Peer Review for Dr John Frank
By Dr Janice Orrell
Academic Coordinator.
Part One: Initial Peer Report
Process:
An initial meeting was held and the focus and dates for the teaching observations were set. A
Topic outline was provided and an extract from the performance review schedule that covered
Dr Frank’s philosophy of teaching were provided. I observed one lecture, reviewed the topic
materials and discussed there with Dr Frank.
From these I make the following observations.
Philosophy of Teaching
In his philosophy Dr Frank articulates clearly his responsibility to be well prepared, engage
students in the process, provide guides and structures to support students learning and to
utilise new tools to aid the learning. In addition he notes the importance on maintaining his
own enthusiasm for the subject matter. These are all important factors in effective teaching
and his SET evaluations indicate that from the students perspective to a large extent Dr Frank
is achieving this.
With these personal values in mind I observed his teaching.
In his lectures Dr Frank demonstrated the following strengths:
1. Dr Frank delivered the lecture well with a strong energetic voice, with clear
pronunciation and communicated his energy and enthusiasm for the topic.
2. He was clearly well prepared such that the structure of the lecture was clear and he
had interesting materials to illustrate the concepts he was teaching.
3. The lecture well structured. He provided a review of the previous week’s work;
clear learning goals for the lecture being delivered and summaries at regular
intervals.
4. Dr Frank asked students questions at regular intervals to ensure students were
engaged with the topic.
5. Dr Frank supported students’ learning by emphasising major concepts and their
particular importance in the overall topic. In addition, study questions were also
provided to assist student prepare for exams.
6. Dr Frank related well with the students. The classroom context was very relaxed
and encouraging, such that students were able to stop the lecture to ask questions of
clarification. That students felt able to do this, and the nature of the questions they
posed, indicated to me that students were clearly thinking and problem solving during
the lecture, not just writing down notes.
7. Application of the concepts was emphasised throughout the lecture.
Suggestions for Improvement.
My only suggestion for improving his lectures would be to suggest that Dr Frank consider
changing the nature of the demand every 15 minutes. For example, instead of having the same
pattern of addressing a question to the whole class in which the predictable few will answer,
he could ask all students to consider and write down ways to solve a problem or identify an
application, discuss the merits of each persons’ response in groups of 2-4 and then ask for
responses. If all students have had more time to consider a response, greater engagement
could be achieved.
1
Part 2: J. Frank Response to Dr. Janice Orrell's suggestions
Dr. Orrell and I have broadly discussed issues in university teaching before and after her
observation on my classroom teaching. We both agreed that teaching is a combination of
science and art. It needs both sound knowledge and appropriate delivery skills to achieve
excellence in the university learning environment. Although teaching can never be perfect, it
can be better-off and improved through lecturer's endeavours of seeking possible
improvement. I fully agree Dr. Orrell's suggestion on changing the nature of my classroom
teaching to effectively engage student's participation. In cognitive psychology, it has been
proved that human's attention on a single subject usually lasts less than 15 minutes. However,
a typical period of a lecture in the university is 50-60 minutes long. Some of my juggling
lectures last for 2 hour, although there is a break in between. I have realised that by the end of
the lecture, students will run out of patience and the lecturer will run out of energy. This
phenomenon is quite common in university teaching. To improve this situation, I would
incorporate the following approaches.
1. Diversify the teaching method in classroom:
A combination of videos, slides, and class discussion can be used to change the nature of
classroom teaching in some lectures. For example, in the lecture of acrobatics, the first 20
minutes can be used to outline the theory of spin rotation in mid air, and then a video can be
played to demonstrate how balls are alternatively thrown from hand to hand. Finally, a class
discussion can be conducted to cover the contents of the theory and the video.
2. Using an appropriate pause/short break to draw student's attention:
Some lectures can be delivered in an interesting manner, but others could be boring,
depending on the lecture content. For some boring lectures, I will consider to introduce a
short break and give 1 or 2 questions to the students. Then, I will ask them to spend 5
minutes to write down their answers. Next, I will encourage students to share their thoughts
with others and make the classroom teaching more interesting and enjoyable.
Overall, I believe that teaching should not be limited to a process for a lecturer to talk to the
class all the time. Rather, the lecturer should be able to develop students' ability of critical
thinking and problem solving skills. This goal could be more effectively achieved through
students' active learning in the class.
Part 3: Final Reviewers Response.
This peer review was a very satisfying process because Dr Frank engaged with it so
enthusiastically and has indicated his intentions to make some significant changes to his
lecturing style and his approach to the design of his topic. In the debriefing meeting Dr Frank
demonstrated a developing, thoughtful and informed appreciation of the learning needs of his
students and a conception of teaching as a means of meeting those needs rather than just
imparting content. It is clear that Dr Frank enjoys and is enthusiastic about his teaching and is
willing to expend effort in improving. He has been a willing participant and active learner in
the Flinders FOUT programme, and is actively looking for opportunities to apply new ideas
into practice.
Dr Frank has genuinely used this peer review process as a means of incremental quality
improvement of his students’ learning experiences in his classrooms.
Dr Janice Orrell
Academic Coordinator.
2