Learning and Teaching Unit
Peer review is playing an increasingly central role in making judgements about quality within the teaching and learning environment. There are at least two reasons for this.
First, within the areas of research and publications, peer review has been the long-accepted method of judging scholarly activity. In recent years, teaching has been reconceptualised in terms of the notion of scholarship and this has brought with it the need to include (among other things) the views of peers in decisions about quality.
Second, there have been more general shifts within higher education to locate decisions about quality with sources other than the academics concerned. That is, where once judgements about the quality of teaching and learning were made by the practitioners themselves, the expectation is now that these are made by the stakeholders.
This Guide is intended for academic staff who wish to engage in peer review for purposes of the development of their teaching, promotion or evaluation. It provides a framework for considering peer review as well as information about, and links to, resources available at the University and beyond.
There are two inter-related types of peer review: formative and summative. Formative reviews are focused on gaining information for the purposes of the ongoing improvement of teaching. Summative reviews have a particular endpoint in mind. They are mainly focused on the demonstration of quality in support of processes such as promotion or program evaluation. Summative reviews can also have a formative dimension by informing ongoing practices.
The ongoing improvement of teaching practices is a professional obligation of all academic staff. The areas of concern may arise out of informal feedback, reflection on your teaching experiences or the more formal course evaluation processes including the University’s Course Evaluation Instrument (CEI) or focus groups and the Graduate Course Experience Questionnaire (GCEQ).
In addition, if you are intending to apply for promotion you may wish to plan some opportunities for formative peer review feedback so that you can put in place the appropriate improvements before you engage in the summative reviews.
Summative peer review differs from formative peer review in its intention and impact. It is generally used to provide evidence to support claims for promotion or course evaluation. Because of the potential of summative reviews to impact on you professionally you need to ensure you plan them carefully. There is no doubt that within an academic framework, peer review that supports claims for promotion and evaluation is powerful evidence.
Peer reviews can be conducted on any aspect of teaching including:
Within these larger categories, peer reviews and particularly those that are formative, may give a particular focus to quite confined areas such as the use of questioning in a classroom setting or the use of a discussion forum in online teaching.
Peer review can also provide comment on the ways in which particular dimensions of teaching are brought together in good practice.
There are numerous ways to engage in peer review of teaching. Hutchings (1996) and the Centre for Teaching Effectiveness lists a number of peer activities which promote collaboration and reflection including:
The University’s Program Evaluation Report makes provision for peer reviews in a number of curriculum areas. The views of peers with standing in the field provide powerful evidence in support of evaluation.
See Guidelines for the Evaluation of Programs and Courses as required by Academic Policy A.35-A8,
University Academic Promotion Policy HR-26.0 identifies peer review as a source of information for promotion panels. In this context peer review has the potential to provide quite different evidence from that provided by students through the SET. It has the potential to be more integrated, to address a range of issues outside the scope of student perspectives and to comment on performance over time.
Peer review instruments facilitate particular kinds of feedback on teaching practices. Their value lies in providing a structure and focus to the evaluation process in a course, across courses or modes for an individual, and across a group of courses or individuals. They provide items which can be both the basis of judgement and the source of generative conversation.
The University does not have official peer review instruments. However, in order to support staff in the process of peer review, a number of related instruments have been developed. There are two approaches – a generic proforma and a number of checklists related to specific dimensions of teaching.
The generic approach is very open-ended with three specific areas identified as well as another for overall comment. Here is the proforma Peer assessment of teaching. (Word 27kb)
The checklists available through the University website are highly structured forms of feedback based on accepted good practice. The checklists are interrelated in that a number of the same or similar kinds of questions occur in each one, enabling consistency in feedback across different forms of delivery and aspects of teaching. There is also a close relationship to the scales of the Graduate Course Experience Questionnaire (GCEQ). The same questions in the checklists are available in two forms: the first form is organised around the generally accepted aspects of each dimension of teaching, and the second form is base around four of the six categories of scholarship as outlined by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (clear goals, adequate preparation, appropriate methods and effective presentation). The second form of organisation facilitates application for promotion because the Carnegie categories are used in making judgements about promotion within the University.
The following checklists are currently available:
Other checklists and instruments may also be available within your Division or you may find useful resources at the websites of other universities.
Be clear about the nature of the review – as mentioned above, formative and summative reviews are different in nature and intent and require different approaches.
Be clear about what you want to be the focus of the review – you cannot review everything and so ensure that you focus on what is useful for your purpose. You may wish to put together your own list of points that you want the reviewer to address, use the areas identified in the checklists developed by the University or in documents from other universities (see the links to Useful Resources in this Guide).
Identify the criteria by which the judgements will be made – you need to ensure that you and your reviewer have a shared understanding of the indicators of good practice in the areas being reviewed. The checklists provide assistance with this by identifying quite specific points for consideration.
Select your reviewer for the purpose – the comments you receive are only as good as the reviewer’s own expertise and professional standing in the area. For formative feedback, you may want to select someone who is a close colleague and who can provide particular kinds of comments specific to your context. If you are using the review as evidence to support promotion or course evaluation, then the recognised expertise of the reviewer is central to the way this evidence will be judged. In this context, a review is akin to a referee statement and as such is tied to the professional standing of the reviewer. Whilst Academic Developers can provide advice on the peer review process, a suitable choice of a peer to provide a peer review or evaluation report would be a staff member who is an acknowledged teacher with experience and standing in your field.
Negotiate the method of gathering the information – this will depend on the nature and scope of the review and may involve consideration of course and program documents, classroom visits, questionnaires or interviewing people.
Decide on the overall process and timeframe – reviews are always context specific and it is useful to ensure that the process provides a time for you to discuss the way to handle it and then to debrief afterwards. It is also useful to discuss the extent to which the review is confidential, the opportunity you might have in responding to issues raised by the reviewer and any input you might have in the final report.
Agree on the nature of the report and the intended audience – these will vary depending on the purpose of the review. In some cases a verbal report will be acceptable; in others a formal statement will be required. Reviews are understandably very sensitive processes and you need to be clear about the ultimate destination of any documentation. Your reviewer will write comments quite differently depending on the audience.
Be prepared for a range of comments – your reviewer has accepted the task of providing you with feedback and you need to consider seriously the comments they offer. Perhaps the most valuable information you can receive is whether your own perceptions of your teaching are shared by the reviewer. Teaching (intention) is not always translated into learning (outcomes) and it is helpful to get the honest comments of those you respect.
Ensure you and your reviewer have a mutual understanding of the expectations – whatever your approach, it is useful to put the details in writing so that all parties are clear. See the suggested proforma in the appendix.
Make sure you understand the context – reviews are always context dependent. Is this a summative or formative review? Are there other aspects of teaching being reviewed by others? Is the timeframe constrained by other factors such as the deadlines for promotion applications? How long has the staff member been teaching? How long have they been teaching in this field?
Request other relevant information you think will assist you in understanding the situation – you will be of most assistance to your colleague if you can relate what you are reviewing to the rest of the course and so you may find information such as curriculum documents and course notes useful.
Be clear about the expectations and whether you can complete the review in the time available – it is important that you negotiate all aspects of the review and that you clearly communicate the aspects you are either unable or unwilling to undertake.
Keep focused on the issues – you will be asked to provide feedback on particular aspects of teaching and, unless otherwise invited, you should limit your comments to the designated areas.
Ensure the feedback is structured in some way – this will save you time and provide you with clear directions. It may involve a list of questions that you negotiate together or a checklist that has been developed by someone else.
Comment on both the positive and negative aspects – provide feedback on what the staff member is doing well before you consider the areas of improvement. It is important to express the more negative comments in a constructive way so that improvement (rather than judgement) is seen as the ultimate outcome.
Take the circumstances and experience of the staff member into account – review is essentially a reflective process and so the most useful feedback you can give will engage the staff member in the issues most relevant to their current circumstances. Provide as much feedback as you think the staff member can reasonably take on board – too much information or too detailed an analysis is unlikely to result in changed practices.
Engender a supportive approach – successful reviews are built on mutual trust and respect where the process is confidential and discreet. In giving feedback begin by describing your observations and seeking clarification of the aspects under scrutiny. Establish the intention of the staff member in particular practices. Once you have a common understanding you can then move to the sharing of ideas and information which might assist with extending already good practices or with assisting those that need improvement. Highly abstract pronouncements and advice are not helpful.
There are numerous resources available on peer review and in particular peer observation. A selection of sites has been provided here for your information. Many of the sites in the United States of America are, unlike the Australian context, predicated on mandated forms of staff evaluation in relation to tenure. Links to them are provided because they include resources that you may find useful in developing your own peer reviews.
Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) Peer review projects
