Review of Educational Research

http://rer.aera.net A Qualitative Review of Literature on Peer Review of Teaching in Higher Education: An Application of the SWOT Framework
Susan Thomas, Qiu Ting Chie, Mathew Abraham, Sony Jalarajan Raj and Loo-See Beh REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH published online 17 September 2013 DOI: 10.3102/0034654313499617 The online version of this article can be found at: http://rer.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/09/16/0034654313499617

Published on behalf of

American Educational Research Association

and
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Review of Educational Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://rer.aera.net/alerts Subscriptions: http://rer.aera.net/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.aera.net/reprints Permissions: http://www.aera.net/permissions

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Sep 17, 2013 What is This?

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net by guest on September 22, 2013

RER499617RER10.3102/0034654313499617Thomas

et al.Peer Review in Higher Educa-

tion
Review of Educational Research Season XXXX, Vol. XX, No. X, pp. 148 DOI: 10.3102/0034654313499617 2013 AERA. http://rer.aera.net

A Qualitative Review of Literature on Peer Review of Teaching in Higher Education: An Application of the SWOT Framework
Susan Thomas, Qiu Ting Chie Monash University Sunway Campus, Malaysia Mathew Abraham University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus Sony Jalarajan Raj St. Thomas University of Florida Loo-See Beh University of Malaya

The issues of professional accountability, faculty member development, and enhancing higher education quality in universities are gaining importance. A strategy that could increase personal control over teaching practices in addition to improving professional development among faculty members is peer review of teaching (PRT). Five themes that are important in determining the feasibility of PRT are (a) benefits of peer review in developing faculty members, (b) barriers to peer review of teaching, (c) gaps in literature, (d) potential problems to teaching practice, and (e) opportunities. Of the 65 studies identified, 34 were selected for further analysis, and drawing on PRT and the SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat) framework, 27 studies were selected for content mapping. Textual narrative synthesis was used to further categorize the review findings into the four quadrants of the SWOT framework. This analysis highlights a positive strategy in promoting PRT in higher education.

Keywords: peer review, observation, reflection, peer feedback, content-mapping, SWOT framework

Thomas et al.

In recent years, governments and universities are increasingly focused on the quality of education whereas parents and students are more concerned about the maintenance or upgrading of education standards. However, the fact that the quality of education depends on giving faculty members more control of their practice is seemingly neglected (Murray & Grant, 1998). Developments in the scholarship of teaching and learning have seen the change in focus from an information transmission approach to a quality learning approach. This change suggests that the emphasis on facts and mastering information has given way to active forms of learning, which require students to understand subject materials deeply and engage in making meanings (Hutchings, 1996). Similarly, there is a need to change the traditional method of teaching evaluation to a more collegial design. As such, peer review and tailored evaluation interventions are increasingly proposed in higher education entities as alternatives to improve the evaluation process and teaching quality (Murray & Grant, 1998), especially to support accountability processes (University Teaching Development Centre, 2004). Peer review of teaching (PRT) includes the observation of lectures and tutorials, monitoring online teaching, examining curriculum design, and the use of student assessments (Hatzipanagos & Lygo-Baker, 2006). The essence of PRT is about furthering the development of faculty members through the expert input based on knowledge and understanding, although it can be used as part of performance appraisal and tenure portfolios (Kohut, Burnap, & Yon, 2007). PRT also sharpens individual skills, such as the ability to observe as well as critically reflect on the dynamics and social context of teaching (Peel, 2005). Statement of Purpose The main purpose of this review is to map past studies on PRT in higher education. Second, the review attempts to highlight research gaps and issues with past literature on PRT and SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat) analysis. Third, the feasibility of PRT is analyzed using the SWOT framework. It is hoped that the SWOT framework will provide an objective and critical perspective of the PRT concept as a whole. The review begins with an introduction describing the significance of PRT for teaching in higher education. This section is followed by a discussion of the purpose of this research and the problems identified with PRT and the SWOT literature. A description of the procedures to identify resources and studies, the keywords applied, as well as the inclusion and exclusion criteria are also documented. Subsequently, research documenting the implementation of peer observation and PRT, giving and receiving feedback, as well as reflective practice within an institution are content-mapped to derive themes that will help focus the review toward the formation of the SWOT framework of PRT. The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that surface from conducting PRT will be derived through textual narrative synthesis, and the outcome of the analysis is reported. This review ends with a short discussion on the implications of applying the SWOT framework to PRT. Problem Statements An examination of PRT trends shows that peer observation is a recent development in U.K. universities after its successful introduction in the United States and 2

Peer Review in Higher Education

Australia (Lomas & Kinchin, 2006). As PRT is a relatively new practice in higher education, there is some difficulty locating research detailing PRT performance as compared to peer review associated with research journal publications. Prior to this, the PRT in itself is not a dominant practice in higher education institutions due to a lack of awareness of its impact on teaching performance and how PRT can help faculty members reflect and develop a deeper understanding on teaching philosophy (Hurst, Wilson, & Cramer, 1998). Therefore, a shift in the view and beliefs about teaching is needed since there is more to teaching than just technique. Course design, types of assignments, and student assessment criteria are reflections of the teachers perception about the field of study. Since teaching is a scholarly work, PRT has the capability to capture overlooked scholarly aspects of teaching (Boyer, 1990). An examination of recent attitudes toward PRT found more positive attitudes among faculty members from the liberal arts (Keig, 2000). A majority of these faculty members believe that the accuracy of teaching assessment, the objectivity of assessment, and academic freedom will not be compromised by PRT (Keig, 2000). According to Boyer, faculty members within some disciplines have the tendency to be too focused on teaching techniques, and many of them have the assumption that valuable input on teaching can only come from peers within the same discipline. However, Boyer believes that this can be overcome through frequent engagement in cross-disciplinary discussions, debates, and exchanges. A main concern is about who is qualified to be a peer reviewer. The question is, Can reviewers without subject expertise provide equally valid feedback as reviewers who are with subject expertise. Hanson (1993) addressed this concern through a pilot study in a PRT program by having a subject specialist evaluate a group of faculty members. The evaluation revealed that feedback from nonspecialist appraisers and subject specialists are equally reliable and valid. Although reflective practice is accepted internationally as part of professional competency for teachers, there is a lack of awareness among faculty members in higher education about what constitutes reflective practice (Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2005). There is insufficient emphasis on the process of reflective activities, which involves knowledge about the action and self to create enhanced meaning (Brockbank & McGill, 1998). Reflective activities also involve recreating enhanced meaning through the interplay of social and personal knowledge, along with experiential and conceptual insights (Kolb, 1984). The role of peers in altering understanding and enhancing self-awareness in addition to the misconception about reflection as an individualistic activity needs to be underlined to faculty members. Having PRT in higher education can encourage a deeper understanding on the role of peers as helpers who provide the critical energy needed for change (Barnett, 1997) and contribute to their colleagues professional development. Another concern among faculty members is about what and how they will be assessed in PRT. The PRT process can be enhanced if acceptable standards of good teaching assessment are established (Keig, 2000). Ramsden (1992) identified 13 characteristics of good teaching: (a) a desire to share the love of the subject, (b) the ability to make the material stimulating and interesting, (c) the facility to engage with students at their level of understanding, (d) a commitment to ensure clarity in what has to be understood and its reasons, (e) demonstrating concern and respect for students, (f) encouraging student independence and experiment, (g) the ability 3

Thomas et al.

to improvise and adapt to new demands, (h) promoting active and cooperative learning through teaching methods and academic tasks, (i) the use of valid and fair assessments, (j) providing high-quality feedback to students, (k) emphasizing key concepts, (l) a focus on current and future understanding, and (m) demonstrating the desire to learn from others about ways to improve teaching. Through the years, many researchers have attempted to define principles of effective teaching (Kember & McNaught, 2007; Saroyan et al., 2004; Young & Shaw, 1999). Young and Shaw, for instance, proposed six dimensions of effective teaching based on 912 students rating of a college teacher of their choice, whereas Kember and McNaught (2007) derived 10 principles of effective teaching from their research on 44 teachers from Australia who were nominated as exemplary teachers and 18 teachers from Hong Kong who received the Vice-Chancellors award for exemplary teaching. In a review of literature on effective teaching, Hativa, Barak, and Simhi (2001) listed several overlapping characteristics, such as (a) being well-prepared and organized, (b) providing clear presentation of material, (c) the ability to fuel students interest, (d) engagement, (e) encouragement, (f) positive rapport with students, (g) motivation, (h) enthusiasm in studying teaching materials, (i) demonstration of high expectations, and (j) maintenance of a positive learning environment. The question is which principle best fits the overall characteristics of good or effective teaching. Comparatively, Ramsdens (1992) characteristics of good teaching contain all the overlapping characteristics of effective teaching, which are still used by many researchers today, including Hativa et al. Nonetheless, Nicholls (2001) warned that faculty members should be aware of the fine distinction between teaching competence (i.e., efficiency and effectiveness) and cognitive understanding (i.e., content and academic competence). Thus, caution must be practiced when evaluating peers as the teaching characteristics define only a part of the teaching competence. The primary purpose of effective teaching characteristics is to function as a guideline to provide clear specifications of institutional objectives, with the aim of driving educational practice rather than being used as a standard benchmark for teaching performance. Thus, faculty members need to be given autonomy on the interpretations of the characteristics to have good teaching practices in their respective classrooms. Therefore, this review attempts to incorporate the SWOT analysis as a review framework and method to analyze the feasibility of PRT. However, according to Chermack and Kasshanna (2007), the fundamental issue with SWOT analysis is that it emerged from practice and lacks a theoretical foundation. In the 1950s, the approach used by Smith and Christensen in studying the relationship between the environment and organization shaped the basis of SWOT analysis, even though there are no clear academic references to support the source of the word SWOT (Chermack & Kasshanna, 2007; Helms & Nixon, 2010). The SWOT concept was used as a strategy tool developed by Learned, Christensen, Andrews, and Guth in 1965 as a result of earlier efforts in analyzing case studies in Harvard Business School (Chermack & Kasshanna, 2007). The basic framework of the original SWOT table is seen in Table 1. Second, although SWOT has been used in a number of areas such as health education, social work (Sharma, 2005; Westhues, Lafrance, & Schmidt, 2001), 4

Table 1 The basic two-by-two matrix of SWOT analysis developed by the Harvard Business School Strengths Opportunities Threats Weaknesses

Achieve opportunities that Overcome weaknesses to attain opmatch the strengths portunities Use strengths to reduce vulner- Prevent weaknesses to avoid suscepability to threats tibility to threats

Source. Adapted from The Use and Misuses of SWOT Analysis and Implications for HRD Professionals, by T. J. Chermack and B. K. Kasshanna, 2007, Human Resource Development International, 10 , p. 387. Copyright 2007 by Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

revisions to business undergraduate curriculum (Kuiper & Thomas, 2000), and strategy formulation for vocational education (Lee, Lo, Leung, & Ko, 2000), the use of a SWOT analysis in higher education is not highly published. The conclusions drawn from the Kuiper and Thomas and Lee et al. studies demonstrate that the SWOT model helps the principal stakeholders in higher education entities to identify expertise that pose as strengths or opportunities and the shortcomings within the internal and external environment that pose as weaknesses or threats. By recognizing the areas in which they lack expertise, strategies can be developed to overcome weaknesses and thus increase the overall efficiency and efficacy of the planning process (Kuiper & Thomas, 2000). Third, even though the SWOT is acknowledged as an established method for the formulation of strategies (Dyson, 2004), as it simplifies complex issues into manageable tasks, researchers also suggest the use of alternative methods or tools in tandem with SWOT in strategy analysis (Helms & Nixon, 2010). Although the SWOT analysis framework has its drawbacks (Chermack & Kasshanna, 2007; Helms & Nixon, 2010), it is a useful tool for exploring possibilities, making decisions, brainstorming (Chermack & Kasshanna, 2007), and conducting first-level investigations of internal and external environments that could favor or work against new concepts such as PRT. The direction of the PRT program and its opportunities for development lies closely with the objective of the program and the needs of faculty members. On an individual level, faculty members have complete autonomy in determining steps to proceed after identifying their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges in teaching. Nevertheless, there may be an overlap in the categorization of SWOT variables as PRT progresses (Helms & Nixon, 2010). For instance, strengths that are not maintained become weaknesses, whereas opportunities that are developed may become a weakness or threat. Alternatively, threats that are acted on efficiently may become opportunities. To summarize, the synthesis of SWOT is a quick and easy method that could help faculty members build on the strengths and opportunities gained from PRT as well as eliminate the weakness and threats posed by PRT to their own unique circumstances. Although it has its issues, the simplicity of its design allows an easy grasp of the four essential components needed to evaluate the feasibility of projects such as PRT programs. Researchers need to bear in mind that the success of PRT 5

Thomas et al.

programs greatly depends on the depth of analysis within the institutional environment and its influence on PRT. Weaknesses and threats such as the implications of PRT on top of the lack of standardized and valid PRT instruments can be overcome. Therefore, higher education administrators need to support faculty members by ensuring open two-way communication between the administration and staff, as part of efforts to improve teaching and learning through high-quality feedback. Method Literature Search An extensive online search of peer reviewed literature from numerous databases such as Taylor and Francis Online, Elsevier, EBSCOhost, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Emerald, J-STOR, SpringerLink, SAGE Journals Online, ProQuest, MetaPress, and Wiley Online Library were conducted until July 2012. The search was carried out using keywords such as peer review of teaching, teaching evaluation, and SWOT. In this review article, the term peer review of teaching is used to differentiate studies on peer review using observation and evaluation techniques from peer review studies associated with student learning and journal publications. This review article defines PRT in line with Kinchin (2005), who described it as an intentional observation process in which a university faculty member attends a coworkers teaching session with the aim of providing feedback by being a critical friend. The PRT concept and process in this review article is adopted from the peer review model by Gosling (2002). The model suggests that peer observation is necessary as a prelude to discussion about teaching through shared experiences. The PRT provides opportunities for faculty members to mutually reflect and selfreflect. As a result, the outcome of PRT is the complete analysis of teaching methods with a constructive feedback on teaching performances and learning materials needed, which will be communicated after observations are made for the mutual benefit of the reviewee and reviewer. Gosling emphasized the advantage of discussing immediate feedback through peer-shared perception, which establishes an equal relationship status between the reviewee and reviewer. The model by Gosling (2002) clearly focuses on formative peer review, which emphasizes academics professional development rather than summative peer review, described by Kinchin (2005) as audit-like. One of the main problems in the literature search is a lack of recent PRT literature, even among Western literature. There is also limited research published in this area in high-impact journals. Most relevant studies on PRT programs were conducted in the late 1980s to early 1990s (Freiberg, Waxman, & Houston, 1987; Hanson, 1993; Odell & Ferraro, 1992). Recent research by Bingham and Ottewill (2001), Kohut et al. (2007), Bell and Mladenovic (2008), as well as Kell and Annetts (2009) were identified using specific search terms related to PRT such as peer observation, peer feedback, and reflective practice. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria The selection criteria for inclusion in this review are (a) featured PRT research that emphasized professional development among faculty members (i.e., formative

Peer Review in Higher Education

peer evaluation) and (b) empirical or conceptual studies published from 2000 to 2012. Exceptions are made for some earlier studies that included theoretical rationale for the implementation of PRT within higher education. Furthermore, peer review research used in performance appraisal, as part of human resource function in organizations, was excluded. No limitations were placed on the geographical location of the studies. Systematic Review of Literature Using the SWOT Framework A qualitative review of the literature search yielded research gaps within PRT in higher education. The review was created based on 12 years of past literature (Figure 1). A total of 65 studies were screened to identify the most relevant literature of PRT in higher education. From the 65 studies, 34 studies had PRT as the main research focus, 8 studies were associated with the SWOT framework, and the remaining 23 studies addressed general peer review issues. Of the 34 peer reviewed studies, only 27 are reviewed in-depth based on the content-relevance to PRT and the SWOT framework. Table 2 shows five themes derived from 27 past studies in determining the feasibility of PRT. The different types of research approaches and publications were identified from the 27 studies and are shown in Table 3. The result showed there were six mixed-methods studies, seven qualitative studies, and two quantitative studies. The remaining 12 studies could not be classified according to type as they consisted of reviews or reflective publications. Using the 27 studies again, a contentmapping approach was used to sort and review key information such as the authors, year of publication, research participants and instruments used, research variables, results, and general conclusion, as shown in Table 4. The review from the contentmapping also indicated that three studies in higher education were in a multidisciplinary setting, whereas one study compared PRT between campuses in a cross-cultural setting. Only nine studies used some form of instrument such as the Peer Assistance and Review Form (PARF), Sheffield Peer Review Assessment Tool (SPRAT), mini Peer Assessment Tool (mini-PAT), behavior or observation checklists, Likert-scale questionnaires, video recordings, and personal narratives. As a result, the content-mapping from past studies also reveals the overall importance of feedback, responsibility, and training to improve teaching quality. The results from the development of themes are discussed in detail in the next section. Results by Theme Benefits of Peer Review in Developing Faculty Members There are a wide range of positive outcomes for the development of faculty members as a result of practicing PRT. The benefits concluded from the literature include the confirmation of existing teaching practices and motivation for faculty members to teach from a different perspective (Hanson, 1993), the development of assurance to instruct and learn about teaching, change in educational perspectives (Bell & Mladenovic, 2008), the development of collegiality, respect for the approaches of colleagues (Quinlan & Akerlind, 2000), and integration of tutors into the department (Allen, 2002). Formative peer evaluation with feedback has the ability to give the faculty and its members the responsibility for self-monitoring,

Comprehensive search of database from 12 years past literature

Application of inclusion and exclusion criteria

Identification of 65 studies for literature review Data extraction

8 studies on SWOT background, strengths and critique

34 PRT studies

23 studies-general peer review issues for the introduction and problem statement

27 studies selected based on content relevance

Content mapping

Development of themes: Benefits of peer review in developing faculty members Barriers to peer review of teaching Weakness: Lack of published literature on standardized and validated peer review instruments Potential problems to teaching practice Opportunities: Expansion of peer review; Prospects for professional development

Key information sorted: Author Year of publication Research participants Instruments Research variables Results General conclusion

Application of SWOT framework: Textual narrative synthesis of 27 empirical and conceptual studies

Figure 1. Qualitative review of the literature selection process.

autonomy over their work, and to practice self-regulation (Al Qahtani, Kattan, Al Harbi, & Seefeldt, 2011). Faculty members will be able to improve teaching practice by identifying their weakness and correcting it, in addition to identifying their strengths and building on it. The value of PRT and supportive feedback was also 8

Table 2 Types of themes derived from 27 selected peer review studies No 1 2 3 4 5 Themes Benefits of Peer Review in Developing Faculty Members Barriers to Peer Review of Teaching Weakness: Lack of Published Literature on Standardized and Validated Peer Review Instruments Potential Problems to Teaching Practice Opportunities Expansion of Peer Review of Teaching Prospects for Professional Development No. of studies 5 4 4 6 2 6

Table 3 Types of research approaches and publications identified from the 27 studies Research approaches/publications Mixed methods Qualitative Quantitative Reviews or reflection No. of studies 6 7 2 12

supported by Freiberg, Waxman, and Houston (1987). This study found that teachers who received feedback from colleagues and supervisors, in addition to attending a 2-hour seminar to discuss with their peers about instructional strategies to improve their classroom performance benefitted the most from the PRT program. A 4-year longitudinal study on 160 teacher trainees by Odell and Ferraro (1992) further revealed that 96% of the cohort valued the peer feedback and emotional support provided by their mentors and, thus, motivated them to continue teaching after 4 years. The positive effects of PRT were also shown in a study by Carroll (1980), who reviewed 13 studies that used observation of teaching in tutor training. This study found that 12 studies, with the exception of Haber in 1973, showed statistically significant positive changes in teaching behavior due to training (Carroll, 1980). Research by Dalgaard (1982) captured the teaching performance of tutors before and after training on video. The tutors viewed their videos with an experienced colleague, and a questioning technique was used to help them self-evaluate and set objectives in teaching. This study showed that the training group received significantly higher final teaching scores from trained raters compared to the control group after considering initial differences in teaching skill. The tutors also highlighted the usefulness of videotapes in the training session. The use of video has the advantage of providing irrefutable evidence of teaching improvement and helps focus feedback on specific behaviors (Brinko, 1993). Nevertheless, the videos could be biased if only a portion of teaching performance is recorded. Moreover, peer feedback will only be effective if videos are reviewed immediately 9

10
Objective Present a critical Teaching asanalysis of emsistants pirical research on training outcomes Cognitive outcomes, attitudes Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion Examine the ef- Tutors fects of peer observation and training on behavior and teaching quality Video of teaching performance Teaching attitudes Majority of the Training outcome: studies (13) Enhanced teachdemonstrated ing attitudes, significant pos- achievement, itive changes and ratings of in behavior due instruction to training Most training programs provide a specialized range of teaching skills The training Peer observation group received and training had higher final positive effects teaching scores on teaching behavior and improvement of teaching quality Videotaping was the most useful aspect of training (continued)

Table 4 Content mapping of past literature on PRT

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

Benefits of Carroll Peer Review in Developing Faculty Members

1980

Dalgaard

1982

Table 4 (continued) Objective Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

Brinko

1993

Extrapolate feedback giving practices to improve teaching

Literature on Whothe obtaining feedback feedback in source and education, recipient psychology and organizational behavior Whatthe Concrete and There is a need to information specific data, strengthen feedgiven to sandwich neg- back literature recipient ative feedback with empirical between posistudies tive comments, creates moderate cognitive dissonance for change

Questioning technique used helped in setting objectives and self-evaluation Peers, the self, Feedback practices experts (credwere reviewed ible, knowlbased in theoretiedgeable, well- cal literature intentioned) and subordinates

(continued)

11

Table 4 (continued) Objective Howthe mode of feedback Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion

12
Presenting a conceptual framework for PRT (technical development, classroom techniques, personal growth and changes) Variety of Allowances modes: verbal, must be made written, statis- for individual tical, graphical, differences in behavioral, feedback giver structured/un- and recipients structured More research needed in motivation for feedback-seeking behavior Learning by Teaching PRTA transfordoing (Kolb, competency matory instru1984) depends on ment perception, reflective ability, personal insights, literature engagement, policy documentation Meaning in the Self-reflection: process essential to complement peer observation in preparation for change (continued)

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

Peel

2005

Table 4 (continued) Objective Reflecting on educational peer evaluation Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

Al Qahtani, 2011 Kattan, Al Harbi, and Seefeldt

Rationale, Constructive Formative peer methods, criticism: evaluation: uses of peer improve weak helps develop evaluation: areas, amplify responsibility, formative strength the power to be and summain charge of their tive own work and to practice selfregulation Multiple reImportant for jusources can nior members as be utilized: a part of teaching observation is improvement most common before tenure and promotion review Improves teaching that links with faculty development programs (continued)

13

Table 4 (continued) Objective To identify the root barriers to PRT Chemistry faculty members from 7 U.S. universities Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion

14
Rationale for Rationale for Perceived barriers PRT, perPRT: for PRT: ceived barriers, results and impact, future directions Encourages self- Fear, uncertainty improvement in fairness of process, personal nature of teaching styles Provides Students need time recognition to acclimatize to of teaching new methods of instruction for a fair teaching evaluation Alternative to bureaucratic accountability (continued)

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

Barriers to Atwood, Peer Review Taylor, of Teaching and Hutchings

2000

Table 4 (continued) Objective Develop and 284 faculty Effective implement peer members in Teachers observation BourBehavior scheme nemouth checklist University Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

Hanson

1993

Lomas and Nicholls

2005

To examine the introduction of PRT in a pre-1992 U.K. university

15

Giving feed- Concerns about Unfairness of peer back, imvalidity of non- review can be mediacy of specialist feed- overcome by obfeedback and back, which is taining feedback follow-up ac- equally valid from multiple tion, validity and reliable as sources besides and utility of subject special- observation refeedback ist feedback cords and expert opinions Satisfaction with feedback validity, comments were useful Peer review Faculty Nonobjectivdocuments, members ity of reviewers, archived perception of fear of review records, PRT, opposiprocess, critical interview tion to PRT, feedback, impact transcripts, managing on faculty memdirect PRT, changbers relationobservation ing culture ships, unfairness of interin one-session vention, assessments participant observations, and institutional reports (continued)

Table 4 (continued) Objective Assess the percep- 20 faculty tions about PRT members concept and clarify issues about the review process Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion

16
Group Perception of Newer faculty Lack of time, discusterms, reflec- members perbiased review, sion data tion about ceive PRT as pulling of ranks transcript existing PRT audit-like process To investigate the 122 pediat- SPRAT feasibility of ric senior SPRAT among house pediatricians-in- officers and training middle Senior faculty Ownership of the members perpeer review proceive PRT as cess encourages beneficial for the faculty to personal and engage in PRT professional development Good clinical 83% of doctors SPRAT is a feacare, mainneeded four rat- sible tool to: taining good ers to achieve a medical prac- reliable score (if tice, teaching the intent was and training, to determine assessing and that scores were appraising, satisfactory) relationship with patients, and working with colleagues (continued)

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

Kell and Annetts

2009

10

Weakness: Archer, Lack of Norcini, Published and DaLiterature on vies Standardized and Validated Peer Review Instrument

2005

Table 4 (continued) Objective Grades (three tertiary and five secondary U.K. hospitals) Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion Inform high stake decisions

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

11 To design, imple- 553 founda- Mini-PAT ment, and evalu- tion trainate the mini-PAT ees from 12 to assess clinical Deaneries trainees in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland

Archer, Norcini, Southgate, Heard, and Davies

2008

Provide feedback to doctors personal development plans Good clinical High interitem Mini-PAT is a valid care, maincorrelations (r method to collate taining good = .98) peer feedback to medical pracassess trainees tice, teaching and training, assessing and appraising, relationship with patients, and working with colleagues (continued)

17

Table 4 (continued) Objective Constructing a 183 teachers PARF peer review in Manila, rubric applicable Philippines for use in higher learning institutions Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion

18
To reflect on discussions and debate around the AAHE Peer Review of Teaching program Planning and High reliability Three highlights of preparation, (overall interstudy: class envinal consistency ronment, in- = .98) struction, and professional responsibility Concordance Professional revalidity of two sponsibility raters ( = .47, p < .01) Merits of multiple rater instrument The need to communicate expectations Definitions, Reluctance toward reluctance peer review is about faculty instilled by: peer review, prospects and strategy for peer review (continued)

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

12

Magno

2012

13

Cavanagh

1996

Table 4 (continued) Objective Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

14 Explore a case study of 10 developmental peer observations within U.K. higher education Guidelines for peer observation, checklist forms

Potential Shortland Problems to Teaching Practice

2010

19

Lack in confidence of colleagues ability to understand faculty standards of teaching The absence of professional culture that acknowledges the wisdom of peer collaboration in teaching Two themes Feedback: Based discovered: on interpretation of events and perceptions of observation rationale and higher education environment Difficulty in Constructive gaining student feedback may engagement be interpreted as critical, evaluative, judgmental, threatening, painful, competitive or personal (continued)

Table 4 (continued) Objective Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion

20
Review current developments of the peer review of teaching (PRT), the rationale behind the developments, issues raised by peer review, and prospects for the future. Lack of integra- Shared nature tion between of feedback class populadoes provide tion participants with learning and development opportunities Five issues with PRT: Going public with teaching Establishing standards Identifying the appropriate peers Finding the right methods and strategies Time limitations (continued)

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

15

Hutchings

1996

Table 4 (continued) Objective To discuss factors that discourage peer evaluation Academic freedom, fairness Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

16

Keig and Waggoner

1994

17

HammersleyFletcher and Orsmond

2004

21

Subjectivity, time Peer observafactors, and tionInvasive values within and challenging, faculty can act inappropriate as incentive or influences by disincentive those in power according to context The freedom to choose teaching process and content To evaluate two AcademObservation Context of Factors essen- Professional develsystems of peer ics from advice, observation tial for peer opment, changes observation in the Law report back process, the review: in teaching a post-1992 Faculty and forms, self- outcomes, university School of evaluation the reScience form (scialities of two ence) alternative models Open and honest Change fatigue, relationship resistance, difference in perception toward outcome of observation Assurance of confidentiality (continued)

Table 4 (continued) Objective Reporting the Five reviewreflective pracers and four tice conducted reviewees by two schools from two through interschools view data Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion

22
Reviewer Slight distanc- Understanding of reviewee ing between reflective prorelationship reviewer and cess is limited and the effect reviewer could within the set on reflecincrease feedinterpretation tive practice, back objectiv- of vulnerabilengagement ity ity issues and in reflection anxiety in giving and receiving feedback Quality of peer review depends on the thoroughness of observer feedback The timing of peer observation: sufficient time for teachers to reflect and act Majority of reviewees tend to view feedback negatively (continued)

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

18

HammersleyFletcher and Orsmond

2005

Table 4 (continued) Objective Examining the effectiveness of peer review to evaluate teachers Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

19

Kumrow and Dahlen

2002

20 To investigate the Private effect of conUniversity: textual factors 7 faculty on departmental members, peer collaboration

Opportunity: Quinlan and Expansion of Akerlind Peer Review of Teaching

2000

Purpose, Teachers are Additional costs process, supportive of of implementing benefits, peer review peer review need effectiveness, but must be to be further problems, included in investigated future of peer the design, review development and implementation for continued acceptance Nature of Factors for Peer collaboration discipline, receptive peer across differinstitutional collaboration: ent disciplines structure, is possible with departmental the condition and individof considering ual faculty and overcomfactors ing contextual factors within an institution (continued)

23

Table 4 (continued) Objective State University: 7 discussion sessions (20 members in first session, 12 members in subsequent sessions) Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion

24
Examining disciplinary collaboration and improving teaching quality from the perspective of an educational developer Established collaborative work pattern, an agreed set of external standards, history of educational reforms, an issue to be addressed, autonomy in faculty governance, selfconfidence Curricular and Advantage of Greater identificapedagogic disciplinary tion operates best concerns, collaboration: when aiming to developing change faculty the faculty beliefs as scholars, developing careers within a discipline, promoting disciplinebased teaching initiatives (continued)

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

21

Jenkins

1996

Table 4 (continued) Objective Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

22 To examine the 73 teachers effect of a reflective teaching program

Opportunity: Wubbels Prospects for and Professional KorthaDevelopment gen

1990

Greater identi- Faculty memfication with bers have to peers from the be provided same discipline ample support and resources to disciplinary collaboration in teaching and research Reduce possibility of losing positive changes from lack of support Likert-type Attitude, stu- More reflective The effects of proquestiondentteacher attitudes, link- moting reflecnaire relationships, ing learning tive teaching in (reflective innovation, to teaching teacher educaattitude) job satisfacphilosophies, tion was promistion cultural ing but also aspects, better discouraging teacherstudent relationships, more open to innovation, higher job satisfaction (continued)

25

Table 4 (continued) Objective Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion

26
To examine teachers experience of using reflective practice in a cross-cultural peer review Reflective teaching produced positive outcomes but some teachers are not inclined to reflect or show innovation in teaching Transnational Novel experiWith appropriexperience, ence encourate support, reflective ages reflection reflection and practice, on content, cross-cultural transforprocess and discussions immation, premise proves teaching professional practice development Reflection is forced by cultural differences in environment and climate (continued)

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

23

Smith

2009

Table 4 (continued) Objective Provide guidelines to construct teaching portfolios Suggestions Portfolio as: for creating and presenting portfolios Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

24

Hurst, Wil- 1998 son, and Cramer

The process of creating teaching portfolios can help refine professional and personal goals through reflection Self-selected Teachers can body of reflec- rediscover their tive evidence strength and passion for teaching from putting together their portfolio Teaching competency and credentials Representation of teachers holistic view (continued)

27

Table 4 (continued) Objective Outlining valid and useful steps for creating a portfolio Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion

28
Clarifying and Portfolios should Portfolios can be documentinclude: developed for ing teaching both formative responsibiliand summative ties, selecting purposes criteria for effective teaching, compiling supportive evidence, summarizing evidence, and collecting excellent back-up materials Data from mul- Portfolios increase tiple sources the control of (Head of teachers over School, peers, their evaluation and students) process (continued)

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

25

Knapper and Wright

2001

Table 4 (continued) Objective Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

26 Content Criteria, evianalysis of dence, stan144 teach- dards, match ing awards between the from 85 criteria and institutions evidence across the United States

Van Note Chism

2006

Examine the criteria used in teaching awards, the evidence required, and standards for judging candidates

Teachers become Teachers are aware the lack responsible for of information documenting about teaching teaching accomactivities and plishments and effectivefinding methods ness during to assess effecthe portfolio tiveness of teachcompilation ing practices Majority (52%) Low emphasis on of teaching PRT within the awards do not evidence requirespecify teachments of awards ing excellence programs except criteria or uses for letters of supa global defini- port, confirms tion the low use of standardized peer review processes in most institutions (continued)

29

30
Objective Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion Majority (92%) Failure to request rely on letters evidence of of nomination teaching scholaras evidence. ship (portfolio) Teaching demonstrates the portfolios low value placed requested by within the teachonly 14% of ing dimension programs Only two pro- Clear and spegrams that list cific criteria and clear criteria standards for for the award teaching award specifically programs needmatch these ed; link criteria with evidence to evidence that is considered suitable indicators of the criteria (continued)

Table 4 (continued)

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

Table 4 (continued) Objective Participants Instruments Variables Results Conclusion

No.

Themes

Author(s)

Year

27

FitzPatrick and Spiller

2010

To consider the Eight partici- Teaching Uncertainty Some parEmotions have implications of pants from portfolio, and anxiety ticipants were a powerful in teacher emotions the Postpersonal created by uncomfortthe process of in relation to the graduate narratives portfolio able about the learning to be a use of teaching Certificate requirements blend of the teacher portfolios by in Tertiary formative and institutions Teaching summative in New functions of Zealand the multipurUniversity pose portfolio Explore the acEmotional Producing the The process of commodation complexity portfolio exploring the of the emotional in exploraevoked a range self and compildimension of tion of the of complex ing the portfoprofessional self as a emotions lio is private development teacher and should be into teaching undertaken under portfolios a trusted mentor with the support of invited peers

Note. PRT = peer review of teaching; SPRAT = Sheffield Peer Review Assessment Tool; mini-PAT = mini Peer Assessment Tool; PARF = Peer Assistance and Review Form.

31

Thomas et al.

after the teaching session to reduce emotional detachment from the self in the videotape (Brinko, 1993). It is not sufficient for faculty members to only act based on peer observation and feedback to affect positive changes in teaching practice (Peel, 2005). Teaching is multifaceted, and thus, improved teaching competence depends on individual perceptions, individual reflective ability, and the use of personal insights as well as engaging in wider literature and policy documentation (Peel, 2005). Faculty members are also increasingly expected to fulfill the role as reflective practitioners who learn optimally when given the opportunity to collaboratively construct knowledge with peers about teaching problems that are related to their own experience (Quinlan & Akerlind, 2000). Therefore, they are expected to provide highquality feedback for enhancing teaching and learning through reflection. In addition, conducting cross-unit PRT is a good strategy for faculty members to explore teaching and learning in a professional and focused manner with colleagues from other disciplines (Bingham & Ottewill, 2001). Faculty members are provided a chance to collaboratively share ideas and increase their understanding about each others unit. Internal discussions also bring a greater sense of ownership in comparison to an externally imposed quality system (Bingham & Ottewill, 2001). Giving faculty members the ownership of PRT provides them with the independence and flexibility needed to enhance teaching quality through the review process (Kell & Annetts, 2009). Identifying their own areas of focus rather than responding to externally determined criteria ensures that the PRT program is content relevant to their team (Bingham & Ottewill, 2001). There are also differences in perception of PRT by teaching rank. Experienced faculty members view PRT to be formative and useful for personal and professional development whereas junior faculty members view it as summative and audit-like (Kell & Annetts, 2009). Thus, the training of reviewers is crucial to prevent PRT from being too appraisal-focused. In addition, faculty members who are trained and experienced in observation techniques and giving feedback will be viewed as more competent, accurate, and insightful of their own capabilities (Kohut et al., 2007). Besides establishing trust and credibility in the reviewers, other notable findings to enhance positive perceptions about the reliability and validity of the review process include giving oral and written reports about alternative teaching methods and suggestions for improvement (Kohut et al., 2007). A tutor development program developed based on the peer observation model by Bell and Mladenovic (2008) demonstrated the importance of learning through observation and providing junior faculty members with training on supportive and nonjudgmental feedback. It focused on preparing tutors to teach. The topics included were tutoring, icebreakers, lesson planning and setting expectations, resources, suggestion about common areas for improvement, giving in-class assessment feedback, and strategies to gather and use teaching feedback. The findings reveal that 94% of tutors found the program helpful, and 88% said they would alter their teaching style as a result of PRT. Moreover, tutors in this exercise found peer observation as useful even after 1 year and gave recommendation to new tutors (Bell & Mladenovic, 2008). Based on the aforementioned literature, the benefits of PRT toward professional development and the quality of teaching can be fully gained provided the following attributes are present in the PRT program: (a) clear, straightforward, and 32

Peer Review in Higher Education

transparent structure; (b) engagement in professional discussion and debate among participants; (c) focus on the development of teaching and learning to upkeep motivation and commitment toward the PRT process; and (d) willingness to consider confounding factors such as emotional stability and conscientiousness toward engagement in professional development activities. Barriers to Peer Review of Teaching The review also identified three main obstacles in implementing and practicing PRT. A study by Atwood, Taylor, and Hutchings (2000) identified the root barriers for PRT: (a) fear, (b) uncertainty about what should be reviewed, and (c) how the process is reviewed. This study explains fear as a natural phenomenon when teaching and consequently, research is subjected to PRT. The reluctance of faculty members to employ PRT to improve teaching could stem from the fear of being reviewed by peers and the potential impact of critical feedback toward their relationships (Lomas & Nicholls, 2005). Another impending factor by Kell and Annetts (2009) is the lack of time to conduct PRT and the possibility of the review being potentially biased. All these factors play a role in contributing to a lack of enthusiasm among faculty members to participate in PRT. A survey among science faculty members and administrators revealed that there is uncertainty about the fairness of the review process (Atwood et al., 2000). Hanson (1993) suggested faculty members can overcome this issue by having reviewers provide feedback from additional resources other than observation records, such as adopting teaching portfolios. In addition, reviewers could also evaluate different competencies through different methods. Since teaching styles are viewed as personal, Atwood et al. (2000) proposed learning as the measure of teaching effectiveness. As for the structure of the review process, it was recommended that faculty members outline the nature of the class, learning goals, intellectual understanding of the topic, and focus on the reviewers response (Atwood et al., 2000). Weakness: Lack of Published Literature on Standardized and Validated Peer Review Instruments The biggest research gap identified in the literature is the limited number of published works on PRT instruments that are validated and tested. This could pose an issue to researchers who are investigating the effectiveness and efficacy of PRT. So far, only Magno (2012) has succeeded in trialing and testing the Peer Assistance and Review Form (PARF) that was tailored for peer assessment in higher education. Three main studies were identified on designing and developing peer review assessment instruments through the review of literature. Two studies are in the medical care setting (Archer, Norcini, & Davies, 2005; Archer, Norcini, Southgate, Heard, & Davies, 2008) and another in a higher education setting (Magno, 2012). This small number shows there is a clear necessity for more research in the standardization and validation of peer review instruments. The research by Archer et al. (2005) investigated the use of the Sheffield Peer Review Assessment Tool (SPRAT) among 112 pediatricians in training. The SPRAT assesses six areas, which are good clinical care, maintaining good medical practice, teaching and training, assessing and appraising, relationships with patients, and working with colleagues. The SPRAT was found to be a reliable and valid way of assessing doc33

Thomas et al.

tors as part of quality assurance procedures in training programs. Archer et al. (2008) later evaluated the use of the Peer Assessment Tool (mini-PAT) that was modified from the SPRAT among 553 Foundation clinical trainees from across the United Kingdom. The assessment areas of the mini-PAT are the same as SPRAT. However, nine irrelevant items were removed from the SPRAT. The mini-PAT consists of 16 questions, and the trainees clinical performance is rated against a six-point scale on two occasions during the pilot period. The validity of the internal structure is analyzed using factor analysis, and a multiple linear regression is performed to examine sources of bias. The high interitem correlations (r = .98) analysis concluded the mini-PAT as a valid method of collating feedback from colleagues as well as a reliable instrument to assess clinical trainees. Although the SPRAT and mini-PAT are developed for peer assessment within the health care sector, the development process and the validation of the instruments is well documented as a form of reference for other instrument developers. As mentioned earlier, the only published peer assessment instrument located within a higher education context is created by Magno (2012), a faculty member of the Counseling and Educational Psychology Department at the De La Salle University in the Philippines. The PARF is created based on a systematically combined professional practice and learner-centered framework. Classical test and item response theories are used to determine the validity and reliability of the rubric. The classical test theory (CTT) views data as a combination of true score and error. The standard CTT methods of determining reliability are through test retest, split-half, and Cronbachs alpha (internal consistency), whereas some validity measures are the construct validity, face validity, and content validity. Alternatively, item response theory proposes that an individuals probability of correct key responses is a result of their latent trait or ability and the influence of item parameters (i.e., degree of difficulty and item discrimination). The items in PARF reflect learner-centered practices with four domains anchored on Danielsons Components of Professional Practice and preparation, principles which are: (a) planning, (b) classroom environment, (c) instruction, and (d) professional responsibility. The PARF is pilot tested on 183 higher education teachers in the Philippines. Participants are observed by two raters in their class, and the concordance of both raters is established across the four domains with high internal consistency of .98. The results of Magnos (2012) study highlighted three perspectives on assessing teaching performance: (a) a need to inculcate professional responsibility in areas of research and continuing education programs for higher education, (b) the high reliability of an instrument with item consistency across multiple raters, and (c) the importance of communicating the set of expectations for teaching to faculty members. Nevertheless, an essential point highlighted by Kohut et al. (2007) with regard to the development of PRT instruments is to be flexible to accommodate a wide range of teaching styles and effective teaching characteristics. An example would be the use of narrative, which is often used in combination with other forms such as checklists, videos, and self-analysis (Kohut et al., 2007). Potential Problems to Teaching Practice Some of the problems associated with PRT as identified by Hutchings (1996) include issues in publicizing teaching practice, establishing standards of good teaching 34

Peer Review in Higher Education

practice, issues in dividing limited time for PRT and teaching responsibilities, as well as selecting the right methods and reviewers to assess teaching performance. This is supported by research that shows the reliability and validity of feedback from nonspecialist reviewers is persistently questioned although proven otherwise by Hanson (1993). Some faculty members may prefer having expert feedback in addition to peer feedback due to concerns that their peers might be too inexperienced to provide valuable feedback (Bell & Mladenovic, 2008). However, the studies show there are some unit coordinators who are reluctant to evaluate faculty members as they are worried it may be intrusive and intimidating. Moreover, expert observation is a one-way approach and deemed less economical in terms of time and effort invested in it (Bell & Mladenovic, 2008). The communication of constructive and sensitive feedback also needs to be dealt with carefully. The positive impact of constructive feedback is influenced by the individuals subjective interpretation (Shortland, 2010). For instance, when constructive feedback is given with the intention of highlighting different approaches to teaching, the feedback is inferred as a discouraging critical comment. As a result, faculty members may become defensive and adverse to change (Cosh, 1998; Donnelly, 2007). Therefore, Shortland recommended the provision of adequate training in giving feedback to prevent a backfire in conducting PRT. Other aspects of peer observation that may deter faculty members from engaging in PRT include the possibility that PRT is invasive and could be a threat to academic freedom (Keig & Waggoner, 1994). Complaints about the pulling of ranks and undercurrents of power gains are among some issues dogging PRT (Kell & Annetts, 2009). In addition, those in power might attempt to exert inappropriate influences on teaching. However, the mere presence of a peer should not be a threat to academic freedom since faculty members have the right to determine the teaching content and processes (Keig & Waggoner, 1994). Nevertheless, faculty members who may be concerned of what is being reviewed may not be accurately represented since the evaluation is based only on a snapshot of an individuals teaching performance (Hanson, 1993). Another concern among faculty members is they may be expected to conform to national or institutional representation of effective teaching through peer observation (Peel, 2005). Thus, they are required to perform in a way that enables them to obtain recognition for competence in teaching. Consequently, on legitimizing their teaching status, they will have more time to concentrate on their research activities. The accuracy of peer evaluation could also be influenced by confounding factors. The mere knowledge they are being observed may lead some faculty members to prepare better for that teaching session to enhance their teaching evaluation. Anxiety issues or unforeseen health problems could also result in the distortion of teaching quality (Hanson, 1993). Faculty members may be susceptible to change fatigue during postreview if there are constant changes made (HammersleyFletcher & Orsmond, 2004). This situation could initiate resistance to change, which are viewed as management issues and considered time consuming. Furthermore, peer observation of teaching is not always viewed as enhancing overall developmental initiatives although its effect is more evident in individual development (Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2004). Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond (2005) also reported concerns among faculty members about the confidentiality of the peer observation process, the 35

Thomas et al.

difficulties in giving and receiving criticism, the potential negative impact on relationships between faculty members, and anxiety about peer observation. There are still uncertainties regarding the extent to which the PRT process and its outcomes can be made public (Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2005). Hanson (1993) outlined the importance of providing guidelines for PRT procedures to address concerns about confidentiality issues, the provision of quick and timely verbal and written feedback, as well as the code for appraising teaching. Reviewers and reviewees also need to establish an open relationship for honest reflections to occur as this will greatly influence the sense of vulnerability felt by both parties (Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2005). The authors also mentioned faculty members may experience concerns on the subject of giving feedback and how colleagues receive criticism. In lieu of this, there is still a tendency to view critical feedback in a negative light, which is seeing it as criticism rather than a developmental issue. Thus, Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond (2005) suggest critical feedback must be presented constructively in a way that will lead to new understandings and improved practice. Any feelings of judgment made will act to detract the benefits of the PRT and reflection process. This article reports that a slight distancing (i.e., reviewers who do not observe someone within their own teaching team) may have some advantages in giving critical feedback (HammersleyFletcher & Orsmond, 2005). From a financial perspective, the running of a PRT program is not without added costs. Administrators in higher education institutions need to factor in the additional expenses for the short-term and long-term strategic planning of such programs (Kumrow & Dahlen, 2002). Opportunities for Peer Review of Teaching The opportunities for PRT can be divided into two aspects, which is the expansion of PRT and prospects for professional development. The expansion of PRT has high potential due to increasing demands for PRT programs that can accommodate faculty members from various disciplines and meet institutional needs (Quinlan & Akerlind, 2000). However, multidisciplinary PRT requires a greater level of organization and collaboration (Quinlan & Akerlind, 2000). On the other hand, formative peer assessment activities occurring within disciplines are likely to be viewed by faculty members as more relevant and directly transferable to their teaching practice (Jenkins, 1996). Discipline-based peer collaboration results in greater identification with fellow participants through the perception of greater similarities. It also reduces the possibility of losing the changes in practice and philosophy over time due to the lack of support from colleagues. Such advantages operate strongly where the focus is to change faculty beliefs about teaching and learning rather than simply addressing teaching proficiency (Jenkins, 1996). Quinlan and Akerlind (2000) investigated the possible reasons that contribute to a higher success rate of peer collaboration in Private Universitys Mechanical Engineering Department compared to the State Universitys History Department. Using a comparative study design, three contextual factors were identified: (a) the nature of the discipline, (b) the institutional structure, and (c) departmental and individual faculty. According to Quinlan and Akerlind, the nature of the study field and demands of the working industry will shape teaching, its curriculum, and the level of peer collaboration. The overall finding shows engineering faculty members in the Private University displayed better peer collaboration. This is because 36

Peer Review in Higher Education

they are accustomed to working collaboratively in laboratory research groups and conducting research discussions in which they are mutually engaged. In addition, teaching is already a public activity in the Engineering Department as faculty members comply with external benchmarks that anchor prompt discussions on teaching and learning activities. The Engineering Department has an added advantage with a strong tradition of strength and expertise on education issues. The reason being, faculty leaders are already experienced in leading others in thinking and articulating their thoughts on teaching and learning. Furthermore, the members are assured of their autonomy and control in teaching through the bottom-up management approach (Quinlan & Akerlind, 2000). Comparatively, the faculty members from the History Department in State University collaborate less with their peers because they naturally engage in individual research with sole authorship (Quinlan & Akerlind, 2000). There are no established norms of shared inquiry and collaborative conversation about worksin-progress. Additionally, the members of the History Department have never participated in any national or local educational reforms and, thus, lack experience and leadership skills in peer collaboration. State University also adopts a top-down management approach (i.e., moving from department head to the appointment of faculty leaders). This creates a climate of distrust and lack of ownership through the hierarchical nature of decision making and inequity between different faculty generations. The overall conclusion from Quinlan and Akerlinds study is the success of PRT and collaborative teaching activities is greatly influenced by the institutional environment and peer support. PRT also has positive implications for professional development as evidenced by the Wubbles and Korthagen (1990) study of the Dutch preservice teacher education program, which is based on reflective teaching. The program lasted 4.5 years. However, the results of the study show reflective practitioners tend to be more open to innovation. Wubbles and Korthagen believe PRT and reflection process guide the faculty members beyond the point of being a subject specialist who reflects solely on the content. The study explains how selfreflection and reflection on peer feedback assists faculty members in understanding and relating, learning and teaching philosophies, as well as the cultural factors that influence it (Wubbles & Korthagen, 1990). Hanson (1993) also supports these findings and concluded that PRT provides the opportunity to self-reflect and make action plans based on information gathered from multiple sources (i.e., students and colleagues). Furthermore, there is potential for development in the area of PRT that incorporates reflective practice. A study by Smith (2009) shows transformatory changes from reflection can occur not only at an individual level but also at an institutional level. Smith also investigated the use of reflective practices in transnational PRT program for new faculty members in offshore campuses. Usually, faculty members who teach offshore campuses for the first time will find themselves experiencing cultural differences in the environment, climate, and syllabus content (Smith, 2009). They often have to question the foundation of their teaching, learning, and assessment practices. This study demonstrates new faculty members will benefit by practicing focused and reflective discussion with experienced colleagues in the main campus. The outcome of such discussions will also result in perspective transformations that improve teaching practices (Smith, 2009). In addition, trans37

Thomas et al.

national PRT assists students to acclimatize to instructional methods from abroad. Students from the transfer program will also adapt faster to a foreign education system that will eventually increase learning quality (Smith, 2009). PRT has numerous potentials including the development of teaching portfolios. Conceptually, professional teaching portfolios are visual representations of teachers and should mirror their teaching philosophy, values, and reflection on their teaching and learning growth in a collegiate environment (Hurst et al., 1998). Developing a teaching portfolio is a good method to systematically present teaching credentials and competencies (Knapper & Wright, 2001). However, teaching portfolios are still not widely used despite being first-order evidence for teaching awards (Van Note Chism, 2006). According to Van Note Chism, only 14% out of a total of 144 teaching award programs in the United States requested the submission of documentation and reflection from nominees in the form of portfolios. Additionally, PRT was explicitly requested by only 20% of the award programs. A narrative study by FitzPatrick and Spiller (2010) on eight tertiary teachers in New Zealand provided mixed reactions toward the development of teaching portfolios. The teachers compiled a teaching portfolio as a component of the postgraduate certificate in teaching. A review of the scholarship of teaching portfolios by FitzPatrick and Spiller revealed the versatile nature of portfolios. It can be suited to a variety of objectives such as professional development, evidence for promotion, and a component of higher education certification programs. Portfolios are also increasingly regarded as a means of implementing quality assurance in tertiary education (FitzPatrick & Spiller, 2010). Despite this, narratives from the study revealed that the experience of compiling documentation for teaching portfolios can be emotionally draining. In addition, teachers experienced uncertainty about the requirements and evidence required for a multipurpose portfolio. There were also mixed reactions toward exploration of the self, with some teachers finding the portfolio process upsetting. Some teachers felt anxious and angry at times whereas others realized and affirmed the self as a teacher (FitzPatrick & Spiller, 2010). Retrospectively, PRT provides many advantages to the development of teaching portfolios, such as evidence of the compilation process for personal development and institutional purposes (i.e., promotion and appraisals). The supporting documents acquired through PRT such as feedback reports, lesson plans, recommendation letters, photographs, and videos can be included in the teaching portfolio. Most important, faculty members are able to focus on teaching, reflecting, and working toward improving teaching with the aid of peer feedback and teaching portfolios. Results Applying the SWOT Analysis A textual narrative synthesis of the findings from 27 empirical and conceptual studies was carried out by pairing up research studies that were similar in content and compartmentalizing them into PRT factors that meet the requirements of the SWOT framework (see Figure 1). PRT factors that were perceived to bring benefits to faculty members in terms of personal and professional development were categorized as strengths. The accessibility of resources and internal environments within the university that limit the implementation of PRT was classified under weaknesses. Factors that provide faculty members the opportunity to broaden their 38

Peer Review in Higher Education

perspective outside of their discipline in addition to opening up pathways for awards and promotion were categorized under opportunities. Last but not least, external influences that obstruct faculty members teaching duties either as a result of PRT or other factors were categorized under threats. Strengths of Peer Review The result of the synthesis shows several justifications of the PRT in professional development. First, PRT is able to overcome limitations of student evaluation as a form of pedagogical measurement in teaching performance. Even though PRT is tangible evidence of teaching performance, some aspects cannot be assessed by students (Bernstein, 2008). Depth of subject knowledge and the integration of research into teaching are some examples of teaching areas that are better assessed by peers (Cosser, 1998; Peel, 2005). Second, the self-reflection component of PRT has the ability to promote self-knowledge and transformatory learning among faculty members (Brockbank & McGill, 1998). Transformatory learning allows changes in teaching quality to occur and enables faculty members to create meaning in the changes. Third, teaching is an activity that is difficult to learn alone and is largely mastered through experience. Peer collaboration and review are needed especially when faculty members are attempting to explore new pedagogy to improve the student learning experience (Hutchings, 1996; Smith, 2009). Fourth, PRT was developed as a strategy to demonstrate professional responsibility and accountability (Al Qahtani et al., 2011). This development was spurred on by the media and public, which has increasingly become critical in passing judgments on teaching. PRT asserts responsibility toward the faculty in assuring work quality of their members and ownership over teaching (Kell & Annetts, 2009). Weakness of Peer Review A lack of published PRT instruments available for research use has stunted efforts to promote the peer review culture as a norm. Although most educational institutions are encouraged to develop instruments tailored to institutional needs, untested instruments are unable to provide sufficient evidence for comparisons on the efficacy and effectiveness of formative peer review across different disciplines (Magno, 2012). Nevertheless, an increase of published PRT literature will not be possible if reluctance to engage in PRT is unaddressed. The reluctance of faculty members to engage in PRT is attributed to lack of consensus on effective teaching (Cavanagh, 1996) and lack of confidence in their peers ability to understand their teaching perspective and the objectivity of performance feedback (Hanson, 1993). A professional culture that does not acknowledge the benefits and philosophy of PRT could also work against efforts to promote peer review culture in higher education (Cavanagh, 1996). Opportunities for Development of Peer Review There is a huge potential and learning opportunity for cross-cultural peer collaboration when faculty members from offshore campuses engage in PRT (Smith, 2009). Exchanges in teaching instruction with colleagues on the main campus help faculty members adapt to a new teaching climate and environment and can initiate professional discussions across disciplines and cultures to innovate teaching prac39

S - Reflection & Professional Learning Overcome limitations of student evaluation (Bernstein, 2008) Promotes self-knowledge and transformatory learning (Peel, 2005) Exploration of teaching through peer collaboration (Smith, 2009) Adopting professional responsibility and accountability (Al Qahtani, Kattan, Al Harbi & Seefeldt, 2011) O Enhancing Education Standards & Evidencing Teaching Cross-cultural or multi-disciplinary exchanges on teaching instruction (Smith, 2009) Encourage professional debate (Smith, 2009) Developing teaching portfolio with the aid of PRT (Hurst, Wilson & Cramer, 1998; Knapper & Wright, 2001) Guide to self-reflection (Cosh, 1998)

W PRT Awareness (research methodology & philosophy) Lack of published validated instruments for research on PRT efficacy and effectiveness (Archer, Norcini & Davies, 2005; Archer Norcini, Southgate, Heard & Davies, 2008; Magno, 2012) Absence of professional culture that acknowledge the benefits (Cavanagh, 1996) T Faculty Role Expansion & Academic Freedom Expansion of faculty members role: reviewee/reviewer, teaching and research (Hutchings, 1996) Time limitation vs. Time management (Hutchings, 1996) External pressures that threaten academic autonomy (Keig & Waggoner, 1994) Conformity to institutional/national teaching standards (Peel, 2005)

Figure 2. Application of SWOT framework in the textual synthesis of PRT literature in higher education.
Source. Adapted from Learned, Christensen, Andrews, and Guth, 1965, as cited in The Use and Misuse of SWOT Analysis and Implications for HRD Professionals, by T. J. Chermack and B. K. Kasshanna, 2007, Human Resource Development International, 10, p. 387. Copyright 2007 by Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

tices (Smith, 2009). The potential of developing a teaching portfolio in documenting teaching practices as part of professional development and institutional purposes are highlighted by FitzPatrick and Spiller (2010), Van Note Chism (2006), Knapper and Wright (2001), as well as Hurst et al. (1998). PRT makes the compilation of portfolio documentation easy because of the collaborative effort in the teaching evaluation process. Furthermore, peer feedback assists faculty members to evaluate themselves from another perspective, which can be used as a guide to self-reflection (Cosh, 1998). Threats of Peer Review As demonstrated in the SWOT framework (see Figure 2), there are four aspects of PRT that are viewed as major threats toward faculty members and teaching practices regardless of the discipline. The first factor involves the effect of expansion in academic roles on faculty members. Faculty members are expected to take on the role of reviewers and reviewees in addition to their normal teaching and research activities (Hutchings, 1996). The second factor is time limitation and time management issues, which may result in PRT being abandoned if faculty members 40

Peer Review in Higher Education

are unable to cope with enacting PRT plans and the reviewer roles (Hutchings, 1996). The third factor is threats to academic freedom (Keig & Waggoner, 1994). Some faculty members feel that their integrity and freedom to teach and to make decisions are threatened when there are attempts to exert external influence on teaching by institutional authorities. The fourth factor is closely linked to the third factor. Some faculty members perceive PRT to be an external influence that leads them to conform to institutional or national teaching standards (Peel, 2005). Similar Patterns in Literature The synthesis also shows three similarities in the PRT studies. First, the positive effects of PRT on professional development often surpass the issues and concerns about PRT. For instance, transformatory changes in educational perspectives as a result of PRT and the reassurance of faculty members ability to instruct and learn (Bell & Mladenovic, 2008) have higher significance in comparison to anxiety over academic freedom and reliability of peer feedback. Another example is the confidence over the ability of PRT to help faculty members develop responsibility and autonomy in their own work (Al Qahtani et al., 2011). This is of greater importance as compared to the fear of peer evaluation affecting working relationships. Moreover, the weaknesses and threats of PRT can be overcome by building on the strengths and opportunities (Chermack & Kasshanna, 2007). For example, collecting faculty input and evaluating members needs can develop countermeasures to address their concerns through an effective bottom-up approach. Second, there is inadequate published literature on PRT assessment instruments for teaching performance evaluations. Although the concept of PRT is not completely new, it is not extensively practiced in higher education institutions as it should be. Thus, the development of validated PRT instruments may not receive the needed attention, although qualitative researchers may argue that PRT is subjective and requires regular updating to remain relevant (Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2004). The efforts to inculcate peer review culture can be encouraged by showing ample evidences of the effectiveness and efficacy of PRT instruments in assessing teaching practices. This is supported by Flay et al. (2005), who outlined several criteria for the selection of effective interventions: (a) rigorous research design, (b) high quality of program implementation under optimal conditions (i.e., sufficient resources and well-trained reviewers) and naturalistic conditions (e.g., higher education institutions), (c) demonstration of good control over confounding factors, and (d) evidence of program effectiveness through follow-up studies. Subsequently, when the credibility and rigor of PRT research is established, faculty members will be reassured about the reliability and validity of teaching performance feedback through the use of established and proven instruments. Third, cross-cultural and multidisciplinary PRT still merits further investigation although the prospect is promising with the globalization of higher education. The study by Smith (2009) has shown how PRT stimulates reflection and professional debate to advance education quality among colleagues from different campuses. Furthermore, other studies by Quinlan and Akerlind (2000) show that it is possible to collaborate across disciplines in PRT, although careful reflection of the contextual factors and nature of discipline must be made. 41

Thomas et al.

Despite the fact that there are possible weaknesses and threats of PRT as illustrated by the literature, it can still be concluded that PRT is still a viable option for professional development. Faculty members need to build on the strengths of PRT that encourage reflection and learning, overcome the limitations of published instruments on PRT, exploit the opportunity of engaging in cross-cultural and multidisciplinary feedback, develop teaching evidences, and overcome time management issues associated with increase in academic roles. Discussion Five conclusions are drawn based on the review of literature on PRT programs in Western countries as well as the strengths, limitations, opportunities, and threats within the PRT process. First, the findings demonstrate that PRT is an effective strategy to kick-start transformational reforms within an institution by encouraging faculty members to observe and reflect on teaching performance in addition to identifying areas of improvement with the aid of their colleagues (Bell & Mladenovic, 2008). Second, there is a thin boundary between consensus and conformity in conducting PRT. Although faculty members need to be in agreement on teaching criteria that constitute effective teaching, there is also a danger of conforming to nationally accepted standards of teaching for the sake of gaining the necessary teaching competency (Peel, 2005). Third, it is possible for higher education institutions to implement peer collaborative reviews across disciplines and cultures albeit three confounding factors. According to Quinlan and Akerlind (2000), these factors are (a) the nature of the discipline, (b) institutional structure, and (c) departments and individual faculty. Fourth, as proposed by FitzPatrick and Spiller (2010), the PRT process has potential to ease the anxiety and anger among faculty members who are developing teaching portfolios by making the evaluation process a collaborative effort. The supporting documentation accumulated through PRT can also be included in their teaching portfolio, which can be an incentive for the frustration felt when undergoing the evaluation process on an individual level (FitzPatrick & Spiller, 2010). Fifth, faculty members need to be trained in time management practices to fit in additional PRT roles. This is in line with Kell and Annettss (2009) research that highlighted the lack of time as a major factor in preventing the practice of PRT. They should also be trained in their observation skills and in giving and receiving constructive feedback. Other supportive studies include Kohut et al. (2007), Bell and Mladenovic (2008), and Shortland (2010), who explained the greater satisfaction among faculty members who receive feedback from reviewers trained in various PRT skills. Finally, higher education institutions need to step up efforts to acknowledge the benefits of PRT toward teaching by creating awareness of PRT. The changes in teaching practices need not occur immediately but gradually so as to alleviate fears among members. Higher education administrators also need to establish the use of a validated instrument for teaching performance feedback. Overall, this review manages to capture the essential components of an effective PRT process in higher education: (a) tailoring PRT according to the faculty members sense of ownership, (b) clear and transparent structure in PRT with detailed briefings before and after review, (c) use of flexible instruments to accommodate different teaching modes, (d) overcoming fear by instilling trust among peers, (e) adequate training in observation skills and competency in giving and 42

Peer Review in Higher Education

receiving constructive feedback, (f) reflection to engage in professional debate, and (g) professional development through teaching portfolio. Limitations Three main limitations are identified in this article. First, this review examines an interdisciplinary perspective of the application of the SWOT framework with past PRT literature in higher education. However, the review of the literature pinpointed limited availability of research that combines management theories and framework in PRT. In addition, the journal articles included in this review are taken from English language resources. Thus, there is a possibility that articles from non-English resources that examined PRT from a management framework may have been unintentionally excluded. Last, there are difficulties in categorizing PRT factors into four quadrants of the SWOT framework. There could be possible overlap of information during attempts to place this information into categories. Future Research Future researchers may want to validate the current application of the SWOT framework in PRT by using larger quantities of literature databases. Other forms of framework analysis in assessing PRT in higher education are also worth investigating. Another important note for researchers would be to consider studying a bottom-up approach in designing a PRT instrument. This would enable them to tailor the contents based on the facultys requirements and address concerns about PRT. Besides higher education, the SWOT framework in PRT can be further explored in a clinical teaching environment for medical schools and hospitals. This framework can be used by faculty members or clinical teachers as a guide in selfreflection during PRT sessions. On a collaborative level, the framework can also provide a basis to encourage the faculty to discuss their personal strengths, weakness, and limitations in a secure and supportive environment. It also provides the opportunity for the faculty to exchange ideas about teaching practice. Another aspect of PRT that should not be overlooked is the behavior of students, which could act as a strength or weakness in judging teaching performances of the faculty members. According to Carter (2008), student behavior is a good indicator of the personality and culture within a class, which can affect classroom management and PRT outcomes. For example, class domination by certain groups of students, the level of subject preparation, and classroom homogeneity or heterogeneity can lead to positive or negative effects in classroom management. Implications and Conclusion The overall conclusion drawn from this review is that high quality of teaching can be achieved with the provision of a favorable teaching environment, social support, and resources (Henard, 2009). The findings have clear implications for the professional development of faculty members and training in higher education management. PRT provides the opportunity for peers to interact, learn, and adopt new relevant teaching practices. PRT also helps faculty members reestablish control over teaching and learning. The findings are particularly beneficial to the educational management team who are seeking ways to promote professional responsibility within the faculty. 43

Thomas et al.

The synthesis of PRT literature using the SWOT framework concludes that PRT is an excellent starting point to encourage faculty members into becoming reflective practitioners and developing teaching portfolios. It is also a useful method to understand the strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats to teaching practices before developing PRT programs for higher education institutions. The key consideration is striking the right balance of transparency and fulfilling faculty expectations in PRT. References
Allen, L. (2002). Consenting adults in privateUnion and management perspectives on peer observation of teaching. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ resources/detail/resource_database/id26_consenting_adults_in_private Al Qahtani, S., Kattan, T., Al Harbi, K., & Seefeldt, M. (2011). Some thoughts on educational peer evaluation. South-East Asian Journal of Medical Education, 5(1), 4749. Retrieved from http://seajme.md.chula.ac.th/articleVol5No1/SP1_Saad%20 Al%20Qahtani.pdf Archer, J. C., Norcini, J., & Davies, H. (2005). Use of SPRAT for peer review of paediatricians in training. British Medical Journal, 330, 12511253. doi:10.1136/ bmj.38447.610451.8F Archer, J. C., Norcini, J., Southgate, L., Heard, S., & Davies, H. (2008). Mini-PAT (Peer Assessment Tool): A valid component of a national assessment programme in the UK? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13, 181192. doi:10.1007/s10459006-9033-3 Atwood, C. H., Taylor, J. W., & Hutchings, P. A. (2000). Why are chemists and other scientists afraid of the peer review of teaching? Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 239244. Retrieved from http://pubs.acs.org.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/doi/ pdf/10.1021/ed077p239 Barnett, R. (1997). Higher education: A critical business. Buckingham, England: SRHE Open University Press. Bell, A., & Mladenovic, R. (2008). The benefits of peer observation of teaching for tutor development. Higher Education, 55, 735752. doi:10.1007/s10734-007-9093-1 Bernstein, D. J. (2008). Peer review and evaluation on the intellectual work of teaching. Change, 40(2), 4851. Retrieved from http://www.nus.edu.sg/teachingacademy/docs/Resource%20Review.pdf Bingham, R., & Ottewill, R. (2001). Whatever happened to peer review? Revitalising the contribution of tutors to course evaluation. Quality Assurance in Education, 9, 3239. doi:10.1108/09684880110381319 Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Brinko, K. T. (1993). The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: What is effective? Journal of Higher Education, 64, 574593. Retrieved from http://www. jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/stable/pdfplus/2959994.pdf Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (1998) Facilitating reflective learning in higher education. Bury St. Edmunds, England: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Carroll, J. G. (1980). Effects of training programs for university teaching assistants: A review of empirical research. Journal of Higher Education, 51, 167183. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/stable/pdfplus/1981372.pdf

44

Peer Review in Higher Education

Carter, V. K. (2008). Five steps to becoming a better peer reviewer. College Teaching, 56, 8588. doi:10.3200/CTCH.56.2.85-88 Cavanagh, R. R. (1996). Formative and summative evaluation in the faculty peer review of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 20, 235240. Retrieved from http://www.metapress.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/content/h274g1432208jg30/ fulltext.pdf Chermack, T. J., & Kasshanna, B. K. (2007). The use and misuse of SWOT analysis and implications for HRD professionals. Human Resource Development International, 10, 383399. doi:10.1080/13678860701718760 Cosh, J. (1998). Peer observation in higher educationA reflective approach. Innovations in Education & Training International, 35, 171176. Cosser, M. (1998). Towards the design of a system of peer review of teaching for the advancement of the individual within the university. Higher Education, 35, 143 162. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3448321.pdf Dalgaard, K. A. (1982). Some effects of training on teaching effectiveness of untrained university teaching assistants. Research in Higher Education, 17, 3950. Retrieved from http://www.metapress.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/content/ l734r77114273461/fulltext.pdf Donnelly, R. (2007). Perceived impact of peer observation of teaching in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19, 117129. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE167.pdf Dyson, R. G. (2004). Strategic development and SWOT analysis at the University of Warwick. European Journal of Operational Research, 152, 631640. FitzPatrick, M. A., & Spiller, D. (2010). The teaching portfolio; Institutional imperative or teachers personal journey? Higher Education Research & Development, 29, 167178. doi:10.1080/07294360903470985 Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Castro, F. G., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., & Ji, P. (2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prevention Science, 6, 151175. doi:10.1007/s11121-005-5553-y Freiberg, H. J., Waxman, H. C., & Houston, W. R. (1987). Enriching feedback to student teachers through small group discussion. Teacher Education Quarterly, 14(3), 7182. Gosling, D. (2002). Models of peer observation of teaching. Retrieved from http:// www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/resource_database/id200_Models_of_ Peer_Observation_of_Teaching Hammersley-Fletcher, L., & Orsmond, P. (2004). Evaluating our peers: Is peer observation a meaningful process? Studies in Higher Education, 29, 489503. doi:10.1080/0307507042000236380 Hammersley-Fletcher, L., & Orsmond, P. (2005). Reflecting on reflective practices within peer observation. Studies in Higher Education, 30, 213224. doi:10.1080/03075070500043358 Hanson, J. (1993). Observing classroom teaching in higher education: A case study. Quality Assurance in Education, 1, 2630. doi:10.1108/09684889310046176 Hativa, N., Barak, R., & Simhi, E. (2001). Exemplary university teachers: Knowledge and beliefs regarding effective teaching dimensions and strategies. Journal of Higher Education, 72, 699729. Hatzipanagos, S., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2006). Teaching observations: Promoting development through critical reflection. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 30, 421431. doi:10.1080/03098770600965425

45

Thomas et al.

Helms, M. M., & Nixon, J. (2010). Exploring SWOT analysisWhere are we now? A review of academic research from the last decade. Journal of Strategy and Management, 3, 215251. doi:10.1108/17554251011064837 Henard, F. (2009). Learning our lesson: Review of quality teaching in higher education. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/26/43961761.pdf Hurst, B., Wilson, C., & Cramer, G. (1998). Professional teaching portfolios: Tools for reflection, growth, and advancement. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 578582. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/20439279.pdf Hutchings, P. (1996). The peer review of teaching: Progress, issues and prospects. Innovative Higher Education, 20, 221234. Retrieved from http://www.metapress. com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/content/t08115u8363qg504/fulltext.pdf Jenkins, A. (1996). Discipline-based educational development. International Journal for Academic Development, 1, 5062. doi:10.1080/1360144960010106 Keig, L. (2000). Formative peer review of teaching: Attitudes of faculty at liberal art colleges toward colleague assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14, 6787. Keig, L., & Waggoner, M. D. (1994). Collaborative peer review: The role of faculty in improving college teaching (Technical Report No. 2). Washington DC: George Washington University School of Education and Human Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED378925) Kell, C., & Annetts, S. (2009). Peer review of teaching embedded practice or policyholding complacency? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 6170. doi:10.1080/14703290802646156 Kember, D., & McNaught, C. (2007). Enhancing university teaching. London, England: Routledge. Kinchin, I. M. (2005). Evolving diversity within a model of peer observation at a UK university. Retrieved from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/153411.doc Knapper, C., & Wright, W. A. (2001). Using portfolios to document good teaching: Premises, purposes, practices. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 88, 19 29. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/ doi/10.1002/tl.34/pdf Kohut, G. F., Burnap, C., & Yon, M. G. (2007). Peer observation of teaching: Perceptions of the observer and the observed. College Teaching, 55, 1925. doi:10.3200/CTCH.55.1.19-25 Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kuiper, S., & Thomas, M. W. (2000). A strategic consultancy model for establishing a center for business communication. Business Communication Quarterly, 63, 5267. Kumrow, D., & Dahlen, B. (2002). Is peer review an effective approach for evaluating teachers? Peer Review, 75, 238241. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy. lib.monash.edu.au/stable/pdfplus/30189751.pdf Lee, S. F., Lo, K. K., Leung, R. F., & Ko, A. S. O. (2000). Strategy formulation framework for vocational education: Integrating SWOT analysis, balanced scorecard, QFD methodology and MBNQA education criteria. Managerial Auditing Journal, 15, 407423. Lomas, L., & Kinchin, I. (2006). Developing a peer observation program with university teachers. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18, 204214. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE118.pdf Lomas, L., & Nicholls, G. (2005). Enhancing teaching quality through peer review of teaching. Quality in Higher Education, 11, 137149. doi:10.1080/13538320500175118

46

Peer Review in Higher Education

Magno, C. (2012). Assessing higher education teachers through peer assistance and review. International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 9, 104120. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=2287173 Murray, C. E., & Grant, G. (1998). Teacher peer review: Possibility or pipedream? Contemporary Education, 69, 202204. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com. ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/docview/233035362/fulltextPDF Nicholls, G. (2001). Professional development in higher education: New dimensions and directions. London, England: Kogan Page. Odell, S. J., & Ferraro, D. P. (1992). Teacher mentoring and teacher retention. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 200204. doi:10.1177/0022487192043003006 Peel, D. (2005). Peer observation as a transformatory tool? Teaching in Higher Education, 10, 489504. doi:10.1080/13562510500239125 Quinlan, K. M., & Akerlind, G. S. (2000). Factors affecting departmental peer collaboration for faculty development: Two cases in context. Higher Education, 40, 2352. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/stable/pdfplus/3447950.pdf Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London, England: Routledge. Saroyan, A., Amundsen, C., McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Winer, L., & Gandell, T. (2004). Assumptions underlying workshop activities. In A. Saroyan & C. Amundsen (Eds.), Rethinking teaching in higher education (pp. 1529). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Sharma, M. (2005). Health education in India: A strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis. International Electronic Journal of Health Education , 8, 8085. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ794068.pdf Shortland, S. (2010). Feedback within peer observation: Continuing professional development and unexpected consequences. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47, 295304. doi:10.1080/14703297.2010.498181 Smith, K. (2009). Transnational teaching experiences: An under-explored territory for transformative professional development. International Journal for Academic Development, 14, 111122. doi:10.1080/13601440902969975 University Teaching Development Centre. (2004). Improving teaching and learning: Peer observation of teaching. Retrieved from http://www.utdc.vuw.ac.nz/resources/ guidelines/PeerObservation.pdf Van Note Chism, N. (2006). Teaching awards: What do they award? Journal of Higher Education, 77, 589617. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3838709.pdf Westhues, A., Lafrance, J., & Schmidt, G. (2001). A SWOT analysis of social work education in Canada. Journal of Social Work Education , 20, 3556. doi:10.1080/02615470020028364 Wubbels, T., & Korthagen, F. A. J. (1990). The effects of a pre-service teacher education program for the preparation of reflective teachers, Journal of Education for Teaching, 16, 2943. doi:10.1080/0260747900160102 Young, S., & Shaw, D. G. (1999). Profile of effective college and university teachers. Journal of Higher Education, 70, 670686.

Authors
SUSAN THOMAS is the lead coordinator of the School of Medicine Education Unit, Monash University Jalan Lagoon Selatan, 46150 Bandar Sunway, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia; e-mail: susanthomas@monash.edu. Her PhD research is in the area of patient

47

Thomas et al. care management from the University of Malaya. She is passionate about community service education and has given numerous talks as international speaker in research, enhancing teaching and learning skills at numerous universities such as Michigan State University, Dubai; Monash University, Australia; Nottingham University, Malaysia; and Chittagong University, Bangladesh. Recently, she received the International Graduate Scholar Award for excellence in scholastic achievement, leadership skills, and her contribution to community education. Her previous employment includes heading the human resource department in a Malaysian electronic firm. She holds dual teaching qualifications from the United Kingdom and Malaysia. She has broad experience in heading business and information technology programs for international campuses. She is a member of the Qualitative Research Association of Malaysia. Her publications areas are in management, medical education, and public health. Her current research projects include peer review of teaching, student evaluation of teaching, and health care management. QIU TING CHIE is a research assistant attached to the School of Medicine Education Unit, Monash University. She is currently pursuing her PhD in psychology at Monash University. She completed her BSc (Hons) in psychology at Sunway University, Malaysia, and her MSc in health psychology at the University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. She is a graduate member of the British Psychological Society. Her past research includes examining the combined effect of music tempo and learning strategies on memory performance. She has also looked into the influence of health beliefs and perceived control on health-information seeking and medical consultation behavior among migraine sufferers. Among her current interests are the influence of media on youths voting behavior, the effectiveness of motivational interviewing techniques in promoting health behavior changes, and perceptions on the reliability of online health information about pharmaceutical drugs and complementary therapies. MATHEW ABRAHAM is currently an assistant professor in organizational behavior with Nottingham University Business School, University of Nottingham, Malaysia campus. He completed his undergraduate degree in management from the University Science, Malaysia, and masters in HRM & industrial relation from the University of Newcastle, Australia. He also completed a professional postgraduate diploma in HRM from the Malaysian Institute of Human Resource Management. Currently, he is pursuing his doctoral studies in the area of human resource management. He teaches organizational behavior modules both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. He has been in the academic field for the past 14 years. In addition, he has 8 years of corporate experience in human resource management, handling major functions encompassing recruitment & selection, training & development, performance appraisal & compensation, and industrial relations. He has conducted numerous in-house training for staff on soft skills as part of the training and developmental activities. SONY JALARAJAN RAJ is an assistant professor for communication arts in the Institute for Communication, Entertainment and Media at St. Thomas University Florida. His doctorate degree is based on the communication and representative aspects of slogans that serve as reference materials not only in political studies but also in communication research. His research interests include communicative rationality, information flow, digital divides, the news media influences on the public sphere, and visual media. He has extensively published on media, communication, journalism, film, and literature in international research journals. LOO-SEE BEH is currently an associate professor and deputy dean (international and higher degree) at the Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Malaya. She completed her BA in history and political science from University Science Malaysia, an MA in political science from the National University of Malaysia, and a PhD in training management from University Putra Malaysia. Her interests of research include public administration, human resource management, and sociopolitical studies. She has published in local and international journals and serves as a resource person with many local and international bodies.

48