Face-to-face teaching

The broader term of ‘peer review’ for teaching is well established internationally (eg Bernstein et al. 2006; Van Note Chism & Chism 2007). Although there are many variations that describe this process, for example peer partnerships (Blackmore 2005), ‘peer review’ usually describes more varied interactions than the term ‘peer observation’ (discussed above). Peer review, more often than peer observation, has summative goals and is more likely to include a wider range of contexts, which may include consideration of online materials or teaching (see for example Van Note Chism & Chism 2007). Peer review in face-to-face contexts is considered below and followed by an examination of peer review in blended learning environments.

In the United States a large amount of work related to peer review has emerged over the last 30 years, with activities since the 1990s based on the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) and subsequent Carnegie Foundation projects, and is now well embedded in the Scholarship of Teaching agenda (D’Andrea 2002). The Teaching Initiative program has generated a number of important projects including the Peer Review of Teaching in 1994 (Hutchings 1996). An influential development has been the University of Nebraska’s Peer Review of Teaching Project, led by Bernstein in the late 1990s as part of the AAHE’s Peer Review of Teaching Excellence program. This aimed to ‘make teaching visible’ (Bernstein et al. 2006) and identified four key areas of focus for review: course intellectual content; quality of teaching practices; quality of student understanding; and evidence of reflective consideration and development. The project also asked reviewers to nominate their experiences of teaching in the review area (University of Nebraska 2008). Examples of course portfolio reviews, which are mostly of face-to-face courses, are then made available to broad audiences on the website (University of Nebraska 2008). Bernstein’s influential work recognises the need to acknowledge teaching as “serious intellectual work or scholarship … rigorously evaluated by a community of peers” (Bernstein 2008, p51). Other work related to the AAHE project includes Martsolf et al. (1999), who encourage an initial focus on the formative rather than summative aspects of peer review. They identify forming a task force, observations and teaching circles as the most useful approaches in their context of Nursing. Atwood et al. (2000) utilise the eight basic tools for peer review drawn from the AAHE project to discuss barriers including what the content of reviews should be, who should conduct them and how. Many useful resources have been developed for the review of teaching in the US, for example Van Note Chism and Chism (2007) provide a key set of resources for course materials and class observation along with sample standards for peer review of teaching systems.

In part, as a result of such major projects, and the quality assurance drivers, “peer review is considered a gold standard for quality assurance of teaching and learning” (Powell, O’Neill & Thomson 2008, p37). The literature on peer review in face-to-face settings is vast, with a strong presence from the medical teaching and health sciences. For example, Kell (2005) looks beyond teaching performance to the wider teaching role. As a result, the peer review process undertaken by her and her colleagues became less summative and more formative and supportive. In common with other studies, she found that using triads from across subjects took the focus off content. Hardy and Phillips (2007) from the University of South Australia’s School of Health Sciences discuss the development of their course review process. This included five categories for possible review (course structure, student centred teaching and learning, assessment, course content, and international perspectives and support). Interestingly, lack of content expertise was seen to have a positive effect, strengthening the focus on student experiences.

In Australia significant recent projects investigating peer review have been funded by the ALTC, including: a national survey of peer review of teaching activities in Australian higher education and an outline of the principles, benefits and conditions for effective peer review (Harris et al. 2008a); and a project to develop and implement a pilot program of external peer review of teaching at four Australian universities for promotion purposes (Crisp et al. 2009). Harris et al. (2008b) stress the idiosyncratic nature of different university policies and procedures. In their audit they found that although the value of peer review for teaching was well recognised, they could not identify broad, systematic implementation or typical processes:
There is no ‘typical’ peer review of teaching process. Programs can be voluntary or mandatory, comprise a single review or a series of rolling reviews conducted over a period of time; feedback can be given verbally, in written form, both, and so on (p13).

Their project team developed a useful handbook (Harris et al. 2008b) which includes a framework that outlines the benefits and conditions for effective peer review. The preconditions for effective peer review suggested include: collegial trust and respect; supporting guidelines; resources; advice; and the incorporation of peer review in policies relating to staff appraisal, promotion and special recognition. Harris et al. also suggest using the core aspects of teaching developed for the ALTC Awards for University Teaching (ALTC 2010) as starting points for developing criteria for peer review.

Another large ALTC project that initially focused primarily on peer review of face-to-face teaching aimed to create a summative peer review process to be incorporated into promotion processes. However, in response to feedback during the project they also incorporated a formative review option (Crisp et al. 2009). Key points from this project include: a conscious choice to concentrate on peer review for promotion (particularly from Level C upwards) with formative reviews primarily considered as a 'training process'; and separate processes and protocols for internal peer review, which is done at the university level and is observation-based, and external peer review, which is a benchmarking process conducted by other institutions, possibly internationally. In common with other investigations this project confirmed that reviewers need to be trained and the project has materials for this purpose on their website (Crisp et al. 2009).

The peer review literature highlights important considerations for peer review including: the purpose of the interaction; who will be involved in the review; what makes an effective review; and how to minimise commonly encountered issues. The purpose of the review needs to be considered in terms of both intent and procedures. A strong theme in the peer review literature is the distinction between formative and summative review (Huston & Weaver 2008). The benefits that accrue from the formative use of peer review and quality enhancement are a major driver (Lomas & Nichols 2005), making a:
strong case for establishing peer review processes that are based first and foremost on the developmental objective of helping individuals to develop insights into their teaching, for this explicit emphasis can encourage the most open sharing of views and ideas. (Harris et al. 2008a, p8)

There is some debate as to whether formative and summative purposes can be combined. Because many people are uncomfortable with using peer review (or observation) for summative or quality assurance purposes, it is often argued that they therefore need to be separated (Byrne, Brown & Challen 2010). Brent and Felder (2004), for example, create a protocol for both formative and summative purposes but do not combine these in the same review. However, there is some agreement that despite the challenges these two purposes can be combined, with many peer reviews sitting somewhere along a continuum between the two (Harris et al. 2008a).

Peer review that is voluntary and summative can also be a formative experience (Anderson, Parker & McKenzie 2009). When academics are asked why they choose to engage in voluntary peer review they often cite developmental and collegial motivations (eg Pelliccione et al. 2008). Peer reviews have also proved valuable for triangulating results of student feedback surveys and offer a more “multi-dimensional evaluation of teaching” (Schultz & Latif 2006, p4).

Clearly aligned to the purposes of the review is who will be involved: peers (collegial partners), experienced raters (Brent & Felder 2004) or knowledgeable experts guiding and developing others (Bolt & Atkinson 2010). Harris et al. (2008) discuss this issue and note the value in the differing perspectives that are opened up by reviewing peers from different disciplines or areas. The affective aspects of sharing one’s teaching work with peers (Bell, Mladenovic & Segara 2010) are rarely explicitly discussed, although anxiety may be mentioned. This reluctance is partly due to the often solo and isolated experience of teaching.

However, through supported collegial conversation, peer review can deepen existing relationships, or create new ones, sometimes across disciplines, and the building of collegial relationships can be “an unexpected consequence that neither party had envisaged” (Shortland 2010, p300). Conversations between teachers and across a variety of settings are fundamental to successful peer review, with the possibility of conversational communities becoming both a key component and significant outcome of peer review (Bernstein & Bass 2008).

In summary, best practice peer review is found in Blackmore’s (2005) literature review to depend on: “training; [a] variety of reviewers; links to staff appraisal and development along with follow-up activity; trusting relationships; and evidence of dissemination of improved teaching” (p224).