Partnerships Enhancing Practice

Abstract

In higher education, current teaching evaluation models typically involve senior faculty evaluating junior faculty. However, there is evidence that peer-to-peer junior faculty observations and feedback may be just as effective. This descriptive case study utilized an inductive analysis to examine experiences of six special education early career faculty, from different institutions, using the partnerships that enhance practice (PEP) model for technology-based observations of teaching in higher education. PEP paired early career faculty into dyads. Each participant served as a provider and a recipient of feedback on teaching. The data were derived from semistructured interviews with each dyad and additional information was obtained from four instruments that facilitated peer-to-peer observations. Findings suggest this technology-based model has the potential to improve teaching skills and serve as a tool for developing professional partnerships among special education early career faculty across institutions.

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

“…In line with the framework synthesis method, we refined the initial categories to include several themes and topics that appeared during the analysis. The results of the empirical review served to address the research questions of how collegial approaches to faculty development were described in the research literature and what factors shaped those Bulman et al, 2016;Byrne et al, 2010;Carroll & O'Loughlin, 2014;Chamberlain et al, 2011;Costello et al, 2001;Davis, 2011;de Lange & Wittek, 2018;Georgiou et al, 2018;Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2004, 2005Hatzipanagos & Lygo-Baker, 2006;Hendry et al, 2014;Hubball & Clarke, 2011;Kell & Annetts, 2009;Kenny et al, 2014;Mager et al, 2014;O'Keefe et al, 2009;Pattison et al, 2012;Servilio et al, 2017;Shortland, 2004Shortland, , 2010Shousha, 2015;Sti...…”

“…Bell & Mladenovic, 2008;M. Bell & Cooper, 2013;Buchanan & Parry, 2019;Bulman et al, 2016;Byrne et al, 2010;Carroll & O'Loughlin, 2014;Davis, 2011;de Lange & Lauvås, 2018;Deni & Malakolunthu, 2013;Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2004, 2005Kell & Annetts, 2009;O'Keefe et al, 2009;Quinlan & Åkerlind, 2000;Servilio et al, 2017;Shortland, 2010;Shousha, 2015;Thampy et al, 2015;Torres et al, 2017;Wildman et al, 2000;Wingrove et al, 2015;Wingrove et al, 2018;Yiend et al, 2014 Group size Pairs (20) A. Bell & Mladenovic, 2015;…”

“…Positive relations between CFD and the development of faculty communities were widely reported and had especially positive outcomes on professional networking (Ambler et al, 2014;Costello et al, 2001;Servilio et al, 2017). The communities developed through CFD often appear to function as a refuge in which faculty explore and develop their teaching in a safe environment.…”

“…Generally, CFD helped faculty feel reassured and less isolated (Bulman et al, 2016;Georgiou et al, 2018;Hendry et al, 2014;Servilio et al, 2017;Thampy et al, 2015;Toth & McKey, 2010a). Some authors suggested, however, that faculty members differ in their CFD needs based on their previous teaching experience and their type of faculty appointment, noting that a needs assessment can be helpful in designing CFD schemes (Toth & McKey, 2010a).…”

Peer review of teaching in Australian higher education: a systematic review

“…Over recent decades, peer review of teaching (PRT) has become an important mechanism for improving the quality of teaching in higher education (HE). While there is considerable international research on PRT outcomes (Lomas & Nicholls, 2005;Servilio et al, 2017;Yurtseven & Altun, 2018), these are not widely reported within Australian universities (Burrows et al, 2011;Lomas & Kinchin 2006). Efforts to undertake PRT in the Australian tertiary sector have generally been informal small-scale projects, where results are often not published (Harris et al, 2008).…”