SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
Peer Review 2010-11 - Head of School Summary
Introduction
In the previous year (2009-10) the peer review process had been carried out by all academics across
the School with twelve review groups. While this had been a good process, there had been a
difficulty for those colleagues teaching in the Primary and Secondary PGCE Programmes who had
also been involved in management observation of teaching, as required by Ofsted. There was a view
that it had been burdensome and confusing to be involved in two separate processes. A request was
made to the Learning and Teaching Committee to exempt PGCE staff from peer review and this was
agreed.
This left 33 staff in peer review and six review groups were formed, each comprising five or six
members from the two departments: Continuing Professional Development, Education and
Childhood Studies. The first member of each group convened an initial meeting to determine
process and compiled a report using the University pro-forma. The theme for the observations was
the identification and sharing of good practice.
Five of the six groups reported. One of the groups was led by the Programme Leader for TE Teacher
Training and the onset of the Ofsted inspection in April and May distracted him from the task.
Process
Overall, the process was successful with some 30 observations carried out and reported on. The
decision to group colleagues in different departments was intended to allow those in different areas
to learn from each others’ practice and colleagues found this beneficial. However, there was some
regret that it was not possible to share with the PGCE staff who were exempt. Three of the groups
focused exclusively on assessment and feedback. The other two looked at general practice in
teaching with some analysis of feedback and assessment.
Results
Those that focussed on assessment and feedback gave the following:




Evidence of good practice and variations of focus of feedback. There was variation in the
use of assessment pro forma with some highlighting developmental modes of feedback
whereas others commented upon module specific criteria. For students, feedback that was
more generic appeared to be more useful in supporting students rather than module specific
criteria; they could then utilize their feedback in future assignments. There was some
discussion about how the need to support students to engage further with the feedback
they received and to use it to inform future assignments.
Enabling students to gain ownership of the assessment criteria.
Encouraging collaboration and analysis of writing in a supportive environment.
Making students aware of the responsibility of being a marker.












Promoting dialogue between the lecturer and the student and the co-construction of
evaluation.
An alignment between the substantive content of the course and assessment methodology.
Formative assessment that encouraged Masters level students to complete and submit
work.
Positive and supportive comments with appropriate praise.
Clear indication of how the assignment could be improved and ‘next steps’ are indicated.
The new format for the Ed Studies degree was given approval compared to old formats since
this avoids unnecessary repetition in the general comments section.
It was noted that marks below 60 were more critical in their feedback reflecting the
students’ need to improve upon their work – is this inevitable?
The tone and style of feedback merits further discussion – essentially whether or not
feedback ought to be more personal and informal or whether it ought to be formal and
succinct.
It was apparent that presentation-style assessments varied in their expectations such as
length of presentation (from 15 mins to 45 mins – although this partly depended on the
weighting), whether shared assessments should have separate marksheets or a group result,
whether moderated assessment should be marked separately or based on the first marker’s
assessment with additional comment given by the second marker; whether a presentation
enabled a student to engage sufficiently with the issues and whether additional material
should be included such as a critical commentary.
The issue of standards merits further exploration: for example, why marks in the 50s are
now considered to be below average by students.
It was agreed that online marking is likely to be the norm in the future.
The identification that level 7 masters work was very similar across the PGCE/ITE and CPD
departments, despite the very different student audiences.
General teaching





The value of deep subject knowledge and the benefit of conducting research in a related
field – passion here can greatly enhance the student experience.
It is not possible to be a subject specialist in all areas and here a lecturer’s skills in facilitating
learning is equally valuable.
Students are more likely develop a critical voice and talk confidently if they are in a safe and
secure environment – positive and respectful student-tutor and student-student relations
are key here.
The learning process is seen as a ‘continuing conversation’ between all learners, including
tutor and other peers, where the tutor is able to pitch level of support according to need.
One tutor described by peer as ‘highly effective in chunking complex academic content and
communicating it in a way that was appropriate to the students’ level of knowledge and
understanding/ background’; this skill can be honed not only through teaching but also
through ‘explaining’ for different audiences.
The importance of supporting students to develop an understanding of the construct of ‘ a
community of learners’- by encouraging students to develop the flexibility and confidence to
regularly work in different groups. Initial ‘Contracting sessions’ are helpful here to establish
ground rules to facilitate such collaborative work. Students have benefited from peer review
sessions where triads evaluate each others’ writing during sessions. Such practices help to
challenge traditional pedagogical models which some students still favour.


An inherent CPD value of observations conducted across different programmes identifying
similar pedagogical approaches used for delivering the same level. This was considered
important given the relatively recent introduction of level 7 work into the PGCE ITE
programme.
Sharing good practice across departments leading to additional reflection upon practice as a
result of insights gained through observing others.
Suggested areas for development
In Assessment and feedback:





Seek opportunities to develop shared understanding of ‘levelness’ - 4,5, 6 and 7 - in relation
to key assessment criteria amongst tutors and amongst students so that they are clear of
expectations at each level.
Build in expectation within a module for students to utilize feedback. Enhance the
comments box by trialling requirement (eg within core modules) for students to use
feedback in subsequent module assignments to show how they’ve addressed those issues.
This could be commented upon by the tutor and would close the dialogue loop between
student and tutor.
Support staff to make professional judgements about the most appropriate ways to offer
effective feedback.
Allow staff development time to share the wide variety of approaches to the assessment of
students work.
Develop innovative approaches to assessment that encourages all students to achieve their
potential and supports the personalisation of learning.
General teaching





Continue observations/peer review across all departments.
Early planning and implementation needed to overcome mutual timetabling difficulties.
More flexible reviewing options, e.g. ‘virtual’ reviews as well as observations.
Integration of these observations as part of those required for newly-appointed staff within
the BSU HE T&L programme.
Students need support in understanding the nature of criticality- exemplars of previous
students’ academic assignments who write with a critical voice could be used more. More
support in confidently engaging with academic journals would be useful
Stephen Ward, 27 September 2011