by David Peck

Last January I attended a retreat where the subject of faculty peer observation was discussed. My natural inclination is to avoid the topic altogether. One of the perks of CFS, I figure, is leading an observation-free professional existence, and I planned on keeping things that way. I had strong student reviews and the respect of my department colleagues, so I sat in the meeting trying to figure out ways to avoid what I knew was coming–an invitation to observe and be observed. As the discussion progressed, two versions of peer observation and evaluation were presented: The Harvard model, and the Four-Square model. The Harvard model was aimed at a critical evaluation of a peer in order to help them teach better. That didn’t sound all that great to me, as an observer or as a subject of observation. I didn’t believe that one day’s worth of observation would be all that helpful to any of my peers, nor did I want to be cast in the role of a critical evaluator.

Although the Harvard model was not appealing to me for what I thought were very good reasons, the Four-Square model was. The purpose of the Four-Square model is not to evaluate or critique the colleague being observed, but to help the observer evaluate their own teaching. After observing a colleague, we would meet briefly, and instead of talking about the things they did wrong, we would talk about the things I learned about my own teaching, and how to apply them to myself. Not only did this model appeal to me, but, in the course of our discussion I warmed-up to several peers I had not known well, and knew that I would be safe participating in an observational exchange. At the end of the discussion, three of us agreed that we would visit each other’s class once in that semester, using the Four Square model. I was scheduled to visit a writing class, and a remedial reading class. This meant that I would visit classrooms outside of my own department and discipline, which I discovered was quite healthy professionally.

I attended the writing class on a day when they met in a writing lab. The room had a computer for each student, and a large wall monitor for the teacher. The first part of the class involved a recapitulation of where the students were in their writing assignments, a review of the standards applicable to their current assignment, and some discussion of their experiences in writing. The instructor then changed pace, and had the students pair-up on computers and evaluate each other’s writing. Finally, the instructor had one particular student group meet in the hallway to discuss progress on a group paper they were writing. The course was competency-driven, and less content-driven than my history courses. I had a chance to see how fundamental competencies, such as writing, were taught on campus, and reflected on how my knowledge of that process could be used to improve my own classes. Although I teach writing and reading competencies in connection with the assimilation of historical content, I discovered that the methods used by my colleague, particularly the way in which writing standards were clarified and taught, would help me teach writing better.

I attended the remedial reading class, and learned a valuable lesson about my own student population. I knew that some students had learning disabilities and was prepared to accommodate them. But, had no idea how many students there were on campus who were plain-old afraid to read. I have worked with students over the years to learn how to read better, and I have reading competency instruction embedded in my content courses, so its not as though I was ignorant of the need to improve reading, or that I was not committed to shoulder my own responsibility to teach reading. The most important lesson that I learned was that I needed to help students overcome fear of reading. I am currently trying to implement what I learned by letting the students know that although I expect them to read the assignments, I also know they can if they apply themselves, if they seek help with reading early in the course, and take opportunities to learn from their own peers, or from the Reading Center. The content assigned has not changed, but my method of delivery and open invitation to give assistance helped two students last Summer semester. That was worth the hour spent in peer observation, and the discussion that followed.