Peer Review and Enhancement of Teaching Ginny Saich & Ruth Watkins (DAICE)

Context QAA Enhancement Agenda Enhancement Themes (Linking Research and Teaching?) HE Academy Professional Standards Framework HE Academy CPD Framework QAA ELIR feedback Academic advancement and promotion

Peer Review: Purpose In your opinion, what is the purpose of peer review of teaching?

Peer Review: Personal Experiences What personal experiences of peer review have you encountered (in teaching or elsewhere?) –have you been through peer review As a reviewer? As the reviewed? –why did you participate in peer review? –what did you find were the benefits and drawbacks? –What were the outcomes for you and your peer?

Peer Review: Potential Benefits Encourage reflection on the teaching process Provide mutual feedback on the teaching process Encourage collaboration/partnership working Encourage innovation in teaching methodology Develop the curriculum Enhance the students’ learning experience Enable individuals to become aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their teaching practice and provide a means through which individuals can improve the effectiveness of all aspects of their teaching.

Peer Review: Types What does Peer Review of Teaching mean to you now in your current context?

Peer Review: Range Peer observation External examining Departmental review Learning and Teaching committees QAA ELIR Team teaching Programme/module development teams Mentoring/Senior colleague Workshops/conferences/seminars Co-supervision of students Analysis and discussion of student evaluations Interviews/discussions with students on a programme Preview of teaching materials Double marking/moderation of assessments Review of student feedback Retracing teaching Teaching portfolio Much of this occurs in departments, but it is rarely made explicit or ‘public’ (except during probation)

Peer Review: Sources of data Multiple sources of data –Peer observation –Student evaluations –Teaching materials –Written feedback to students on their work –Module and Programme design documentation –Review Papers –‘Critical friend’ Portfolio?

Requirements for Peer Review From your experiences/expectations, what kind of environment/context promotes participation in peer review? What would your role be in peer review: –as a reviewer? –as the reviewed?

Peer Review: Requirements Critical reflection and self-assessment Collaborative environment of mutual trust Colleagues willing to explore, share and develop their views on what constitutes good (effective?) teaching: –Is learning taking place? –Is the intended learning taking place? –What else is happening? A collaborative, team process that is supportive and informative (avoiding mutual back slapping) Personal ownership of the scheme and its outputs Developmental and supportive rather than judgemental process criteria for assessment (what is ‘good’ teaching?)

Peer Review Schemes: Example 1 University of Gloucestershire –Review of Professional Practice focuses on peer development of an aspect of teaching/student learning rather than focusing on ‘performance’.Review of Professional Practice –Collaborative process –Designed to improve the quality of student learning –Informed by, and promotes the scholarship of learning and teaching

Peer Review Schemes: Example 2 University of Tasmania –Comprehensive scheme –Recognises differences in diverse contexts within which learning and teaching takes place –Provides a range of ‘schedules’ and outlines for differing contexts

Peer Review Schemes: Example 3 Interviewing students –providing an evidence-base (what are students doing/learning, rather than what are they supposed to be doing/learning?) –what and how students are learning More immediate feedback mechanisms –One minute papers –Stop, Start, Continue

Next Stage …… What activity (if any) would you be interested in pursuing further? Do you have any specific requirements for assistance, support, guidance for this? How will you proceed from here?