications

Practice Management

A teacher peer-assessment system is typically implemented district-wide under a system's school-based management plan and is based on the district's teacher-assessment policies. Thus, although school-level discretion may be allowed in some areas of decision-making, the decisions concerning the form and extent of peer assessment are made at the school district level and are subject to the approval of central-office administrators (Hanson, 1991; Hanson, 1992; Pfeifer, 1987).

Because a peer-assessment system may influence district office/school relations, principal/teacher relations and teacher/teacher relations, a supportive superintendent and a principal who is an advocate at individual schools is essential to the success of the peer-assessment program. Getting teacher involvement is beneficial in securing teacher commitment to the program and maximizes teacher-observation time and the sources of expertise within a district (Hanson, 1991; Pfeifer, 1987).

Peer Evaluators

Teacher peer evaluators are trained and carefully selected colleagues who are used in the process of evaluation to assess various aspects of professional competence and teaching performance. Sometimes only experienced teachers are used to observe and assess their peers. Professional observers such as these have a good sense of what teaching behaviors are characteristic of an exemplary teacher. They are experts who can articulate the features of expert performance and make judgments about such evaluative issues as classroom management and the professional content and quality of material. Individual peer evaluators or members of evaluation teams can implement peer evaluations in a broad range of ways, including single-session or multiple-round assessments (Barnberger, 2007; Hanson, 1992; Heneman & Milanowski, 2003; Lattuca, 2005; Norcini, 2003; Pfeifer, 1978; Sullivan, 1995).

A peer (or peers) of the teacher may be a part of an assessment committee that also includes evaluators and reviewers at different responsibility levels. A division director or department chair may compile the information and provide it to the principal of the school.

Evaluation Process

The methodology and procedures of the peer-assessment process are typically involved and comprehensive. It may be based on performance standards such as those of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. The peer assessment normally follows a detailed, process-oriented schedule and is on-going throughout the year (Downs, 2006; Hoover, 1994; Shinkfield, 1994).

Teacher peer assessment includes as a common component a formal, in-class observation(s) of teaching conducted by peer observers. These are generally one of two different types:

• In a 'cluster approach,' teachers observe and evaluate peers who are teaching the same subject matter.

• In a 'total curriculum approach,' teachers observe and evaluate peers who are teaching in other subject-matter areas (Hanson, 1992; Samalonis, 1969; Yan, 2005).

Some schools record teachers' presentations during peer reviews and evaluations or make use of closed-circuit television. If a videotape exists and is available, it may be made a part of the official report (Adelman, 1979; Hoover, 1994; Shinkfield, 1994).

In addition to bringing peers together for a pre-assessment conference, they may also be brought together after the observation of performance for a post-assessment conference, interview or peer-to-peer discussion component. Such a meeting of peer colleagues and evaluators can be a positive experience in that it provides an opportunity for teachers to reflect on their own performance and to incorporate formative feedback in the peer-assessment process. The teacher peers can consider whether students achieved learning objectives and how the quality of teaching can be improved (Gueldenzoph & May, 2002; Schneider, 1975; Turner, 1978; Yan, 2005).

Evaluation Instruments

The teacher peer-assessment system uses a multi-dimensional evaluative data-collection tool, classroom-observation form or instrument. The exact format of the peer-assessment instrument is based on the nature and specific purpose of the evaluation. Subjective measures of teacher quality and factors important to the teaching process are articulated and listed as a sizeable number of appropriate evaluative criteria-sets of performance standards, objectives, indicators and/or competencies (Davis, Kumtepe, & Aydeniz, 2007; Edwards, 1986; Gueldenzoph & May, 2002; Norcini, 2003).

The standards-based or competency-based measurement instrument includes both instructional skills and personal behavioral characteristics and may be in the format of a questionnaire, an analytic scoring rubric, an evaluation scale, a rating form, an observation checklist or an assessment grid. Regardless of the measurement format, the primary source of data and information of effective teaching and teacher instruction is provided by the peer-assessment instrument (Roe & MacDonald, 1983). The form used should allow for a variety of choices in addition to 'needs to improve' and 'competent' (Hanson, 1992; Schneider, 1975).

Professional Development

The teacher-faculty peer-assessment model used needs to have a professional development program in place that promotes teacher growth and remediation, emphasizes teacher strengths and facilitates continuous-progress improvement. Developmental assessment and evaluation provides constructive feedback and developmental assistance to teachers. Peer-teacher evaluators are able to identify areas requiring improvement and can give feedback which enables teachers to improve their pedagogy. This approach follows a rationale of formative assessment for professional-development purposes, not as a rationale of summative assessment for accountability purposes (Edwards, 1986; Lattuca, 2005; Milanowski, 2005; Shinkfield, 1994; Turner, 1978). An assessment/evaluation model that links teacher performance with student outcomes and teacher professional growth should be adopted. Using peer assessment as a 'review for professional development' is a way to maintain faculty potential through the involvement of other faculty-peers-in the process (Downs, 2006; Hoover, 1994).

The professional development aspect of peer evaluation can be either integrated or separated as a process called peer coaching. This process is recommended because it is primarily focused on improving teaching. Peer coaches are both "equal" volunteer teachers who function oppositely as mentor and protégé to conduct constructive, diagnostic and non-threatening observations in each other's class. After observing instructional behaviors, actions and practices, the teachers meet and give each other feedback on instruction, lessons, plans, classroom presence and classroom management. This safe environment allows for the teacher-peer pair to provide candid feedback, learn from each other and benefit the growth of teachers, the team and students (Gabriel, 2005; Hanson, 1992; Yan, 2005).

Viewpoints

Advantages

There are many advantages to teacher peer assessment. Besides the fact that it may result in performance improvement of those evaluated, there are also professional benefits which accrue to those serving as peer evaluators. Collegial evaluation gives the entire faculty of a school a role and responsibility in the review of peers. The improvement in teachers' performance can benefit the school and faculty and may revitalize faculty interest in teaching and pedagogy. Peer assessment may improve staff attitudes, morale and teacher rapport. It can increase teacher motivation and enhance the esteem and professional growth of teachers (Grossnickle & Cutter, 1984; Hanson, 1992; Singh, 1984).

Peer assessment provides a means by which teachers can assist other teachers, since they have expertise that they can share with each other. Peers may be able to recognize teachers who need additional assistance and remediation early on in the evaluation process, and provide assistance to help fellow teachers, especially inexperienced colleagues, become more successful in their teaching. Peer assessment offers an avenue to increase the collaboration of teachers with their professional colleagues in improving classroom practice (Singh, 1984; Sullivan, 1995; Turner, 1978; Yan, 2005).

Because of their close working relationships, colleagues have better knowledge of the performance of peers. Also, as a result of the inherent problems involved in evaluations by administrators and the fact that a peer's perspective is broader than that of a student, peer assessment may be favored over administrative and student evaluations (Grossnickle & Cutter, 1984; Sullivan, 1995).

Disadvantages

There are also many disadvantages and weaknesses to teacher peer assessment, so that numerous factors limit the quality of results:

• There are different and unique definitions of 'peer' that are recognized from school to school.

• State fair-dismissal laws and collective-bargaining agreements may not provide or allow for peer evaluations (Hanson, 1992; Mertler & Petersen, 1997; Muchinsky, 1995; Norcini, 2003).

• Teachers may have negative attitudes and unfavorable reactions to peer evaluations.

• Peer evaluations may increase the competitiveness among teachers, stifle initiative, reduce teamwork and result in little or no innovation.

• Relatively inexperienced teachers may be apprehensive about their perceived lack of experience when being evaluated by more veteran teachers.

• Non-native English-speaking teachers can be anxious and uncomfortable when observed and evaluated by native English-speaking teachers (Bower, 1991; Rinehart, 1993; Turner, 1978; Yan, 2005).

• Peer assessment necessitates heavy teacher involvement adding to teachers' already hectic schedules and time demands.

• Peer assessment also requires a systematic training program for all faculty. (Gueldenzoph & May, 2002; Hanson, 1991; Milanowski, 2005).

• Teachers may experience feelings of role conflict when serving as peer evaluators.

• Biases may develop that are related to the normal association of peers. When teachers evaluate peers, they may not be truly honest in their appraisals and they may also tend to be lenient (Pfeifer, 1978; Schneider, 1975).

• The teaching characteristics and behaviors of teachers may not change as a result of peer assessment. The process may not improve the quality of student instruction and may not have a significant impact on student achievement (Hanson, 1992; Schneider, 1975).

Validity of Teacher Peer Evaluation

Research shows that there are a variety of practical issues of concern in assessing the validity and reliability of peer judgments and evaluations. Evidence for the validity of peer ratings is weak or mixed at best. There can be questions and concerns related to the validity and limitations of peer evaluations to assess widely variant individual teaching styles. Peer assessment alone may not provide a reliable indicator of teaching quality. The evidence for the effectiveness of peers serving in broad evaluative roles is both scant and inconsistent (Burns, 1998; MacAlpine, 2001; Muchinsky, 1995; Schneider, 1975).

Research

A research-based approach to teacher peer assessment and evaluation should be used (Shinkfield, 1994).

Splitting Evaluative Roles

Research has examined whether splitting the administrative or summative function and the developmental or formative function of peer evaluation is efficacious and will result in improving the performance of evaluatees (Milanowski, 2005). In the case of a split-role group, a peer mentor is used to provide the developmental evaluation along with feedback, and peer evaluators, along with managers, are used to complete the administrative evaluation. In the case of a combined-role group, a peer provides the administrative evaluation, the developmental evaluation and feedback. Milanowski (2005) concluded that it was more important to ensure that developmental assistance was provided than to split the summative and formative evaluation roles.

Research on the determinants of good teaching performance has been largely devoted to empirical measurement. Ilma (1981) concludes that hypotheses about the determinants of good teaching performance cannot be discovered from explicit models of behavior.

Terms & Concepts

Competency-Based Assessment: A type of assessment or evaluation based on the measurement of specific competencies-performance standards, objectives and/or indicators.

Continuous-Progress Improvement: Approach to change in assessment or evaluation based on consistent, on-going and steady growth of teacher performance, meeting appropriate competency standards, proficiency measures and/or performance objectives, and increasing instructional-practice quality and skills attainment through professional development.

Evaluation Instrument: Also, assessment instrument or observation form. Used to collect data, identify and describe behaviors and document subjective measures of teacher quality based on performance standards, objectives, indicators and/or competencies.

Expertise-Oriented Model: A type of assessment or evaluation based on the use of experts to make subjective judgments of quality and performance.

Formative Assessment: A type of assessment or evaluation that is designed and used to promote the growth and improvement of a teacher's performance.

Heuristic Device: Any tool used to guide, further an investigation or help to learn and discover facts; for example, a form, scale, checklist, grid, rubric, questionnaire or any other instrument used during an assessment or evaluation.

Peer Assessment: A type of personnel assessment, evaluation or appraisal of performance conducted by a peer or colleague typically for either formative professional development purposes or summative administrative-accountability purposes.

Peer Coaching: Process designed and focused on improving teaching in which a pair of peer teachers function oppositely as mentor and protégé to observe classroom student instruction and provide professional advice to each other.

Peer Evaluators: Colleagues who evaluate professional teaching performance and competence.

Performance Appraisal: A formal, official and systematic assessment or evaluation of a teacher's performance based on professional standards and competencies.

Personal Construct Theory: Psychological theory developed by psychologist George A. Kelly and adapted by B. W. Tuckman to create an instrument-the Tuckman Teacher Feedback Form-for identifying and documenting teacher behaviors during formal observations or evaluations. According to theory, individuals develop sets of "personal constructs" or "constructions of self"-cognitive schemas, patterns or templates-based on a human drive for personal control so as to predict events of daily life on a continuous basis, increase self-understanding and make sense of the world. These "constructs" result in factors of individual difference that can be construed behaviorally.

Post-Assessment Conference: A peer-to-peer discussion following a peer-assessment observation of performance which affords the teacher an opportunity to reflect and self-evaluate and allows the peer to provide feedback to improve the quality of teaching.

Summative Assessment: A type of assessment or evaluation that is designed and used to make conclusions about the quality of a teacher's performance usually for administrative and accountability purposes.

Tuckman Teacher Feedback Form (TTFF): A measurement instrument based on personal-construct theory, which uses a series of adjectives paired with their approximate opposites, to identify, determine and document teacher behaviors during observations and evaluations.

Bibliography

Adelman, F. W. (1979). Teachers conquer those first-year blues. VocEd, 54 , 37–39.

Barnberger, P. A. (2007). Competitive appraising: A social dilemma perspective on the conditions in which multi-round peer evaluation may result in counter-productive team dynamics. Human Resource Management Review, 17 , 1–18. Retrieved September 21, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=24460629&site=ehost-live

Bower, J. L. (1991). Deming's demons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.

Burns, C. W. (1998). Peer evaluation of teaching: Claims vs. research. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (document number ED 421 470).

Case, C. W., Lanier, J. E., & Miskel, C. G. (1986). The Holmes Group report: Impetus for gaining professional status for teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 37 , 36–43.

Clem, S. (2013). Eloquent mirrors. Independent School, 73, 22–28. Retrieved November 3, 2014 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90400156

Danielowich, R. M. (2012). Other teachers' teaching: Understanding the roles of peer group collaboration in teacher reflection and learning. Teacher Educator, 47, 101–122. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=74278615&site=ehost-live

Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). When teachers support & evaluate their peers. Educational Leadership, 71, 24–29. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90424723&site=ehost-live

Davis, N. T., Kumtepe, E. G., & Aydeniz, M. (2007). Fostering continuous improvement and learning through peer assessment: Part of an integral model of assessment. Educational Assessment, 12 , 113–135. Retrieved September 21, 2007 From EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24951720&site=ehost-live

Downs, A. (2006). Standards-based evaluation for teachers. Harvard Education Letter, 22 , 4–6.

Edwards, C. M., Jr. (1986). An 'effective teaching' approach to teacher evaluation and staff development. Spectrum, 4 , 3–8.

Gabriel, J. G. (2005). How to thrive as a teacher leader. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Grimm, E. D., Kaufman, T., & Doty, D. (2014). Rethinking: Classroom observation. Educational Leadership, 71, 24–29. Retrieved November 3, 2014 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=95820577

Grossnickle, D. R., & Cutter, T. W. (1984). It takes one to know one: Advocating colleagues as evaluators. NASSP Bulletin, 68 , 56–60.

Gueldenzoph, L. E., & May, G. L. (2002). Collaborative peer evaluation: Best practices for group member assessments. Business Communication Quarterly, 65 , 9–20. Retrieved September 21, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=6568411&site=ehost-live

Hanson, M. K. (1991). Alteration of influence relations in school-based management innovations. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED332352).

Hanson, M. K. (1992). Peer evaluation among teachers: Acceptance of alternative roles. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED347662).

Heneman, H. G., & Milanowski, A. T. (2003). Continuing assessment of teacher reactions to a standards-based teacher evaluation system. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17 , 173–195.

Hoover, B-B. H. (1994). Faculty involvement in professional development: Everyone's responsibility and benefit. Kalamazoo, MI: Center for Research on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation.

Ilma, A. K. (1981). An economic model of teaching effectiveness. American Economic Review, 71 , 1056–1060.

Ingersoll, R. M. (1996). National assessments of teacher quality. (Report NCES-WP-96-24). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED415206). Retrieved October 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Education Research Database. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/15/1f/78.pdf

Kelly, G. A. (1992). The psychology of personal constructs. Oxford, England: Routledge.

Lattuca, L. R. (2005). Making learning visible: Student and peer evaluation. Journal of Mass Communication Educator, 60 , 247–251. Retrieved September 21, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19204981&site=ehost-live

MacAlpine, M. (2001). An attempt to evaluate teaching quality: One department's story. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26 , 563–578.

Mallory, B. P., Fisher, D. J., Witham, A. R., & Gultice, A. D. (2014). With a little help from my friends: How faculty peer review can transform mediocre teaching methods into powerful learning experiences. AURCO Journal, 20, 192–203. Retrieved November 3, 2014 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=98859374

Mertler, C. A., & Petersen, C. J. (1997). A collaborative model of teacher evaluation: Roles and challenges faced by various constituent groups. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED413331). Retrieved October 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Education Research Database. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/15/0a/0a.pdf

Milanowski, A. (2005). Split roles in performance evaluation: A field study involving new teachers. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18 , 153–169.

Muchinsky, P. M. (1995). Peer review of teaching: Lessons learned from military and industrial research on peer assessment. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6 , 17–30.

Nelson, J., Caldarella, P., Adams, M., & Shatzer, R. H. (2013). Effects of peer praise notes on teachers' perceptions of school community and collegiality. American Secondary Education, 41, 62–77. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89935760&site=ehost-live

Norcini, J. J. (2003). Peer assessment of competence. Medical Education, 37 , 539–543.

Peiperl, M. A. (1999). Conditions for the success of peer evaluation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10 , 429–458. Retrieved September 21, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=3971490&site=ehost-live

Pfeifer, R. S. (1987). Variations on a theme: An analysis of peer involvement in teacher evaluation. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED285882). Retrieved October 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Education Research Database. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/dd/35.pdf

Rinehart, G. (1993). Quality education. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.

Roe, E., & MacDonald, R. (1983). Informed professional judgment: A guide to evaluation in post-secondary education. Lawrence, MA: University of Queensland Press.

Samalonis, B. (1969). Project 120. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED030623).

Schneider, L. S. (1975). Faculty opinion of the spring 1974 peer evaluation. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED104493).

Shinkfield, A. J. (1994). Principal and peer evaluation of teachers for professional development. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8 , 251–266.

Singh, R. (1984). Peer-evaluation: A process that could enhance the self-esteem and professional growth of teachers. Education, 105 , 73–75. Retrieved September 21, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4717738&site=ehost-live

Sullivan, T. A. (1995). Teaching evaluation by peers. Teaching Sociology, 23 , 61–63.

Tuckman, B. W. (1971). Teaching: The application of psychological constructs. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED121838).

Tuckman, B. W. (1976). The Tuckman Teacher Feedback Form (TTFF). Journal of Educational Measurement, 13 , 233–237.

Turner, L. (1978). Discussion of a project on peer evaluation in the faculty of nursing, University of Toronto, Canada. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 3 , 457–473.

Yan, G. (2005). An investigation of ESL teachers' experience of peer consultation. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 31 , 17–36.

Suggested Reading

Feldman, K. A. (1998). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings. In K. A. Feldman & M. B. Paulsen (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the college classroom (pp. 391–414). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.

Mento, A. J., & Giampetro-Meyer, A. (2000). Peer observation of teaching as a true developmental opportunity. College Teaching, 48 , 28–31. Retrieved September 21, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=2889733&site=ehost-live

Peiperl, M. A. (1999). Conditions for the success of peer evaluation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 10 , 429–458. Retrieved September 21, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=3971490&site=ehost-live

Taylor, E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (2012). Can teacher evaluation improve teaching?. Education Next, 12, 79–84. Retrieved November 3, 2014 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=79818120