Formative peer review is a systematic process which requires that decisions are made by both the reviewer and the reviewee. Many models of formative peer review of teaching are available (Bell, 2001; Brent & Felder, 2004; Chism, 2007; Gosling, 2005; Gosling & O’Connor, 2009; Harris et al., 2008; Keig & Waggoner, 1994; Parsell et al., 2014; Rowe et al., 2010; Sachs & Parsell, 2014). The following information is intended as a quick guide for organising your formative peer review of teaching.
Getting started
Before you embark on your informal formative peer review, consider what you want reviewed and for what purpose, who you want to be reviewed by and what form the reviewer feedback should take.
Choosing what will be reviewed
Formative peer review is often equated with classroom observation. This means the reviewer observes the reviewee in the act of teaching, most commonly in lectures, tutorials, seminars, studio teaching, labs or workshops. However, formative peer review of teaching is very flexible and can also include the review of teaching resources or portfolios (Chism, 2007).
Choosing your reviewer(s)
Depending on your faculty and if you are engaging in a formal or informal formative peer review, you may be able to select your reviewer and number of reveiwers involved. If you choose your own reviewer, consider the following:
- Discipline expert versus teaching expert
If you want to develop the content of your course, a reviewer from within your discipline may be better placed to provide relevant feedback. However, if you want to develop your teaching skills, a colleague with expertise in this area may be preferable. - Somebody you know well versus a colleague
It may be easier to openly discuss your teaching with a colleague you know well. However, a close friend might find it difficult to critique you for fear of affecting your relationship (Harris et al., 2008).
Peer review can be undertaken in a number of different ways.
Dyads (pairs)
This setup involves two peers (A and B). A reviews B.
B may then also review A (reciprocal review).
Triad (team of three)
Three peers (A, B and C) observe each other. A reviews B, B reviews C and C reviews A.
Again, the reviews may be reciprocated.
Circus system
The circus system can accommodate any number of peers. Each peer observes another until all peers have been reviewed.
Other possibilities include Learning Circles, Learning Communities or panels (Gosling, 2005, p. 200).
The briefing session/Pre-observation meeting
The pre-observation meeting is an opportunity to discuss details of the observation with your reviewers and negotiate the scope of the review. Ideally, the meeting is face to face with both reviewers present and should take between 30-60 minutes. This may be pre-determined in your faculty. Otherwise, consider the following:
- Elements of the Six Principles of Teaching and how your teaching will reflect these (if you choose to use these, they can be found in the resource pack)
- The intended learning outcomes and specific objectives of the session
- A verbal overview of the course, including what stage it is at, what has been covered so far with the students, and how that is relevant to the session or course activity/ies the reviewers will observe
- Information about the student cohort, the learning space and teaching approach(es) that might further inform the reviewers
- Areas of teaching for which you would like to receive feedback e.g. engaging students, presentation skills, course design, etc.;
- When and where the review will take place; e.g. in a lecture theatre, a laboratory, online;
- What form you would like the feedback to take, e.g. written feedback for later inclusion in a promotions application, a casual chat over a cup of coffee, etc.;
- Which of the templates provided you and the reviewer(s) prefer for recording feedback (see below);
- Understanding of what constructive feedback looks like (strengths, areas for improvement, suggestions, specific, rather than general feedback, feedback on behaviour / actions rather than the person);
- Duration and frequency of reviews (one-off, repeated review);
- Ground rules, such as confidentiality, mutual respect, etc.
(Chism, 2007; Gosling, 2005; Parsell et al., 2014; Rowe et al., 2010)
The review
During the review, regardless of whether the reviewer observes your teaching or reviews learning resources or a portfolio, the reviewer will take notes for the feedback. It might be useful for reviewers to imagine themselves as students and attempt to experience the teaching session or learning material through their eyes. The notes can be recorded on one of the provided templates, which can be adapted to suit your or your reviewer’s needs. You may want to let your students know that colleagues will observe your teaching. The observation should not exceed 60 minutes.
The de-briefing session
The de-briefing session is an opportunity for both reviewer and reviewee to discuss the review. The reviewer will offer their constructive feedback on the strengths and areas for improvement in the reviewee’s teaching.
The de-briefing session is often experienced as the most difficult part of peer review for both the reviewer and the reviewee because both giving and receiving feedback can be difficult and requires tact, trust and mutual respect. (Rowe et al., 2010).
Constructive feedback should be:
- Relevant: address specific aspects of teaching, achievements, needs and interests;
- Immediate: provided as soon as possible after the review;
- Factual: based on the reviewee’s actual teaching practice;
- Helpful: include suggestions for improvement;
- Confidential: given directly to the reviewee without an intermediary and not be shared with anybody else;
- Respectful: respect the reviewee’s integrity and needs;
- Tailored: designed to meet the reviewee’s specific needs and circumstances;
- Encouraging: motivate the reviewee to continue in developing their teaching.
(adapted from Ovando, 1994, p. 21)
Reflection
Once the cycle of formative peer review has concluded, you are encouraged to reflect on the feedback and the process of formative peer review. Reflection on the experience of peer review is shown to benefit both reviewees and in particular reviewers by allowing them to learn from each other (Hendry & Oliver, 2012; Jones & Gallen, 2016) Templates for reflection are provided below. Gosling (2005, p. 40), Rowe et al (2010, p. 8) and Parsell et al (2014, pp. 14–15) offer a range of reflection questions to guide this process.
Bibliography
Bell, M. (2001). Supported reflective practice: A programme of peer observation and feedback for academic teaching development. International Journal for Academic Development, 6(1), 29–39.
Brent, R., & Felder, R. M. (2004). A PROTOCOL FOR PEER REVIEW OF TEACHING. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 11.
Chism, N. V. N. (2007). Peer review of teaching: A sourcebook (second). Anker Pub. Co.
Gosling, D. (2005). Peer Observation of Teaching (C. Osborne, Ed.). SEDA.
Gosling, D., & O’Connor, K. M. (2009). Beyond the Peer Observation of Teaching (D. Gosling & K. Mason O’Connor, Eds.; SEDA Paper, Vol. 124). SEDA.
Harris, K.-L., Farrell, K., Bell, M., Devlin, M., & James, R. (2008). Peer Review of Teaching in Australian Higher Education: A handbook to support institutions in developing and embedding effective policies and practices. Australian Learning and Teaching Centre (ALTC).
Hendry, G. D., & Oliver, G. R. (2012). Seeing is Believing: The Benefits of Peer Observation. Jounal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 9(1), 11.
Jones, M. H., & Gallen, A.-M. (2016). Peer observation, feedback and reflection for development of practice in synchronous online teaching. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(6), 616–626.
Keig, L., & Waggoner, M. D. (1994). Collaborative Peer Review-The Role of Faculty In College Teaching (ASHE ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2, p. 193). The George Washington University.
Ovando, M. N. (1994). Constructive Feedback: A Key to Successful Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Educational Management, 8(6), 19–22.
Parsell, M., Ambler, T., & Hitchens, M. (2014). PEER Review of Teaching. PEER Review of Teaching. https://peerreviewofteaching.net/
Parsell, M., & Jacenyik-Trawöger, C. (2014). Peer Review of Teaching. Office for Learning and Teaching.
Rowe, A., Solomonides, I., & Handal, B. (2010). How to Collaborate with Peer Observation. Macquarie University.
Sachs, J., & Parsell, M. (2014). Peer review of learning and teaching in higher education: International perspectives. Springer.