Peer Review of Teaching - Some Thoughts

John Hurst

Monash University

adapted from a talk given at the University of Melbourne, 21 Nov 2008, by

Tom Angelo

Latrobe University

on the occasion of the launch of the ALTC handbook on Peer Review of Teaching.

Abstract

Peer Review of Teaching: Some Pitfalls and Guidelines

We explore the factors that affect the successful implementation of a process of peer review of teaching (PRoT).

To be effective, PRoT implementation must be undertaken in the right climate and with the right leadership. For each factor, we identify common pitfalls, and some guidelines to avoid falling into them.

Introduction

do something useful, or, at least, avoid doing any harm!
The PRoTinOzHigherEd handbook is "an exceptional piece of work", but ...
the challenges to good implementation are
- sustainability,
- motivation, and
- subversion.
(cf Monash UE Q8)

What is Peer Review of Teaching?

teaching and PRoT are both means to an end - the end being high quality deep learning.
PRoT is difficult to implement in times of high stress
innovations fall over with the arrival of new VCs, DVCs, Deans

The Context

need to clarify the purpose of PRoT - is it summative or formative?
one size fits all approaches do not work with academics! (Tom Angelo's words "... is very dangerous ...")
Academics are

Reluctant,

Recalcitrant, and

Reactionary!

(John Hurst)
You cannot fix by analysis what you have bungled by design (Tom Angelo)

MicroWorkshop

What is the biggest factor inhibiting PRoT at Monash?
(discuss with your neighbour: write down two suggestions)
Possibilities:
- Lack of Resources
- Lack of Motivation
- Lack of Time
- Lack of Reward
- Lack of Goodwill
- Fear of Consequences
- Lack of Leadership

Suggestions for PRoT

1. Choose Formative?

make PRoT formative
Could have some summative spin-offs, but don't rely upon this
Whose teaching will be reviewed?

Pitfall:

starting with the wrong victims (PATS?)

Guideline:

start with those whom you want others to follow

2. Participation Policy?

What sort of participation policy should be used?
What is the faculty culture towards PRoT?

Pitfall:: unenforceable or counterproductive compliance regime (my emphasis)
Guideline:: make attractive, beneficial and intrinsically motivating

3. What to Review?

what sort of things do we focus upon?
teaching versus unit?

Pitfalls:

reifying teaching as performance
focus upon the inconsequential

Guideline:

review the evidence of alterable variables that are highly correlated with learning ...(PTO)

3. What to Review? (cont)

(from How College Affects Students, E. T. Pascarella and P. T. Terenzini) We found no evidence of student feedback that affected teaching outcomes
BUT students are better at giving feedback than academics!
It is not what you see in the classroom that
1. affects learning, or
2. can be changed to improve learning.

4. Who reviews?

Who are the reviewers?
Pitfall:
1. creating or intensifying conflict
2. getting the wrong reviewers
Guideline:

choose reviewers for expertise in feedback, to review specific evidence (e.g., students for teaching). It is all about gap analysis: where we are, where do we want to be. If we don't want to be elsewhere, we can ignore the feedback!

5. What form?

What form will the process take?
Pitfall:
1. making it too costly
2. making it too unsustainable
3. making it too precious
Guideline:

embed the process in existing processes, and KISS!

6. What Reports?

What reporting will take place?
Pitfall:
1. incentivising posturing
2. incentivising collusion
3. disincentivising learning
Guideline:

Make it low cost and low risk

7. What Follow-up?

What type of follow up?
Pitfall:
1. no follow up
2. gotchas
3. feedback that does harm
Guideline:

focus on feedback for learning

Summary

Improvement requires
- learning
- change
- vision
- risk taking
- trust