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


What is Peer Review of Teaching?


The Context


MicroWorkshop


Suggestions for PRoT

1. Choose Formative?


2. Participation Policy?


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

3. What to Review?


Pitfalls:
  1. reifying teaching as performance
  2. focus upon the inconsequential
Guideline:
review the evidence of alterable variables that are highly correlated with learning ...(PTO)

3. What to Review? (cont)


4. Who reviews?


5. What form?


6. What Reports?


7. What Follow-up?


Summary


831 accesses since 27 Apr 2009, HTML cache rendered at 20090823:1606