This article was downloaded by: [Queensland University of Technology]On: 05 November 2013, At: 16:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Higher Education Research &DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20

Peer partnership to enhancescholarship of teaching: a case studyAlan Barnard a , Waveney Croft a , Rosemary Irons a , Natalie Cuffea , Wasana Bandara a & Pamela Rowntree aa School of Nursing , Queensland University of Technology ,Brisbane, AustraliaPublished online: 28 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: Alan Barnard , Waveney Croft , Rosemary Irons , Natalie Cuffe ,Wasana Bandara & Pamela Rowntree (2011) Peer partnership to enhance scholarship ofteaching: a case study, Higher Education Research & Development, 30:4, 435-448, DOI:10.1080/07294360.2010.518953

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.518953

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Peer partnership to enhance scholarship of teaching: a case study

Alan Barnard∗, Waveney Croft, Rosemary Irons, Natalie Cuffe, Wasana Bandaraand Pamela Rowntree

School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

(Received 22 October 2009; final version received 15 August 2010)

This paper reports on the outcomes of a peer partnership program trialled at theQueensland University of Technology (QUT), Australia. The program wasdesigned based on a community of practice methodology to bring togetheracademic staff for the purpose of advancing teaching practice. The programencouraged professional and supportive environments for the purpose of criticalreflection and personal development. The belief was that quality teaching is corebusiness and vital to university organisational goals. Peer partnership programssupport improvement in teaching and learning. Participants in the programreported the program enhanced their commitment and insight into teaching andthat there is willingness to be involved if supported by colleagues and anorganisation. Feedback from participants in the program was positive andoutcomes arising from the QUT Peer Partnership Project were the developmentof an online peer partner tool-kit, staff development training, an instructionalDVD and integration of the project goals within QUT staff development programs.

Keywords: community of practice; higher education; mentor; peer partnership;peer support; teaching

Introduction

Importance of peer partnership

Teaching is a core function of higher education and must be effective if it is to providestudents with learning experiences that are stimulating, challenging and rewarding(Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), 2008,p. 2). Even though there is little agreement in the literature, or in practice, about themeasurement of quality teaching and learning outcomes in higher education(DEEWR, 2008, p. 37), it is clear that peer evaluation can play a central role in teach-ing quality (Taylor & Richardson, 2001, p. 49). According to Brennan and Shah(2000), peers offer a ‘moral authority’ and it should not be surprising that ‘virtuallyall quality bodies make peer review a central part of their assessment practices’(p. 17). Peer review in higher education is one of a number of mechanisms toprovide feedback on learning and teaching activity and can be an effective strategyfor academic development (Bell, 2001; MacKinnon, 2001; Magin, 1998). It shouldbe noted, however, that peer review of teaching does not occur in all disciplines,nor in all universities, yet the growing emphasis on evaluation of courses and teaching

ISSN 0729-4360 print/ISSN 1469-8366 online

# 2011 HERDSA

DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2010.518953http://www.informaworld.com

∗Corresponding author. Email: a.barnard@qut.edu.au

Higher Education Research & DevelopmentVol. 30, No. 4, August 2011, 435–448

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 16:

18 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2013

by students and organisations by the Australian federal government confirms theimportance of effective strategies for quality assessment of learning and teaching(Byrne & Flood, 2003; Harvey, 2003). The pressure for peer review of teaching andlearning reflects an emerging reality.

Harvey and Newton (2004) have claimed that external quality review of teachingsuch as that of government agencies, focus on compliance and accountability buthave contributed little to any effective transformation of student learning experiences.In fact it has been suggested that ‘evaluation is to be transformed to make it transform-ing’, thus it is time to ‘re-establish trust in higher education and focus attention oninternal processes and motivators’ (p. 149). Taylor and Richardson (2001) also high-lighted the need for change and argued that ‘most academics express few concernsabout peer scrutiny of research activities’, yet ‘they tend to be sceptical of anyprocess of peer review involving teaching’ (p. xi). Indeed, the Higher EducationResearch and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA) (2008), in its responseto the 2008 Bradley Review, which reported that ‘support for academics in localteaching communities should include peer support amongst other initiatives’ (p. 2) asa strategy to assist academics to develop pedagogy in higher education.

Higher education literature has focused increasingly on the benefits of peersupport and scholarship of teaching as an overarching framework for teaching andlearning development within organisations For example, Boyer (1990) explainedscholarship of teaching as a four-dimensional model of: discovery – doing research;integration – making connections across disciplines; application – using researchresults and recommendations; and teaching – educating and stimulating future scho-lars and practitioners. Further to this, Hutchings and Shulman (1999) highlightedinter-relationships between ‘excellent teaching’ and the ‘scholarship of teaching’when they argued that in addition to being ‘scholarly’, teaching needs to be public,open to critique and evaluation, a comprehensible model for colleagues and a contin-ual development of practical techniques. It is clear that scholarship of teaching ismore than publishing in peer-reviewed journals and should reflect education practicethat is evidence-based, open to critique and of concern to stakeholders. To assist, peerpartnership that has a focus on support and collegial development can be an importantpart of scholarship of teaching and should be endorsed and encouraged in highereducation.

Peer partnership has many benefits for teachers, students and the university sector.Research has demonstrated that successful partnerships encourage group developmentof teaching best practice rather than leaving teaching practice a ‘private activity’(D’Andrea, 2002; Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2004). The outcomes to arisefrom successful partnership can be used as evidence for teaching awards and promotionapplications (Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2004) and complement other forms offeedback such as student evaluation of teaching (Hutchings, 1996). Peer partnershipprograms have the potential to empower academics to support colleagues based on afoundation of scholarship of teaching. Support can enhance a person’s level of under-standing and engagement in teaching and learning innovation (Bell, 2001; Ferren,2001; Keig & Waggoner, 1995).

Peer partnership as a developmental and reciprocal relationship

Peer partnership involves a reciprocal relationship whereby a peer is invited toeyewitness a partner’s teaching and learning activities and to provide supportive

436 A. Barnard et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 16:

18 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2013

and constructive feedback (Bell, 2005). It can be a very threatening experience forsome and will always be intensely personal. Peer partnership is not meant to bemerely an evaluative process and participants seek to reduce power imbalanceoften associated with formalised review. The principal goals are to inspire betterteaching practice and enhance the value of teaching and learning success (Bell,2005). Peers learn from each other and the old adage ‘those who teach learntwice’ holds true for peer partnership when built around a supportive and reciprocalrelationship that seeks to develop knowledge, enhance skills, clarify attitudes andhighlight behaviours (Bell, 2005). Peer partnerships can enhance teaching by review-ing, organising and consolidating existing knowledge and material, new ideas andconcepts, identifying additional meaning in teaching and formulating new knowledgeand insight (Bell, 2005). There is an emphasis on common experience and identifyingnew insights into teaching. Ownership of personal contribution to education andtaking an active reflective role are fundamental assumptions that are inherent toeach process. The peer partner is not necessarily the person with all the answers,instead, the partner cooperates and offers opinion, explores new strategies togetherand looks toward solving future challenges.

While the need for peer support has been identified clearly by institutions and gov-ernment bodies (HERDSA, 2008, p. 2), there are few guidelines and examples availableto assist design and implementation. At the Queensland University of Technology(QUT) a peer partnership program for academic staff was trialled led by a group ofcross-faculty teaching fellows and was based on a community of practice model(Bell, 2005). The major goals of the program were to create a culture in which academicstaff can collaborate to improve and support teaching and learning. The program isdescribed in this paper and it sought to focus specifically on peer partnership for teach-ing as an element of a wider focus on the scholarship of teaching within QUT, whichdoes not have a formalised peer partnership program. The paper outlines the projectmethodology, details of phases that were important to the project planning andimplementation and concludes with outcomes and reflections.

Project methodology

The project was conceived as an action research initiative supported by the QUT Teach-ing and Learning Support Services. Implementation of the project was through for-mation of a community of practice framework (COP) with the goal to trial a peerpartnership program informed by an emphasis on scholarship of teaching. The COP fra-mework drew heavily on the assumptions of action research. Action research is a scien-tific research methodology established by Kurt Lewin in 1946 for the implementationof social research (cited in Susman & Evered, 1978, p. 586). Action research has thethree primary purposes of developing practice, practitioners and theory (McCormack,Manley, & Garbett, 2004). It emphasises collaborative research within the workplaceand resolution of group issues and challenges in practice.

Implementation of action research can vary but most action research follows areflexive ‘plan-do-check’ approach (Chein, Cook, & Harding, 1948). The methodologyfor the project described was adapted from the Susman and Evered (1978) five-phaseaction research model, following an ‘experimental action research’ approach (Cheinet al., 1948; Susman & Evered, 1978). The five core phases of the model are: (1) diag-nosing, (2) action planning, (3) action taking, (4) evaluating and (5) specifyinglearning.

Higher Education Research & Development 437

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 16:

18 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2013

Development and implementation of the peer partnership program

Phase 1: understanding project aims

Phase 1 focused on identifying and defining the problems to be addressed by theproject. The project team affirmed an emphasis on fostering a community of practicefor the development of teaching scholarship, peer support and staff engagement. Theaim was to create a program that contributed to a culture of peer support for learningso as to improve the quality of learning through the development of supportive partner-ship. The program objectives emphasised:

. establishment of a supportive and constructive collegial environment,

. provision of experiences that affirm educational excellence,

. development of a culture that values scholarship of teaching,

. promotion of self-assessment, reflection and personal growth,

. enhancement of teaching and learning based on evidence and constructivesupport and

. compilation of a peer partnership tool-kit comprising resources for successfulpeer partnership.

Phase 2: action planning

Alternative courses of action for solving identified problems were considered in thisphase and the team conducted two main tasks. First, a detailed literature review wasundertaken prior to program implementation. This enabled the team to comprehendthe complexities and challenges of a university-wide peer partnership program anddevelop evaluation resources, implementation models and a peer partnership tool-kit.

Second, the project team designed a pre-implementation university-wide attitudinalsurvey that provided descriptive data on the willingness of QUT academic staff to takepart in peer partnership. The attitudinal survey was adapted from a 36-item attitudinaltool from Northern Iowa University, USA (Keig, 2000). An open invitation was sentout across the eight faculties at QUT to complete the attitudinal survey. The surveyswere sent out via email or distributed during staff meetings to 756 academic staff. Atotal of 312 academic staff returned the survey, however, only 298 completed thesurvey in full (268 respondents were full-time academic staff). Participants were60% female and academic positions represented ranged from level A (Associate lec-turer) to level E (Professor). As Appendix 1 depicts, the attitudinal survey was designedto enquire into the willingness of academic staff to participate in four types of partnerexperiences: direct classroom observation, videotaping of classes for post-hoc review,evaluation of course materials (e.g. unit outlines, grading practices, reading lists, hand-outs) and evaluation of teacher-graded student assessment (e.g. tests, assignments andprojects).

Academic staff responses were positive about receiving peer feedback on theirteaching (see Figure 1). In addition, participants did not generally believe classroomobservation infringed their academic freedom, but there was resistance to creating apermanent record of their teaching in the form of a videotape of classroom teachingfor future review.

Respondents stated they would participate in a peer partnership program if it wasassociated with working in a trusting, on-going, supportive and confidential environ-ment. In fact, more than 50% of respondents indicated that they would be willing to

438 A. Barnard et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 16:

18 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2013

participate even if it represented extra workload. However, only 45.9% of respondentswere willing to participate in a partnership program if it was part of the organisation’sperformance management program. A majority of academic staff who completed thesurvey (87%) were willing to participate in class observation of a peer and werewilling to participate in a program that emphasised supportive collegial relationships.

Phase 3: action taking

Design of the peer partnership framework

This phase put into action strategies to develop and sustain peer partnership. In accord-ance with survey results, the program was conceived around a supportive collegial fra-mework using the Community of Practice (COP) methodology. Communities ofPractice draw on the assumptions of action research and seek to encourage continuousreflection through groups working collaboratively to reflect in and on practice (Kemmis& McTaggart, 2000; McGill & Beaty, 2001).

A COP methodology can be an effective strategy to engender critical reflection andproactive practice. Critical reflection refers to the deliberate activity of thinking aboutand interpreting personal assumptions, ideas, beliefs and actions for their consistencyand truthfulness. Critical reflection is an opportunity to develop alternative assumptionsand, where appropriate, improve activities and practice. Community of Practice groupsstress self-reflective enquiry within informal and social group situations in order toimprove the rationality and integrity of practice. The primary goals of COP groupsare to foster knowledge and skills while challenging values and beliefs, enhancingsupport networks, developing competence and promoting quality teaching (Bell,2005; Grundy, 1982; McGill & Brockbank, 2004; Weinstein, 1995).

The peer partnership program was designed to encourage teachers to build partner-ships with peers but not as a managerial process. The program stressed that peer part-nerships need to be collegial and involve open dialogue between the observer and theobserved for the purpose of encouraging reflection on teaching practice through the

Figure 1. Attitudinal survey – willingness to participate in peer partnership.

Higher Education Research & Development 439

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 16:

18 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2013

identification of strengths, developmental needs and critical debate (Bell, 2005; Brown,Jones, & Rawnsley, 1993; Fullerton, 1999). In addition, the goals were to encourageprofessional development and personal insight through critical reflection. The focuswas on any aspect of teaching and learning, including observation of and feedbackon classroom presentations, review of course/unit plans and resources, review ofassessment results and marking standards, review of student evaluation and develop-ment of teaching strategies (Braskamp & Ory, 1994; Kohut, Burnap, & Yon, 2007).

Figure 2 illustrates how the program was implemented across the university.Implementation strategies associated with the program included meetings with partici-pants, participating in peer review of teaching, seminars and workshops focusing onhow to support and provide useful feedback and the development and evaluation oftools for providing feedback to partners. Outcomes of meetings and seminars includedreflection on the peer partnership process, the formation of partnership, refinement ofstrategies for peer review and the identification of ways to solve specific teachingchallenges.

The success of any peer partnership is dependent on the quality of the processesin place and on the practices of those conducting observations and being observed(Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2004). Peer review as described in this paperwas conceived as an intervention with a focus on perceived responsibility for qualityenhancement and built around openness and trust. The primary aim was to helpacademics examine their teaching for the purpose of self-improvement and to establishgood practice as a means to enhance teaching and learning quality.

Implementation of the program

Prior to the establishment of peer partnerships there was a need to stimulate interest,understanding and commitment to the program. Participants joined on a volunteerbasis with encouragement from project representatives who facilitated workshopsand information sessions informing attendees of the advantages of peer partnership.

Competition between professional demands remained an ongoing challenge eventhough the attitude survey completed for the project revealed clearly that academicssupport involvement in peer partnership (Table 1). A common feature of academic

Figure 2. Enhancing the scholarship of teaching through peer partnership.

440 A. Barnard et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 16:

18 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2013

Table 1. Typical comments (quotations) from peer partners.

As a professional development activity and mentoring tool

This training session helped me review my own teaching techniques.

My experiences of the partnerships have been really positive, in terms of personaldevelopment and as a staff development tool.

I was worried that peer partnership was a way to evaluate me. Now I know that the peerpartnership process can benefit me as well as the observer.

As my current teaching interests are new and mostly under development, my partner seemsvery interested in helping me to frame what I am doing from a T & L perspective. She hasmade a couple of practical suggestions on simple ways that I can ‘research’ what I amteaching in a manner that should lead to T & L publications. She uses these techniques herself,and has volunteered to help me get started with this.

We really found it invaluable to see how each of us ‘managed’ and interacted with ourstudents in a lecture setting. We noticed that the ‘culture’ of each class/domain was verydifferent as were the norms about answering lecturers’ questions and entering and leaving theclassroom during the course of the lecture. This was a great surprise

As an enabler for cross-faculty collaborations

. . . we enjoyed learning about the content of each other’s lectures.I think one of the advantages of the program is that it paves the way for interfaculty academiccommunication in a positive way.

It is a learning culture for a university, it is one of the most valuable tools we have to offerstaff.

I found this activity to be helpful as it allowed participants to visit other faculties and observedifferent teaching styles.

Watching the students, listening to their presentations and taking my partner’s comments aswell as those of other students gave me insight into how different presentation styles andteaching techniques could be viewed by a diverse audience. Upon reflection I realized that thiswas a reflection, albeit in a group, of the internal monologues that I suspect my own studentsmust have whenever they listen to me teach – especially those who are not strongmathematically. I believe that being involved in the peer partnership project prompted thispersonal reflection and as a result has prompted me to be a more considerate and thoughtfulteacher of my own undergraduate classes.

As a facilitator of teaching improvementsWell, I am pleased to inform you now that I got an average of 4.2 for my teaching this time. Iam really grateful to you for introducing me to the peer-review system. It has helped me toreflect on my teaching and improve it.

I had already started applying some of the techniques which I had learnt from this program inmy teaching and I could see an improvement in my teaching style.We found the diversity of our subjects, our campus locations and our age/experienceswonderfully enriching.

It’s been really useful to have another person who is fairly impartial and supportive looking atwhat’s going on in the presentation process.

In terms of my teaching skills specifically it has benefited me in terms of having readily . . .someone, a partner, available to come into the classroom, evaluate my performance, give meconstructive feedback without having any sort of controlling or threatening environment to it.

Higher Education Research & Development 441

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 16:

18 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2013

life is that people are time poor and experience competing demands on their attention.Additional commitment to professional development can receive a low priority.Tensions emerge between the potential benefits of peer partnership and review, theperceived importance and willingness to commit time to the process. Attendees toworkshops reported that they value the pursuit of quality teaching in their practicebut when the time arrived to actively commit to partnership, anecdotal evidencerevealed a tendency to avoid participation because of time constraints and a lack of con-fidence. For example, attendees sometimes suggested ‘maybe next semester’, ‘I don’tfeel very confident about my teaching at the moment’, ‘I’ve just started teaching thisunit’ or ‘I don’t feel ready to be observed yet’. These challenges are important andsometimes were easily addressed by encouragement and enthusiasm. It is essentialthat support and encouragement comes from experienced teachers and senior staff.The potential ‘rewards’ of peer partnership should be stressed, such as accumulationof evidence for promotion, improved student feedback scores, increased self-confidence, personal satisfaction and belonging to an academic community thatviews ongoing commitment to better teaching as a valid and desirable goal.

Workshops for those who did commit to the partnership program encouraged peerpartners to focus on strengthening teaching expertise through a four-stage feedbackcycle based on collaborative, professional and reflective relationship with universitycolleagues. Workshops included reading material, informal discussion, formal lectures,video presentation and individual advice for colleagues involved with the peer partner-ship program. Figure 3 represents the peer partnership process used by participantsduring the project and consists of four stages: (1) pre-observation, (2) observation,(3) reflection and feedback and (4) implementation.

Stage 1: pre-observation

At the pre-observation stage, participants engaged in a collegial process involving alter-nating roles as observer and observee of teaching practice. The observee described hisor her goals and the focus of desired feedback. The peers clarified and agreed on aspects

Figure 3. The peer partnership process.

442 A. Barnard et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 16:

18 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2013

of teaching which would be the focus of attention. The form of feedback needed to beagreed and could include completion of a formal checklist with criteria or alternativelya more informal discussion and feedback process. Pre-observation allowed each peerthe opportunity to agree on ground rules, determine goals, identify concerns andbegin to build a partnership based on cooperation and support.

Stage 2: observation

At this stage the observer attended to the agreed purpose of the partnership. Forexample, this sometimes involved attendance at a lecture, reviewing a learningmodule designed for students or perhaps an Internet online resource. The observermade notes of important observations and reflections to be discussed during Stage 3of the process. A variety of targeted checklists and guidelines developed early in theproject as a peer partnership tool-kit were made available to assist the process.

Stage 3: reflection and feedback

This stage was controlled primarily by both the observee and observer. Both partici-pants focused on the observee’s perceptions of his or her practice in conjunctionwith the observer’s feedback. The process of reflection and feedback is a critical partof partnership and there has to be emphasis on informed and supportive debate aboutareas for potential development. The intention was not to criticise but be supportiveand facilitate exploration of strengths, alternatives and possible solutions to strengthenfuture teaching. The tone of discussions was collegial and respectful, focusing onlistening, affirmation of achievement and possible solutions. Feedback was ineffectiveif it was delivered severely, judgementally or was solely evaluative. Discussionremained on the foci agreed at Stage 1 in order to address the intended goals of thepartnership.

Stage 4: implementation

The purpose of this stage was for the observee to continue his or her reflection on thefeedback provided at Stage 3 and to consider implementation of practice alternativesand solutions. There was opportunity for partners to put into action their ideas andinsights as a result of a partnership, attend relevant in-service training or workshops,undertake further reading and research and engage in further partnership(s).

Phase 4: evaluation

Qualitative data obtained through email communication, informal discussion and focusgroups gave insight into the achievements for participants in the program. Data high-lighted the rewards of peer partnership and the ways the program promoted professionaldevelopment and support. As Table 1 illustrates, the participants explained how thepeer partnership program was an excellent professional development and mentoringtool that made qualitative improvements to teaching and enhanced collaboration. Interms of overall outcomes of the project, on completion the program design has beensubsequently incorporated into the QUT early-career (ECARD) and mid-career(MCAD) support programs for all faculties at QUT along with a peer partnershipDVD and tool-kit resources that were developed as part of the project.

Higher Education Research & Development 443

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 16:

18 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2013

Phase 5: specifying learning outcomes

The final phase of the project has been to articulate outcomes from the project and toidentify potential improvements for projects of a similar nature. The overall impactof the program within QUT was affirmed that a sustained application of a peer partner-ship approach and subsequent development of resources can make a perceived differ-ence to participants and their scope to integrate programs of a similar nature acrossfaculties. For example, the QUT Faculty of Science and Technology subsequentlyincluded peer partnership as part of work load allocation and all faculties continuethe initiative with ongoing training provided upon request.

Reflections on implementation of the peer partnership program

Responding to changes in education, learning and teaching, as well as acceptance ofpeer partnership takes time, but the experiences that emerged from this projectsuggest that academics are willing to embrace partnership as a positive experience.When beginning further initiatives of this type the potential ‘rewards’ of participationin peer partnership should be highlighted especially increased self-confidence, personalsatisfaction and belonging to an academic community that has a focus on teachingexcellence through ongoing support. Once involved, many people find they want tocontinue to be a part of a similar type of community experience.

While the peer partnership process was outlined clearly, participants used the infor-mation in order to enact a program that worked for them and their partner. The 4-stageprocess presented in this paper highlights key principles for implementation, however,there is scope to make the partnership experience into something that serves everyone’sgoals and needs. The program did not force individuals to implement a prescriptiveapproach to partnership, it did, however, highlight the potential benefits of a structuredpeer partnership program for enhancing the scholarship of teaching. Table 2 conveystypical participant experiences in relation to professional development and mentoring,cross-faculty collaboration and learning and teaching improvement that arises whenpeer partnership is the focus of a formalised program of development. The programbuilt clearly on the views of Boyer (1990) and Hutchings and Shulman (1999), whoboth emphasised the centrality of scholarship of teaching in quality development andthe inter-relationship that exists between ‘excellent teaching’ and making teachingpractices public and open to critique and evaluation. The peer partnership program atQUT achieved these goals and emphasised that supported development can occur ina private yet open manner based on support and a genuine desire for both changeand improvement.

Conclusion

The project described had a positive influence on peer partners. It contributed to teach-ing development both at an individual level and in the formation of new professionalrelationships. Qualitative data affirmed the willingness of academic staff to be involvedin peer partnership but some colleagues need to be encouraged as a result of competingtime pressures within the workplace. A major goal of the project was to encourage criti-cal reflection in and on teaching and learning within a supportive professional environ-ment. Published literature already substantiates the value of peer partnership and theQUT four-stage design was successful. Individual participants described the program

444 A. Barnard et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 16:

18 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2013

enhanced their knowledge, skills and teaching effectiveness. Outcomes of the peer part-nership project were the development of a peer partnership tool-kit, a DVD thatexplains peer partnership and provides examples of ‘how to do it within the workplace’,staff workshops and ongoing peer partnership. Quality teaching is vital to university lifeand the experiences of participants in this program endorse peer partnership as a worth-while endeavour.

ReferencesBell, M. (2001). Supported reflective practice: A programme of peer observation and feedback

for academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 6(1), 21–28.Bell, M. (2005). Peer observation partnerships in higher education. Milperra, NSW: HERDSA.Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ:

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Braskamp, L.A., & Ory, J.C. (1994). Assessing faculty work: Enhancing individual and insti-

tutional performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Brennan, J., & Shah, T. (2000). Managing quality in higher education. Buckingham, UK:

SRHE/Open University Press.Brown, S., Jones, G., & Rawnsley, S. (1993). Observing teaching (SEDA paper 79).

Birmingham, UK: Staff and Educational Development Association.Byrne, M., & Flood, B. (2003). Assessing the teaching quality of accounting programmes: An

evaluation of the course experience questionnaire. Assessment & Evaluation in HigherEducation, 28(2), 135–145.

Chein, I., Cook, S.W., & Harding, J. (1948). The field of action research. AmericanPsychologist, 3(2), 43–50.

D’Andrea, V.M. (2002). Peer review of teaching in the USA. Retrieved December 8, 2008, fromhttp://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources.aspid=29&process=full_record&section=generic.

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2008). Higher educationresearch data collection, Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://www.finance.usyd.edu.au/docs/2008HERDCspecifications.pdf.

Ferren, A. (2001). Reconciling corporate and academic cultures. Peer Review, 3(3), 9–17.Fullerton, H. (1999). Observation of teaching. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall (Eds.), A

handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice(2nd ed., pp. 226–237). London: Routledge Falmer.

Grundy, S. (1982). Three modes of action research. Curriculum Perspectives, 2(3), 23–34.Hammersley-Fletcher, L., & Orsmond, P. (2004). Evaluating our peers: Is peer observation a

meaningful practice? Practice in Higher Education, 29(4), 489–503.Harvey, L. (2003). Student feedback. Quality in Higher Education, 9(1), 2–20.Harvey, L., & Newton, J. (2004). Transforming quality evaluation. Quality in Higher Education,

10(2), 149–165.Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (2008). Response from the

Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Inc. (HERDSA) to theReview of Australian Higher Education Discussion Paper. Retrieved February 4, 2009,from http://www.herdsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/herdsa-submission-bradley-review.doc.

Hutchings, P. (1996). The peer review of teaching: Progress, issues and prospects. InnovativeHigher Education, 20(4), 221–234.

Hutchings, P., & Shulman, LS. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, newdevelopments. Change, Sept/Oct, 11–15.

Keig, L. (2000). Formative peer review of teaching: Attributes of faculty at liberal arts collegestowards colleague assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(1), 67–87.

Keig, L., & Waggoner, M. (1995). Peer review of teaching: Improving college instructionthrough formative assessment. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6(3), 51–83.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 567–606). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Kohut, G., Burnap, C., & Yon, M. (2007). Peer observation of teaching: Perceptions of theobserver and the observed. College Teaching, 55(1), 19–25.

Higher Education Research & Development 445

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 16:

18 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2013

McGill, I., & Beaty, L. (2001). Action learning: A guide to professional, management and edu-cational development. London: Kogan Page.

McGill, I., & Brockbank, A. (2004). The action learning handbook: Powerful techniques of edu-cation, professional development and training. New York: Routledge Falmer.

MacKinnon, M. (2001). Using observational feedback to promote academic development.International Journal for Academic Development, 6(1), 21–28.

Magin, D. (1998). Rewarding good teaching: A matter of demonstrated proficiency or documen-ted achievement? International Journal for Academic Development, 3(2), 124–135.

McCormack, B., Manley, K., & Garbett, R. (Eds.). (2004). Practice development in nursing.Oxford: Blackwell.

Susman, G., & Evered, R. (1978). An assessment of scientific merits of action research.Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(4), 582–603.

Taylor, P., & Richardson, A. (2001). Validating scholarship in university teaching. Canberra,ACT: DETYA. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/profiles/archives/validating_scholarship_on_university_teaching.htm.

Weinstein, K. (1995). Action learning: A practical guide. London: Blackwell.

Appendix 1. Attitude survey: formative peer review of teaching

Definitions:

Formative peer review of teaching is assessment carried out between/among colleagues for thepurpose of improving teaching and learning; it is not evaluation designed for making personneldecisions (e.g., reappointment or personal promotion). It is a process in which colleagues worktogether to reflect on each other’s teaching and learning practices to assist one another in effortsto improve instruction and student learning. The process includes opportunities for you to learnhow to teach more effectively, to practice new teaching techniques and approaches, and to getregular feedback and coaching on your teaching from colleagues.

Directions:

Please indicate which of the following types of assessment, if any, you would be willing to par-ticipate in if it were conducted by colleagues for the purpose of instructional improvement (inother words, formative peer review of teaching, as defined above).

Which of the following types of formative evaluation of instruction, if any, would you agree toparticipate in if the evaluation was performed by an informed peer?

Yes No Not Sure Types of Formative Evaluations available

A A A Direct classroom observation.

A A A Videotaping of classes.

A A A Evaluation of course materials (e.g. unit outlines, grading practices,reading lists, handouts).

A A A Evaluation of teacher-graded student assessment (e.g. tests,assignments, and projects).

The following statements relate to the four types of formative evaluation of instruction listed onthe preceding page. Please read each statement in relation to the evaluation category listedbelow, and circle whether you Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), are Uncertain (U), Disagree(D), or Strongly Disagree (SD) with the statement.

446 A. Barnard et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 16:

18 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2013

Direct classroom observation would . . .

B infringe on my academic freedom. SA A U D SD

B probably measure accurately my teaching performance. SA A U D SD

B probably be representative of a typical teaching/learning situation. SA A U D SD

B result in a subjective, rather than objective, assessment of my performance. SA A U D SD

Videotaping my classes would . . .

B infringe on my academic freedom. SA A U D SD

B probably measure accurately my teaching performance. SA A U D SD

B probably be representative of a typical teaching/learning situation. SA A U D SD

B result in a subjective, rather than objective, assessment of my performance. SA A U D SD

Evaluating my course materials would . . .

B infringe on my academic freedom. SA A U D SD

B probably measure accurately my teaching performance. SA A U D SD

B probably be representative of a typical teaching/learning situation. SA A U D SD

B result in a subjective, rather than objective, assessment of my performance. SA A U D SD

Evaluating my graded student assessments would . . .

B infringe on my academic freedom. SA A U D SD

B probably measure accurately my teaching performance. SA A U D SD

B probably be representative of a typical teaching/learning situation. SA A U D SD

B result in a subjective, rather than objective, assessment of my performance. SA A U D SD

Please read each statement and circle whether you Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), are Uncer-tain (U), Disagree (D), or Strongly Disagree (SD) with the statement.

Evaluation in which informed peers review your teaching practices would be enhanced if . . .

B training in evaluation methods was made available to the faculty. SA A U D SD

B acceptable standards of teaching were established by the faculty. SA A U D SD

B student ratings of participants were included. SA A U D SD

B parties involved were consulted in the planning of the process. SA A U D SD

Evaluation in which informed peers review your teaching practices would enhance . . .

B the quality of instruction. SA A U D SD

B student learning. SA A U D SD

B personal confidence about teaching. SA A U D SD

B my perception of the role of T& L in career development. SA A U D SD

B the collegial climate of the university. SA A U D SD

Higher Education Research & Development 447

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 16:

18 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2013

I would participate in formative peer review if . . .

B It is included in the academic workload. SA A U D SD

B It is not included in PPR. SA A U D SD

B It could be used as part of personal promotion. SA A U D SD

B I could work with colleagues whom I trust. SA A U D SD

B I could work with a mentor who is an experienced teacher. SA A U D SD

B I could work in a supportive and confidential environment. SA A U D SD

In order to have a better understanding of faculty members participating in our study, we wouldappreciate your answering the following background information questions.

How many years have you been teaching at the university level?(If less than one year, please enter a zero (0).) _______ Years

What is your current academic rank?A Professor/Associate ProfessorA Senior LecturerA Lecturer/A/Lecturer

Are you employedA Full timeA Sessional

How many hours do you usually teach each week? _______

In what academic discipline do you teach all or most of your courses?

Discipline: _________________________________________________

What is your gender?A MaleA Female

What are your formal qualifications in education? Tick applicable categories.A PhDA MastersA Graduate DiplomaA Bachelor of EducationA Graduate Certificate in higher EducationA None

THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS SURVEY.

448 A. Barnard et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 16:

18 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2013