publication . Article . 2017

Peer Review and Reflective Teaching Practices: An Effective Mechanism for Quality Enhancement in Higher Education

Raj, Sony Jalarajan; Massey, Susan R.; Jose, Soumya;
Open Access English
  • Published: 15 Dec 2017 Journal: International Series on Information Systems and Management in Creative eMedia (issn: 2341-5576, Copyright policy)
  • Publisher: International Ambient Media Assocation (iAMEA)
Quality education and teacher accountability are predominant issues generating apprehension in higher education. Traditional methods of evaluation are giving way to more contemporary methods. One technique that is being implemented in many universities throughout the world that provides feedback and improves pedagogical approaches is a formative and collaborative process known as peer review of teaching (PRT). Review of the literature included 34 studies which identified five themes that offered pros and cons regarding the viability of PRT in teacher evaluations. A matrix table was created on additional 27 studies on the SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and...
Related Organizations
68 references, page 1 of 5

Addams, L. & Allred, A. T. (2013). The first step in proactively managing students' careers: Teaching self-SWOT analysis. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 17(4), 43-51.

Allen, L. (2002). Consenting adults in private - Union and management perspectives on peer observation of teaching. Retrieved from

Al Qahtani, S., Kattan, T., Al Harbi, K., & Seefeldt, M. (2011). Some thoughts on educational peer evaluation. South-East Asian Journal of Medical Education, 5(1), 47 - 49. Retrieved from

Archer, J. C., Norcini, J., & Davies, H. (2005). Use of SPRAT for peer review of paediatricians in training. British Medical Journal, 330, 1251-1253. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38447.610451.8F

Archer, J. C., Norcini, J., Southgate, L., Heard, S., & Davies, H. (2008). Mini-PAT (Peer Assessment Tool): A valid component of a national assessment programme in the UK? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13, 181-192. doi: 10.1007/s10459-006-9033-3

Atwood, C. H., Taylor, J. W., & Hutchings, P. A. (2000). Why are chemists and other scientists afraid of the peer review of teaching? Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 239-244. Retrieved from [OpenAIRE]

Bedore, P., & O'Sullivan, B. (2011). Addressing instructor ambivalence about peer review and self-assessment. Journal of the Council of Writing Program Administrators, 34(2), 11-36

Bell, A., & Mladenovic, R. (2008). The benefits of peer observation of teaching for tutor development. Higher Education, 55, 735-752. doi: 10.1007/s10734-007- 9093-1

Bentin, S. & Cashin, W. (2012). Student ratings of teaching: A summary and literature (IDEA Paper 50). Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center. Retrieved from

Bernstein, D. J. (2008). Peer review and evaluation on the intellectual work of teaching. Change, 40 (2), 48 - 51. Retrieved from

Bingham, R., & Ottewill, R. (2001). Whatever happened to peer review? Revitalising the contribution of tutors to course evaluation. Quality Assurance in Education, 9, 32-39. doi: 10.1108/09684880110381319 [OpenAIRE]

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Brent, R. & Felder, R. M. (2004). A Protocol for Peer Review of Teaching. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Salt Lake City, Utah.

Bramschreiber, T. (2012). Taking Peer Feedback to Heart. Educational Leadership, 70(3), retrieved from

Brinko, K. T. (1993). The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: What is effective? The Journal of Higher Education, 64, 574 - 593. Retrieved from

68 references, page 1 of 5
Powered by OpenAIRE Open Research Graph
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue