Attitudes towards peer review of teaching in medical education
Keywords:peer review, faculty development, professional development, medical education
Introduction: Peer review of teaching is an important evaluation and development activity. Its use is well documented within US tertiary institutions but less common in the UK and Australia. While some research into prevalence, outcomes and opinions of peer review within medical education exists, documented implementation is uncommon. This topic is particularly underresearched within a rural and regional education context. This research sought opinions on peer review of teaching among medical educators and intended to ascertain levels of experience with, and ease of access to, peer review programmes across city, rural and international locations.
Methods: A purposefully designed questionnaire, seeking views and experiences of peer review of teaching, was sent to medical educators at the University of Melbourne (metropolitan-based Melbourne Medical School educators at multiple metropolitan hospitals; educators based at multiple Rural Clinical School campuses in regional Victoria) and the University of Manchester (based at Manchester Royal Infirmary). Information regarding teaching experience and qualifications, as well as previous experience with peer review, was also sought.
Results: Only 10.4% of respondents had a formal teaching qualification at postgraduate or masters level; 29.2% had previous experience of formal peer review. Respondents who reported teaching more hours per week were more likely to agree that formal peer review programmes would be beneficial to teaching development (r = 0.12; p = 0.05) and were also more likely to have the time to take part (r = 0.14; p = 0.02). The overall attitude towards peer review was favourable; 87.7% of respondents stated they would take part in a programme, and 90.6% were of the view that peer review improved teaching practice. There were no statistically-significant differences in opinions towards peer review across the three locations.
Conclusions: This study shows there is a significant unmet interest among medical educators for peer review of teaching, and it suggests this is particularly prevalent among rural and regional-based medical educators. Further, data suggests a voluntary and informative form of peer review is more likely to be embraced as an opportunity for professional development.
Adshead, L., White, P., & Stephenson, A. (2006). Introducing peer observation of teaching to GP teachers: A questionnaire study. Medical Teacher, 25(2), 68–73.
Appling, S., Naumann, P., & Berk, R. (2001). Using a faculty evaluation triad to achieve evidence-based teaching. Nursing and Health Care Perspectives, 22(5), 247–252.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016). Regional population growth, Australia, 2014–15: Population estimates by significant urban area, 2005 to 2015. Camberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.
Bennett, P., Parker, S., & Smigiel, H. (2012). Paired peer review of university classroom teaching in a school of nursing and midwifery. Nurse Education Today, 32, 665–668.
Berk, R., Naumann, P., & Appling, S. (2004). Beyond student ratings: Peer observation of classroom teaching and clinical teaching. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 1(1), 1–26.
Cederblom, D., & Lounsbury, J. (1980). An investigation of user acceptance of peer evaluations. Personnel Psychology, 33, 567–579.
Chism, N. (2007). Peer review of teaching: A sourcebook (2nd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker.
Costello, J., Pateman, B., Pusey, H., & Longshaw, K. (2001). Peer review of classroom teaching: An interim report. Nurse Education Today, 21, 444–454.
Curnock, E., Bowie, P., Pope, L., & McKay, J. (2012). Barriers and attitudes influencing non-engagement in peer feedback model to inform evidence for GP appraisal. BMJC Medical Education, 12, 15–24.
Fedor, D., Bettenhousen, K., & Davis, W. (1999). Peer reviews: Employees’ dual role as raters and recipients. Group and Organization Management, 24(1), 92–120.
Gosling, D. (2002). Models of peer observation of teaching. The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/resource_database/
Iqbal, I. (2014). Don’t tell it like it is: Preserving collegiality in the summative peer review of teaching. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44(1), 108–124.
Jahangiri, L., Mucciolo, T., Choi, M., & Spielman, A. (2008). Assessment of teaching effectiveness in U.S. dental schools and the value of triangulation. Journal of Dental Education, 72(6), 707–718.
Kell, C., & Annetts, S. (2009). Peer review of teaching embedded practice or policy-holding complacency? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(1), 61–70.
Khan, N., Khan, M., Dasgupta, P., & Ahmed, K. (2013). The surgeon as educator: Fundamentals of faculty training in surgical specialities. British Journal of Urology International, 111(1), 171–178.
Lowry, S. (1993). Teaching the teachers. British Medical Journal, 306, 127–130.
Martsolf, D. S., Dieckman, B. C., Carteschine, K. A., Starr, P. J., Wolf, L. E., & Anaya, E. R. (1999). Peer review of teaching: Instituting a program in a college of nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, 38(7), 326–332.
McEvoy, G., & Buller, P. (1987). User acceptance of peer appraisals in an industrial setting. Personnel Psychology, 40, 326–332.
Schultz, K., & Latif, D. (2006). The planning and implementation of a faculty peer review teaching project. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 70(2), 32–39.
Schwellnus, H., & Carnahan, H. (2014). Peer-coaching with health care professionals: What is the current status of the literature and what are the key components necessary in peer-coaching? A scoping review. Medical Teacher, 36(1), 38–46.
How to Cite
On acceptance for publication in FoHPE the copyright of the manuscript is signed over to ANZAHPE, the publisher of FoHPE.
Any reproduction of material published in FoHPE must have the express permission of the publisher.
Articles published in Focus on Health Professional Education (FoHPE) are available under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).