GTA Peer Observations
Overview: Before the end of the semester, each GTA will observe two of their peers—one in the first half of the semester, and one in the second half. Please see the observation assignments below, which will ensure that each GTA observes two different peers and each GTA is observed twice.
Observer Assignments & Scheduling: While GTA’s teaching times are listed below (everyone teaches MWF), parties should agree in advance about the exact date (if possible, please give more weight to the preference of the GTA being observed).
Observation Emails: After the observation, the observer will write an “observation email” to me (CCed to your peer) providing context, describing the class activities, pointing out the teacher’s strengths, and offering constructive criticism (advice about anything that might be improved, things that might have been done/handled differently, etc.). Please send your observation email within three days of the observation.
The observations and emails are intended to be collegial, constructive, and supportive—please observe and write with those goals in mind.
Below the table of observation assignments, you will find sample letters from past semesters (with identifying information removed; also, all parties have graduated and are no longer at FAU).
- Don’t worry if you’re a day or two behind the standard 1101 course schedule. Your semester pacing isn’t being observed.
- While areas for improvement noted in observation letters may be discussed when I meet with GTAs individually, these observation emails will not be sent to the department, the Writing Program Director, or anyone else.
|
First Half Peer Observation
Observation must be completed before Friday 10/14.
|
|||||
|
update: observation must be completed by Wednesday, 11/21
|
|||||
| Selena | will observe | Jonathan | 12pm, CU 121 | or | 1pm, CU 127 |
| Nicole S. | will observe | Selena | 9am, AH 204 | or | 11am, BU 411 |
| Jonathan | will observe | Nicole S. | 10am, SO 385 | ||
| Meryl | will observe | Nicole C. | 9am, CU 131 | ||
| Conor | will observe | Meryl | 10am, PS 113 | ||
| Nicole C. | will observe | Conor | 11am, BU 402 | ||
|
Second Half Peer Observation
Observation must be completed before Wednesday 11/21.
|
|||||
|
second-half peer reviews have been canceled
|
|||||
| Selena | will observe | Nicole S. | 10am, SO 385 | ||
| Nicole S. | will observe | Jonathan | 12pm, CU 121 | or | 1pm, CU 127 |
| Jonathan | will observe | Selena | 9am, AH 204 | or | 11am, BU 411 |
| Meryl | will observe | Conor | 9am, CU 129 | ||
| Conor | will observe | Nicole C. | 10am, SO 270 | ||
| Nicole C. | will observe | Meryl | 11am, ED 124 | ||
Hi Julia,
I observed Sam’s 10 AM section of 1101 last Wednesday, October 6. He showed numerous strengths as an instructor. Chief among these was his ability to maintain class focus on revision and maximizing the usefulness of the fifty minutes of class time available to him on that day. Primarily, he accomplished this by assigning a worksheet from Elements that worked as a guideline for peer review and then actively participating in assisting students with their papers individually as the students themselves worked in groups. By doing so, he managed to keep the groups focused on the task at hand as well as supplementing student comments with his own.
I especially admired his peer review system because he incorporates a strong focus on revision by having two drafts due on two separate class meetings. I was under the impression that on Monday a “rough draft” had been due which was then reviewed in a peer setting, and then the assignment for that Wednesday was a “polished draft.” In doing this, and then personally looking over these papers, he is ensuring that his students are thinking critically about their writing as well as producing stronger work toward the final draft.
The only area where I feel Sam could benefit from advice is to orally take roll at the beginning of class. This seems to be a strategy that could help him to ensure his students arrive on time to class. His attendance seemed quite low (at the beginning of class I counted 13 students with two more coming in toward the end of the class period). It seems that if the students heard attendance being taken they would eventually catch on that their participation is being evaluated based on their presence.
All in all, I found my time in Sam’s class informative and useful.
Best, Jane
I observed Leo’s class today that ran from 11-11:50 AM in ED 123. He is an energetic and engaging teacher who encourages active discussion among his students by using multiple mediums to reinforce the topics of his class readings. Specifically in this class he showed his students a film (the exact name of which I’m not sure of) in which young people were using slang terms and one of them was unknowingly HIV positive. Leo informed the class that they could utilize this film in their revision project as an outside source. In order to ease the process of making connections between the readings and the movie he had sent them a worksheet prior to class which helped them to see the over-arching themes and encouraged discussion among the students. All in all, it seemed to be a highly effective class with a lot of engaging class discussion.
My only suggestion would be for Leo to give his students more of a chance to direct the conversation. At the very beginning of discussion he seemed to tell them more what they should have gotten from the movie instead of asking them first specifically what connections they could make. This in no way impacted the flow of discussion but it may have impacted the direction. However, as an outsider it’s hard for me to really know for sure if it impacted the direction positively or negatively. I’m assuming he knows his students and since discussion moved so well and the students seemed to glean a lot from it this may have actually been a good move on his part. It’s just hard to find something to criticize!
Dr. Mason
Observing Sharon’s class was an interesting experience. Sharon’s class was very open to discussion. Although occasionally sarcastic, most of her students seem genuinely engaged in discussion. Sharon was not willing to talk to the students or talk for the students, She wanted the discussion to be propelled by student utterances. Her approach created an actual discussion. Sharon’s lesson plan consisted of making a paragraph using Barclay’s Super Secret Formula, whose content would be pooled from the hive brain of the classroom.
With some difficulty, Sharon was able to create a great paragraph from ideas spontaneously discussed in class. At the end of the period, the students seems to be more inclined to employing that particular connective template to their own writing.Although this lesson plan created a free learning environment, my only suggestion would be to assign a short homework, asking them to write a paragraph using the formula beforehand. Then, in class, Sharon could use the pre- written content from the homework to stimulate the class’s group brain with more ease. Overall, the students seemed to appreciate Sharon and her approach.