PRO-Teaching – Sharing Ideas to Develop Capabilities

Authors: Steve J. Drew, Christopher J. Klopper

Abstract:

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

Keywords: Development loop, Multiple data sources, Objective reporting, Peer review of teaching.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1061248

References:

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