Climates of Communication: Collegiality, Affect, Spaces and Attitudes in Peer Review

Moving Beyond Peer Review of Teaching: A Conceptual Framework for Collegial Faculty Development

“…All but three papers investigated specific CFD practices, and the remaining studies focused on CFD practices in a more general sense (e.g., Ambler et al, 2014, who investigated the role of communication in CFD without describing a specific practice). The level of detail provided on the rules, guidelines, and process of implementation in the CFD practices differed considerably across the articles.…”

“…From a sociocultural perspective, these climates are shaped by the social conventions, norms, and cultural tools that mediate the ways in which the staff in the given department engage with each other and the CFD process. Ambler et al (2014, p. 71) suggested that an especially open climate “built on trust, support and common goals facilitates the kind of open communication that enables peer review to be successful.” Similarly, Wingrove et al (2015) argued that the general success of CFD is linked to institutional climates that value reflective practices among faculty.…”

Peer Collaboration: Improving Teaching through Comprehensive Peer Review

“…Due to the highly personal nature of teaching and the potentially threatening nature of peer review, PRT is best engaged in collaboratively (Hatzipanagos, and Lygo‐Baker, ; Ambler, Chevan, Clarke, & Mathews, ) within a faculty learning community, that is, an ongoing collaboration with peers that is focused on learning and academic exploration. Faculty learning communities are “a continuous process of learning and reflection, supported by colleagues, with an intention of getting things done” (McGill and Beaty, , p. 11) that “emphasize collaborative visioning regarding what learning can be and collaborative construction of models of learning” (Layne, , p. 1).…”

“…The following qualities guide the design and process of a faculty learning community (Ambler et al, ; Cox, ). Safety and trust. In order for participants to connect with each other, there must be a sense of safety and trust.…”

“…Research into faculty resistance to engaging in mandatory PRT (Ambler, et al, ; Hamersley‐Fletcher & Orsmond, ; Lomas and Nichols, ), especially when it is attached to a summative PRT process, suggests that instituting and carrying out mandatory PRT is not an easy task. Interviews with faculty and administration on US and Australian campuses uncovered explicit concerns about PRT that are congruent with categories of concern in existing literature. Fear of exposure as a “bad teacher”: ‐Will it only be done summatively, that is, will a sudden, one‐shot peer observation of teaching be used to determine their standing as a “good or a “bad” instructor? ‐Will data be used for punitive purposes, rather than to identify excellence as well as areas that can be improved? ‐Will their results be treated with confidentiality? ‐Critiques of teaching take on a personal quality that is identity focused and humbling. Fear of negative fallout with colleagues: ‐Will giving negative feedback create tension or alienation between colleagues? ‐Do they risk losing colleagues’ respect if improvement is needed? Distrust of administrative interference and resistance to “top down” implementation: ‐Feeling of surveillance, sorting, punishment by department if they are reviewed negatively. ‐Will the process be vague or unclear to reviewers and/or reviewees? ‐Lack of staff cooperation. Concern about ambiguity and/or rigor of the process: ‐With the methods and instruments used be valid and reliable?…”