The informality of the process is non-threatening, thus participation has been undemanding on the individual and has probably led to the program being well adhered to thus far. A number of staff have elected to have more formal reports written against their future promotion applications. The level of seniority appears not to have been a problem, despite level As having been paired with level Es at certain times. There seems to have been an increase in the sharing of good teaching practices as a result of the pairings varying every semester, with innovative teaching approaches becoming more apparent across the department. Finally, it would be nice to think that as the Quality Of Teaching scores for the department have steadily increased over the period (becoming amongst the best in the faculty last semester), the ‘osmosis’ of improved teaching practices through the peer review program, has contributed to this.
5. What challenges remain?
To maintain the interest and commitment to the program when the workload of this department ramps up, as our new postgraduate degree is due to come on line in 2011. To keep the process fresh, once every staff member has observed every other staff member within the next two years or so; it is anticipated a full review of our program will be required, followed by a collective restatement of our desired outcomes from the program. Initially just academic staff participated in the program, but post-doctoral research staff with larger teaching loads have become involved of late, and it will soon be necessary to review whether the program should also include our casual teachers, postgraduate student demonstrators, and clinical teachers.
6. What advice would you give to someone planning to implement a program of peer review of teaching?
Get the entire organisation/department/group to agree on an appropriate format for the program; in our experience, collective ownership appears to be important to compliance. Involve someone with expertise in peer review to facilitate the establishment of clearly defined boundaries for their peer review program. Do not formally link the program to the promotion or PDF process; I speculate that acceptance of the program might be an issue and that certain benefits of the program would be lost. Even if the program is informal, there still needs to be some documentation of the ‘who, when, what, and where’ for administration purposes. Plan to review the progress of the program in the short and medium term.
Case study 2 (cont’.):
Collaborative development of a
department-specific program
A reviewer’s perspective
1. What were your initial expectations, prior to involvement in the program?
I had limited expectations of the program, although I was interested in the opportunity it created to see the undergraduate lecturing styles of my colleagues: something that would not typically occur otherwise.
2. How did you feel about your role as reviewer?
I had no particularly strong feelings: the review process was department-wide, and so simply felt to be a standard part of the teaching strategy for our department.
3. Please describe any benefits to you from your experience as reviewer
In addition to the discipline of thinking critically about lecturing and lecturing styles for the purposes of assessing a colleague and providing feedback, I found it very informative to see how others within my department approached undergraduate teaching. You rarely get an opportunity to make comparisons between your own teaching approach and that of your colleagues; yet the review process provides this. If nothing else, it can provide reassurance that your teaching approach is not completely at odds with those of others in your department!
4. Were there any difficulties or challenges associated with your role?
Providing feedback on a colleague’s teaching style can feel somewhat awkward initially, and requires an appropriate degree of tact. In addition, appreciating the difference between a true deficiency in lecturing style versus a simple difference from your own style, can be challenging. Remembering to point out positive aspects can also be difficult: as scientists who are often involved in the peer reviewing process for manuscripts, it is all too easy to spend the lion’s share of the time concentrating on negative points to the exclusion of the many positive ones, thereby giving a rather unbalanced assessment.
5. What qualities are important to be effective as a reviewer?
A willingness to establish in advance what the reviewee hopes to get out of the review process can be very helpful in shaping the reviewer’s approach to the reviewing task. Also, having an open mind to different teaching styles is probably an obligatory quality.
6. Based on your experience, what advice would you offer other peer reviewers of teaching?
Whilst on paper the process may appear to represent a one-way interaction — the reviewer providing feedback to the reviewee — the potential for the reviewer to gain much from the process should not be underestimated.
Case study 2 (cont’.):
Collaborative development of a
department-specific program
91