Final reflection on PRT
I spent a great deal of time on the peer review of teaching component in this program. Perhaps the most challenging aspect of the process was logistical: finding time to meet, discuss, negotiate, analyze and discuss again what was uncovered in the processes. As a reviewer I felt I got more out of the process: trying to be a fair, comprehensive, forthright and collegial reviewer requires focus. By defintion the process of refining standards of performance and performance criteria for others’ (plural being critical here) teaching becomes embedded in one’s own.
In terms of my teaching being reviewed, I got some valuable feedback from one colleague and a mediocre effort from another–and an unwillingness to engage a conversation about the latter. Disappointing, but not heartbreaking. While I understand the value of a diverse cohort of program participants, someone working wholly outside of the university teaching paradigm perhaps does not have much to offer their cohort mates–since they are not, in fact, peers in practice.
The theme of online learning’s absence from the purposeful discourse in online learning PRT is not one that caused me much heartache (or surprised me very much either). I have found it enervating looking for examples, research and best practices. And am inspired to write about this as a SoTL sidebar: reflections on an online university educator seeking best practices for formative and summative peer review of online university teaching. I would love to bound it a bit further and say “post-graduate teaching”…but won’t!