PRO-Teaching – Sharing Ideas to Develop Capabilities

In this paper, the action research driven design of a context relevant, developmental peer review of teaching model, its implementation strategy and its impact at an Australian university is presented. PRO-Teaching realizes an innovative process that triangulates contemporaneous teaching quality data from a range of stakeholders including students, discipline academics, learning and teaching expert academics, and teacher reflection to create reliable evidence of teaching quality. Data collected over multiple classroom observations allows objective reporting on development differentials in constructive alignment, peer, and student evaluations. Further innovation is realized in the application of this highly structured developmental process to provide summative evidence of sufficient validity to support claims for professional advancement and learning and teaching awards. Design decision points and contextual triggers are described within the operating domain. Academics and developers seeking to introduce structured peer review of teaching into their organization will find this paper a useful reference.

Authors:

• Steve J. Drew
• Christopher J. Klopper

Keywords:

• Development loop
• Multiple data sources
• Objective reporting
• Peer review of teaching.

References:

[1] R. A. Berk, "Survey of 12 Strategies to Measure Teaching
Effectiveness." International Journal of Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education, vol. 17, no. 1, 2005, pp. 48-62.
[2] J. B. Biggs, Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the
Student Does (2nd ed.). Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press,
2003.
[3] M. Bell, "Supported reflective practice: a programme of peer
observation and feedback for academic teaching development."
International Journal for Academic Development, vol. 6, no. 1, 2001,
pp. 29-39.
[4] R. Donnelly, "Perceived Impact of Peer Observation of Teaching in
Higher Education." International Journal of Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education, vol. 19 no. 2, 2007, pp. 117-129.
[5] L. Lomas, and G. Nicholls, "Enhancing Teaching Quality Through Peer
Review of Teaching." Quality in Higher Education, vol. 11, no. 2, 2005,
pp. 137-149.
[6] G. H. Patton, D. C. Davis, and G. Govahi, "Predictive Models of
Learning: Participant Satisfaction of Experiential Exercises in Business
Education." Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential
Learning, vol. 25. 1998, pp. 69-75.
[7] M. Docherty, P. Sutton, M. Brereton, and S. Kaplan, "An innovative
design and studio-based CS degree." ACM SIGSCE Bulletin, vol. 33,
no. 1, 2001, pp.233-237.
[8] M. Yon, C. Burnap, and G. Kohut, "Evidence of effective teaching:
perceptions of peer reviewers." College Teaching, vol. 50, no. 3, 2002,
104-110.
[9] S. M. Ives, A Survival Handbook for Teaching Large Classes, 2006,
from
http://www.fctel.uncc.edu/pedagogy/focuslargeclasses/ASurvivalHandb
ook.html
[10] J. Harford, and G. MacRuairc, "Engaging student teachers in meaningful
reflective practice." Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 24, no. 7,
2008, pp. 1884-1892.
[11] N. Hativa, R. Barak, and E. Simhi, "Exemplary University Teachers:
Knowledge and Beliefs Regarding Effective Teaching Dimensions and
Strategies." The Journal of Higher Education, 72(6), 2001, pp. 699-729.
[12] H. Johnston, H. "The Use of Video Self-assessment, Peer-assessment,
and Instructor Feedback in Evaluating Conducting Skills in Music
Student Teachers." British Journal of Music Education, vol. 10, no. 1,
1993, pp. 57-63.
[13] L. Keig, "Formative Peer Review of Teaching: Attitudes of Faculty at
Liberal Arts Colleges Toward Colleague Assessment." Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, vol. 14, no. 1, 2000, pp. 67-87.
[14] TEQSA. Higher Education Standards Framework. 2012, from:
http://www.teqsa.gov.au/higher-education-standards-framework
[15] L. S. Shulman, "Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in
Teaching." Educational Researcher, vol. 15, no. 2, 1986, pp. 4-14.
[16] L. S. Shulman, "Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New
Reform." Harvard Educational Review, vol. 57, no. 1, 1987, pp. 1-23.
[17] E. L. Boyer, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate.
Menlo Park, California: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching. 1990.
[18] K. -L. Harris, K. Farrell, M. Bell, M. Devlin, and R. James, (Eds.). Peer
Review of Teaching in Australian Higher Education: A handbook to
support institutions in developing effective policies and practices.
Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, Melbourne
University. 2008.
[19] R. McTaggart, Participatory action research: international contexts and
consequences. Albany: State University of New York Press. 1997.
[20] J. W. Creswell, Educational Research: Planning, conducting, and
evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston:
Pearson Education Inc. 2003, p. 583
[21] S. A. Kidd, and M. J. Kral, "Practicing participatory action research."
Journal of Counseling Psychology, vol. 52, no. 2, 2005, p.187
[22] R. Neumann, R. "Disciplinary Differences and University Teaching."
Studies in Higher Education, vol. 26, no. 2, 2001, pp. 135-146
[23] R. Neumann, and T. Becher, "Teaching and Learning in their
Disciplinary Contexts: A conceptual analysis." Studies in Higher
Education, vol. 27, no. 4, 2002, pp. 405-417.
[24] C. Klopper, and S. Drew, "Teaching for learning, learning for teaching:
Triangulating perspectives of teaching quality through peer observation
and student evaluation." In C. Nygaard, N. Courtney, and P.
Bartholomew, (Eds.) Quality enhancement of university teaching and
learning: theories and cases. Libri Publishing Ltd., to be published
[25] R. Likert, "A technique for the measurement of attitudes." Archives of
Psychology, vol. 22, no. 140, 1932, pp. 1-55.
[26] B. S. Bloom, Taxonomy of educational objectives; the classification of
educational goals (1st ed.). New York, Longmans, Green. 1956.