By its very nature, peer review of teaching draws upon individuals’ different – and sometimes quite diverse – perspectives and experiences. This is an inherent strength of peer review, and therefore there is no single rule for what constitutes an appropriate reviewer. Some peer review of teaching programs match individuals with two partners of different type, such as a departmental colleague and someone else from a very different discipline, seeking to capitalise on the different benefits involved. The following are some of the possibilities: Peer Advantages Possible disadvantages Colleague in the same Will have experience in Focus on content may discipline teaching the same, or distract from the related, concepts. May be fundamentals, including able to comment of the the effect of the teaching currency and accuracy of on students. information (‘content’). Colleague in the same As for disciplinary Focus on content may department colleague, with the added distract from advantage of encouraging fundamentals, including an open culture of the effect of the teaching discussion about teaching on students. in the department, between colleagues. Colleague from ‘distant’ Potential for exposure to Reviewer may need more discipline (e.g. arts with ‘novel’ teaching background information in science; engineering with approaches. Reviewer order to understand the performing arts) likely to avoid distraction context of the subject and of specifics of the content class. and instead focus on the core aspects and effects of the teaching. Colleague experienced in More likely to understand A large difference in university teaching the ‘practical realities’ of ‘seniority’ can be a teaching. Likely to have challenge to open and direct experience of collegial feedback various teaching strategies (although it need not be). (although experience is neither necessary nor sufficient for effective peer feedback).
By its very nature, peer review of teaching draws upon individuals’ different – and sometimes quite diverse – perspectives and experiences. This is an inherent strength of peer review, and therefore there is no single rule for what constitutes an appropriate reviewer. Some peer review of teaching programs match individuals with two partners of different type, such as a departmental colleague and someone else from a very different discipline, seeking to capitalise on the different benefits involved. The following are some of the possibilities: Peer Advantages Possible disadvantages Colleague in the same discipline Will have experience in teaching the same, or related, concepts. May be able to comment of the currency and accuracy of information (‘content’). Focus on content may distract from the fundamentals, including the effect of the teaching on students. Colleague in the same department As for disciplinary colleague, with the added advantage of encouraging an open culture of discussion about teaching in the department, between colleagues. Focus on content may distract from fundamentals, including the effect of the teaching on students. Colleague from ‘distant’ discipline (e.g. arts with science; engineering with performing arts) Potential for exposure to ‘novel’ teaching approaches. Reviewer likely to avoid distraction of specifics of the content and instead focus on the core aspects and effects of the teaching. Reviewer may need more background information in order to understand the context of the subject and class. Colleague experienced in university teaching More likely to understand the ‘practical realities’ of teaching. Likely to have direct experience of various teaching strategies (although experience is neither necessary nor sufficient for effective peer feedback). A large difference in ‘seniority’ can be a challenge to open and collegial feedback (although it need not be).