Abstract:

Peer review of teaching schemes are common in the UK Higher Education sector but engagement with these is not always viewed by staff as positive. Many staff become anxious about having a review and see this process as an intrusion in the classroom and a compliance mechanism which is linked to appraisal (Byrne at al 2010, Carroll & O’Loughlin 2014 & Hatzipanagos & Lygo-Baker 2006). Although there had been a scheme in place for eight years there were only pockets of staff really engaged in the process and, whilst it was seen as important to have an opportunity to engage in dialogue about teaching it was believed that the model used did not encourage this (Byrne et al 2010). An across institution group reviewed the literature and a range of models that were available and chose a collaborative approach based on Gosling’s (2005) model. The principles were the same where dialogue was important and not a judgement but there was a focus on the process being reciprocal and supportive so there was learning from each other (Carroll & O’Loughlin 2014). As with the previous scheme the model was inclusive in terms of practice and so extended beyond the classroom activities to online engagement, teaching materials and assessment feedback. One key feature of the scheme was to ask each person involved in a review to complete a reflection in addition to the forms that are part of the process. The reflections are submitted anonymously online (except for School) but include reference to how engaging in the review has influenced an individual’s practice. The purpose of this was that this would enable good practice to be shared as well as professional development needs. The anonymity was felt to be important for staff to engage.

The data from year 1 has been analysed and shows that peer review has been used to review practice across the range of activity including teaching, the materials used for teaching and the provision of feedback for assessment. In addition as had been hoped there is rich feedback about how individuals have found the new dialogue approach useful even when they were the reviewer. Comments included “I’ve enjoyed the process and …it made me think how we perceive and how we focus on the worst and negative…” (Respondent 1), I had forgotten how effective this can be and I will reflect upon whether I can utilise this in my own materials” (Respondent 4) and “ what I take away from this review is that my own feedback is quite good, but is far more concise. I will strive to be a but more detailed and provide examples” (Respondent 6).

The presenters will provide an outline of the peer review process and an overview of the data gained this year with reference to plans for enhancing the submission of the anonymised forms further.

References:
[1] Bryne J, Brown H & Challen D (2010) Peer development as an alternative to peer observation: a tool to enhance professional development International Journal for Academic Development Vol.15 (3) p 215-228
[2]Carroll C & O’Loughlin D (2014) Peer observation of teaching: enhancing academic engagement for new participants Innovations in Education and Teaching International Vol 51 (4) p446-456
[3] Gosling, D. (2005) Peer Observation of Teaching, Seda Paper 118, London: SEDA.
[4] Hatzipanagos S & Lygo-Baker S (2006) Teaching observations: promoting development through critical reflection Journal of Further and Higher Education 30 (4) p421-431

Keywords:

Peer review, Peer supported review, Higher Education, Enhancing Education.