Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

Projects Projects Blog Blog Case Studies Case Studies Peer Review and Enhancement Peer Review and Enhancement SoTL Spotlight Podcast SoTL Spotlight Podcast

Peer Review and Enhancement

Approaches to PRE

	Approach 1	Approach 2	Approach 3	Approach 4
Who determined the topic (s)?	Each individual	The whole school/institute chooses several topics. PRE groups select from this.	Associate Head	Whole professional group or teaching team
What informed the choice of topic?	Student evaluations Reflection on own practice	Personal interest Current strategic and common drivers e.g. feedback.	Based on external imperatives e.g. PSRB Strategic development of portfolio	Based on need for development e.g. Profile Assessment Personal interest within the topic
Peer group size	2	5-8	8-10	2-3
Who determined the membership of the group?	Self-selecting - individuals choose colleagues they feel they can work with.	Self-selecting - individuals select the topic they were most interested in.	Chosen by Associate Head to include experienced staff and new staff.	Self-selecting - individuals choose colleagues with same interest or within the same teaching team.
How often group meets (time)	About 3 times per semester	3 times per year	Time allocated at monthly School/institute meetings.	3/4 times per semester
Duration	New topic each semester	Academic year	Academic year	Academic year
Links with other activities/processes	Module evaluation questionnaires NSS/PTES	PDR Mentoring of new staff	External inspection PDR	Recent course planning Team teaching
Main benefits of this approach	The topic addresses a specific need. The activity can be tailored to resolve it Based upon actual evidence from practice Small trustful group	Common foci develop strength across the school/institute group Common foci encourage consistency in teaching methods and the student experience	Maintenance of professional standing in subject area Credibility of the whole portfolio through recognition Peer benchmarking through large group approach	Single common focus develops strength and consistencies across the School/Institute group Self-selecting small groups are likely to design activities that suit their dynamic and fit in with other commitments
Main disadvantages of this approach	The initial focus can turn out to be too specific Opportunities for sharing outcomes may be more limited	Specific individual problems can fall outside the main focus. Infrequent meetings can reduce interest and energy levels and impact Individual commitment can be difficult to manage	Focus on PSRB requirements can undermine the need to focus on the scholarship of teaching and learning Reduced opportunities to develop innovative teaching and learning approaches	Common focus negates the opportunity to formally address specific individual problems that fall outside of the focus.

Example enhancement activities

	Example 1	Example 2	Example 3	Example 4	Example 5
The topic	Develop the use of tools within Microsoft Word to support feedback	Develop an online assessment	Develop employability within a module	General teaching skills and technique development using peer-observation	Develop student-facing laboratory support skills
Group membership	2 academics	3 academics and 1 dgital learning lecturer	3 academics	2 academics	3 technicians and 1 academic
Need	To return high quality feedback quickly.	To create a new online activity where one had not existed before.	Address new industry benchmarks for embedding employability.	Enhance face-to-face teaching.	Develop the confidence of the technical team in supporting students use of laboratory equipment.
Main context	Further develop initial work fast feedback turnaround to address the challenge of large student numbers.	Development of a new course.	Staff wanted to introduce a stronger employability focus to a module.	Development of a blended learning module.	New equipment in laboratory settings.
What did the group do?	Met once to work on the use of Microsoft "Quick Parts" and reviewing tools Trialled using the tools when giving assessment feedback Met to discuss the results of the trial Disseminated to other colleagues.	Met on several occasions throughout semester 1 to devise test questions. In semester 2 the group met to work on the technical aspects of the test The group reviewed the use of the test and identified areas for further development	The group reviewed the module against the benchmarks Employability outcomes were identified, and LTA modifications made to the module to meet those outcomes.	Two colleagues were paired and arranged to observe each other's teaching. They elected to do a repeat session so observed each other once per semester. Observation outcome was combined with discussion about links to blended activities on Blackboard.	The technicians met with the academic to discuss objectives. Identified approaches to supporting students on equipment use
Dissemination	An introductory video was produced with DTS. Instructions were written and made available on the LTA site.	A case study report which outlines the approach taken and provides tips and hints that others can use.	The group shared with the course teaching team and school/institute employability group.	Outcomes of observations used to inform appraisal discussions. Techniques used, developments made, and experiences were shared with the teaching team.	Technical team shared outcomes with team leader and with wider technical team colleagues

	Example 6	Example 7	Example 8	Example 9
The topic	Development of coaching skills for student support and guidance	Development of teaching resources for equipment use	Support of post-graduate project supervision	Incorporation of online activities across the delivery of a course
Group membership	2 student support officers	1 technician, 1 digital learning lecturer and 1 academic	Research team and course leader	A teaching team with support from a principal learning technologist (PLT)
Need	To further support students in their one-to-one meetings.	Students needed to develop their ability to use laboratory equipment.	Improve the teaching capability of a group of researchers involved in supervision of student projects.	To provide students with more direction to their learning outside of face-to-face contact time.
Main context	Student Support Officers being able to select their own approach to developing coaching skills.	The academic realised students required further training and experience with laboratory equipment.	Capacity to support student projects.	Capability of the teaching team to implement more active blended learning in all modules on a course.
What did the group do?	The student support officers researched coaching approaches and techniques As a pair they trialled and role-played coaching conversations. The pair met regularly to discuss progress and reflect on experiences.	The group met to determine the needs of the students and how best to meet those needs. Instructional videos were produced so students could remind themselves of the techniques and procedures to follow with equipment.	The course leader for the MSc, who was also a research team member, set up regular meetings throughout the academic year. Team members shared experiences and reflected on their interactions with students. Other teaching-active colleagues contributed to occasional meetings to offer support and guidance	The teaching team identified a module for each staff member to target. The PLT came to a team meeting and discussed some of the ways in which the module leaders could incorporate changes Module leaders then made changes with support
Dissemination	Outcomes were discussed at Student Support team meetings.	Video resources were shared with the wider teams for use with students.	A reflective report was compiled by the team and shared with other supervisors.	Presentation at the LTA conference.

Peer Review and Enhancement