Impact Review: Peer Teaching Observations
I recommend this literature review if you are interested in understanding how reciprocal peer observation may fit into the larger context of peer review. In addition, the article suggests a framework for considering the pedagogical knowledge base necessary for making any peer review processes effective.
University teachers nowadays, as with many other professionals, are facing the challenges of lifelong learning to improve the quality of teaching in higher education. In America and the UK, Peer review of teaching(PRT) has increasingly been used in higher education for teachers' professional development and to inform personnel decisions such as promotion, contract renewal, tenure, or merit pay (Ackerman, Gross, & Vigneron, 2009; Martin & Double, 1998; Smith, 2012; Yon, Burnap, & Kohut, 2002). In a broader sense, PRT involves a comprehensive review of a teacher's course materials, teaching philosophy statement, and teaching practices (Chism, 2007; McMahon, Barrett, & O'Neill, 2007). In a narrower sense, it involves teachers observing lessons taught by colleagues, which is also known as peer observation of teaching (POT). Because PRT involves collaboration with colleagues who have a substantive understanding of teaching and of a particular subject matter (Arreola, 2007; Chism, 2007; Courneya, Pratt, & Collins, 2008; Hutchings, 1996), it is trusted as meaningful triangulation of student evaluation of teaching and self-reflection of the teachers themselves. Commonly-seen PRT practices include pre-review activities (e.g. PRT training, meetings between reviewer and reviewees); reviews (being observed by others or observing others in practice); giving and receiving feedback; reflection; and post-review activities (e.g. meetings between reviewer and reviewees, group debriefing, or action plan).