Using Video and Peer Feedback to Improve Teaching

This article discusses a program at Berkeley of using videotaping of actual classes, and peer feedback, to improve teaching. While the program was aimed at graduate students, it can be adapted to use with faculty members.

Background and Purpose

Diverse and informed criticism can improve teaching, especially when coupled with video feedback. In the Graduate Student Instructor (GSI) training program which I directed in the UC Berkeley Mathematics Department, such criticism helped all the GSIs improve their teaching. At UC Berkeley, the introductory mathematics courses are typically divided into large lectures which meet with the professor, and then are further subdivided into recitation sections of about 25 students each of which meets twice weekly with a GSI. All first time GSIs are required, concurrently with their first teaching appointment, to enroll in the training program (as a course), and in the Fall of 1994 we had about 35 such GSIs. Though the course was intended specifically to improve the teaching of novice graduate student instructors, teachers and professors at all levels could benefit from the critical feedback at the heart of our program.

Method

After an initial university-wide training workshop, the course met for the first half of the semester every Monday afternoon for about 2-1/2 hours. Each meeting consisted largely of an extended discussion of various topics on teaching effectiveness, such as the importance of knowing whether the students understand your explanations, the best ways to encourage student involvement in the classroom and how to manage groups, as well as more mathematical matters, such as how best to explain continuity, the chain rule, or inverse functions. Many of the topics we discussed are found in the text [1], which I highly recommend. Outside the weekly discussion session, the GSIs were required to visit each other's sections and evaluate the teaching they observed, meeting individually with the observed GSI to discuss directly their criticisms. Also, the GSIs were required to experiment in their own sections with some of the dozens of the more unusual or innovative teaching techniques we had discussed (e.g. using name-tags on the first few days of class, group exams, games such as Math Jeopardy, or having students contribute exam questions), and report back to the rest of us on the success or failure of the technique, or how the technique might be improved. These analyses were posted publicly in the mathematics department for the benefit of all GSIs and professors. Finally, twice during the semester, GSIs, while teaching their classes, were videotaped by the Teaching Consultant (a talented, experienced GSI). This video was the basis of an intensive evaluation and consultation session with the Teaching Consultant. First the novice GSI and the Consultant watched the video alone, looking for strengths and weaknesses while recalling the actual class performance. Then, while watching the video together, the Teaching Consultant led the GSI through a sort of guided self-analysis of his of her performance in the classroom. In sum, the training program relied essentially on three methods: the program's classroom discussions, peer observation and criticism, and a video consultation session with the Teaching Consultant.

Findings

The goal of the program was to improve the educational experience of undergraduates at UC Berkeley by improving GSI teaching. We therefore discussed and analyzed a wide variety of teaching techniques and topics, many of which grew out of situations that the GSIs had encountered in their own classrooms. Let me list here a few of the most important topics that arose:

• How to generate enthusiasm in the students by using interesting or unusual examples.
• How to get more useful feedback from students by phrasing questions in a positive manner (e.g. "Raise your hand if you understand this part" rather than "Does anyone still not get this?").
• How to use a chalkboard effectively.
• How to engage the students with leading questions to actively involve them in the classroom ("Who can suggest what we should do at this step?").
• How to encourage collaboration among students.
• How to give useful comments on homework.
• How to deal with disruptive students.
• How to simultaneously challenge the students to think and also obtain critical feedback about what the students know by asking the right kinds of questions.
• How best to explain specific mathematical topics such as partial differentiation or the ratio test, etc.
• How to manage various unusual teaching techniques such as group quizzes, special `all-theory' office hours or student presentations.
• How to deal with cheating on exams.
• How to run a review session.
• How to teach simultaneously to students of varying ability.

All the GSIs benefitted from these suggestions and the chance to discuss their ideas about teaching in an open supportive forum.

Use of Findings

Most of the GSIs were able to immediately improve their teaching using the ideas and techniques they had encountered in the program's class meetings. Indeed, after experimenting with some of the more unusual techniques, many of the GSIs reported them to be so successful that they were now using them regularly. By attending each other's sections and giving critical feedback to each other, the GSIs became aware of certain shortcomings, such as their need to lead the discussion more, their need to write more on the chalkboard, or their need to engage more of the students. After the videotaped observations, the experienced Teaching Consultant was able to point out specific strengths and weaknesses in each GSI's teaching. One GSI, for example, was having trouble getting students to respond; the Teaching Consultant pointed out simply that he was rushing, and not allowing them enough time to answer. Afterwards, this GSI simply waited a bit longer after a question and found that his students were perfectly willing to contribute. Other GSIs were helped by the Consultant's suggestions concerning boardwork or how to recognize cues that the students have not followed an explanation.

Success Factors

Overall, the GSIs and I were very pleased with the structure and effectiveness of the program. The use of an experienced Teaching Consultant, I believe, was an essential aspect of it. I have, however, several suggestions on how to implement an even better program.

• Let each GSI observe and evaluate many other GSIs. This was one of the most effective and easy-to-organize means of giving a lot of diverse criticism to each GSI, and, simultaneously, expose each GSI to various teaching styles, which they viewed with a critical eye. Thus, it benefitted both the evaluator and the GSI who was evaluated.
• Use videos only to augment actual observations, and have the Teaching Consultant make the video while observing the class. Because a videotape only imperfectly records what went on in the classroom — sounds are distorted, student reactions are lost — one should never evaluate a teacher using a videotape of a class one didn't attend. Rather, use videos to augment actual observations. We found it very convenient for the Teaching Consultant to simply arrive a few minutes early to set up equipment, and then occasionally check the camera during the class while taking notes and recording points to be discussed later in the consultation session. In past years, each GSI was videotaped by a technician who knew nothing about mathematics, but who only delivered the tape to the mathematics department to be viewed by the GSI and perhaps the program's class, none of whom actually observed the class in person. Worse, in some years, the tapes were made by film students, who attempted to make the tapes more interesting with close-up shots of students and whatnot, when it would have been more desirable to record the GSIs' board-work. These suggestions have the following corollary.
• Do not show the videos as a part of the discussion session. In previous years, a large part of program consisted of viewing videos. But this is a waste of time. It is far better to simply send the GSIs into each other's classrooms and then discuss the issues that arise in the GSI discussion section.
• Avoid mini-teaching sessions or other forms of simulated teaching. Other programs rely on this technique, but I find it to have little value. In past years, for example, the GSIs would prepare calculus lessons to be presented to the other GSIs in the course, who were encouraged to pretend not to understand the material and ask questions as though they were in an actual calculus class. But this is both absurd and boring for everyone. Important parts of teaching well — such as generating enthusiasm in the students, getting feedback from the students by asking questions, sometimes easy, sometimes difficult, and paying attention to nonverbal cues — simply cannot be simulated; there is no substitute for actual students.
• Insist on a rigorous schedule for the consultation sessions. We had problems scheduling all the sessions and would have benefitted from a rigorous initial policy.
• Videotape the GSIs twice. Once is not enough. The first time one sees oneself on videotape is a bit disconcerting. Time is spent merely getting over how one's hair looks on camera, and so forth; it is difficult to pay attention to the teaching. With a second tape, it is much easier to focus on the teaching. Also, taping twice may show improvements in the instructor's teaching effectiveness.
• Encourage experienced GSIs and professors to participate in the video consultation program. Experienced faculty can benefit from the critical feedback which lies at the heart of our program. I therefore suggest that all teaching faculty be encouraged to participate in the peer observation and videotape consultation sessions; they could simply be included into the schedule. A long-term continuing program would perhaps focus on the novice GSIs every fall semester, when most are starting their first teaching assignment, and in the spring semester, when there are fewer novice GSIs, focus on more experienced teachers and professors.

Reference

[1] Davis, B.G. Tools for Teaching, Jossey-Bass, 1993.