Emergent evidence suggests teaching academics’ engagement in peer review of teaching can result in wide-ranging benefits to teaching quality in the higher education context. However, significant differences in program efficacy have prompted scholarly calls for an examination of teaching academics’ experiences of peer review of teaching, towards clarifying program qualities that influence teaching development. This study aims to address this, through a systematic literature review investigating the attributes of peer review of teaching program practices that contribute to teaching development in higher education.
This review study provides an overview of 39 articles selected from the current literature. Notwithstanding the emergent nature of the studies, these findings indicate that numerous factors influence teaching development towards enhanced teaching quality outcomes. However, participants’ experience of teaching development may be reliant on various organisational, program and individual factors that are contextually specific to institutional culture and individual discipline-based requirements. The emergence of peer review of teaching within the Australian higher education sector presents an opportunity for further research to advance our understanding of the factors that influence teaching development.

A systematic literature review was used as a method to critically evaluate the quality of accessible evidence within the current literature (Aveyard, 2014). This process comprised several stages based on Anderson and colleagues’ (2011) logic models to facilitate conceptualising complexity inherent within the systematic review process. First, the review scope was validated by locating the research question within the intellectual development of the field. Second, key search terms were evaluated according to the research question and databases were selected accordingly. Third, relevant inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified to focus the literature search. Fourth, publications were included based on established quality assessment criteria. Fifth, validity of findings was interpreted within and between studies, according to the relevance of their contribution to the research question. Finally, the process facilitated the systematic synthesis and representation of relevant data from the studies included. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used to screen titles and abstracts to facilitate assessment of study validity; enable efficient examination of search results; clarify contexts and study populations to which the results apply; provide an explicit summary of results; and increase literature searching accuracy to ensure academic rigor in the collection, analysis and interpretation of qualitative data sourced from the body of literature (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009).

Significant developments within the higher education sector over recent decades have given rise to important advancements in teaching and learning scholarship. A global focus on developing teaching quality towards improved student learning outcomes has resulted in sectorial investment in academic teacher professional development programs, and one such initiative is the peer review of teaching. Within the international sector, higher education institutions and quality agencies are increasingly placing peer review of teaching as a central component of teaching development and assessment practices. Conversely, the practice within the Australian higher education sector is relatively emergent. The findings from this literature review suggest peer review of teaching is an important factor towards addressing academic teaching development. However, participants’ experience of program success may be reliant on various organisational, program and individual factors that are contextually specific to institutional culture and discipline-based requirements. Additionally, participation in programs with a developmental approach as opposed to an evaluative approach tended to result in enhanced quality of academic teaching and student learning outcomes. Moreover, there is a need for further research towards addressing the issue of ambiguity concerning peer review of teaching related definitions and functions. Notwithstanding the limitations of the literature, a variety of peer review of teaching program factors positively influence academic teaching development. The emergence of peer review of teaching within the Australian higher education sector presents an opportunity for further research to advance our understanding of program practices that contribute to academic teaching development and enhanced teaching quality outcomes.

Atkinson, D. J., & Bolt, S. J. (2010). Using teaching observations to reflect upon and improve teaching practice in higher education. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1-19. Barnard, A., Nash, R., McEvoy, K., Shannon, S., Waters, C., Rochester, S., & Bolt, S. (2015). LeaD-In: a cultural change model for peer review of teaching in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 30-44. Bell, A. & Mladenovic, R. (2015). Situated learning, reflective practice and conceptual expansion: effective peer observation for tutor development, Teaching in Higher Education, 20(1), 24-36, DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2014.945163 Carbone, A. (2011). Building peer assistance capacity in faculties to improve student satisfaction of units. HERDSA 2011: Higher Education on the Edge, 34, 1-12 Chalmers, D., & Gardiner, D. (2015). An evaluation framework for identifying the effectiveness and impact of academic teacher development programmes. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 46, 81-91. Cresswell, S. L., Gregory, S. J., & Watters, D. J. (2015). The reluctance of scientists to engage in peer review of teaching. In Teaching for Learning and Learning for Teaching (pp. 227–245). Berlin: Springer. Fredericks, V., & Bosanquet, A. (2017). An essential right’: Reflections on evaluating a professional development program for tutors. International Journal of Academic Development, 22(1), 84-89. Georgiou, H., Sharma, M., & Ling, A. (2018). Peer review of teaching: What features matter? A case study within STEM faculties. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(2), 190-200. Gosling, D. (2014). Collaborative peer-supported review of teaching. In Peer review of learning and teaching in higher education (pp. 13-31). Springer, Dordrecht. Hammersley‐Fletcher, L., & Orsmond, P. (2005). Reflecting on reflective practices within peer observation. Studies in higher education, 30(2), 213-224. Harris, K. L., Farrell, K., Bell, M., Devlin, M., & James, R. (2008). Peer Review of Teaching in Australian Higher Education: Resources to Support Institutions in Developing and Embedding Effective Policies and Practices: Final Project Report. Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Venema, S., Drew, S., Lodge, J.M. (2015). Peer Observation as a Collaborative Vehicle for Innovation in Incorporating Educational Technology into Teaching : a case study. In C. Klopper & S. Drew (Eds.), Teaching for Learning and Learning for Teaching (pp. 209-225). Rotterdam, Sense Publishers. White, K., Boehm, E., & Chester, A. (2014). Predicting academics’ willingness to participate in peer review of teaching: A quantitative investigation. Higher Education Research & Development, 33, 372–385.