Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

Trends in Higher EducationTrends in Higher Education
PDF
  • Review
  • Open Access

12 October 2026

15 Pages

What Is Observed in Peer Review of Teaching? Quality Standards for Summative Peer Review of Teaching

,
and
1
School of Education and Pro Vice-Chancellor Education Portfolio, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2033, Australia
2
School of Education, Faculty of Arts, Macquarie University, Sydney 2109, Australia
3
Council of Australasian University Leaders for Learning and Teaching, Maroubra South 2035, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Trends High. Educ.2026, 5(4), 114;https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu5040114
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Peer review of teaching is a relatively recent addition to the quality assurance processes of higher education. Formative peer review has a developmental focus, while summative peer review has an evaluative focus, making judgements against standards. These standards are at the core of the Summative Peer Review of Teaching (SPRoT) process. The SPRoT review project, which forms the focus of this paper, identified three key challenges associated with current standards at an Australian university, highlighting the need to critically re-examine and revitalise the standards. The subsequent review adopted an Action Research methodology underpinned by reflective practice theory to investigate these quality standards for peer review of teaching. Four cycles of Action Research are outlined in relation to the embedded single case study of a large metropolitan university. The outcome was six quality teaching standards for use with summative peer review of teaching. The standards are presented with the scholarly evidence-base that underpins each, together with observable indicators for each standard, that is, identifying what is observed in peer review of teaching.

1. Introduction

Peer review of teaching (PRoT) in higher education emerged in the second half of the 20th century, predominantly in Anglo-American countries [1,2]. Interest in PRoT initially arose from within the academy itself. Advocates of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) promoted review by peers as acts of academic autonomy and self-determination [3], lessening reliance on student evaluations of teaching [4].
By the 1990s, PRoT had also been imposed on universities by external agencies. Governments increasingly linked university funding and accreditation to evidence of teaching quality and national and transnational quality assurance agencies (e.g., the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) in Australia or the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) in the UK) and sought to position universities in an increasingly globalised higher education sector. Internal and cross-institutional PROT became a tool for evidencing teaching quality [5].
Peer review has now been recognised as a “multidimensional approach to evaluating teaching effectiveness” [6] (p. 4) that promotes a focus on academic development and collegiality [7], enhances quality teaching [8], and student learning [9]. Yet, across the sector, resistance to peer review persists, including a general scepticism of its benefits. One strategy to address this scepticism and achieve an effective peer review initiative is to have a robust structure [4] based on universal standards [10]. Standards reflect the “substantive domain” or component of a peer review programme [11] (p. 4) and provide the “foundational” structure [7] (p. 28) or “program factor” [12] (p. 397) for sustainable implementation.
Any PRoT initiative needs to be founded on a robust scholarly base to ensure its credibility. This is especially true for Summative Peer Review of Teaching (SPRoT) as it involves “peers reviewing one another to generate evidence for personnel decisions, such as promotions, performance appraisals, probations or awards” [13] (p. 4). In the absence of a universally agreed definition for quality teaching, it is necessary to develop criteria which can act as proxy standards for quality teaching [14]. Historically, standards for SPRoT across Australia were established through a national, multi-institutional learning and teaching project, referred to as “Dimensions of Teaching” [15] (and Table 1). These standards determined what was observed in peer review of teaching.

1.1. Background

After three years of a SPRoT initiative at a large metropolitan, research-intensive university in Australia, it was time for a quality review as part of the university’s quality assurance and quality enhancement (QA and QE) framework. The university delivers programmes across multiple campuses and, at the time of the review, had over 63,000 students representing more than 160 countries, covering a range of disciplines (including the arts, engineering, business, science and medicine).
The SPRoT initiative engaged 156 academic peer reviewers who had been trained to observe the teaching of their peers. Reviewers reported their observations against a set of nine dimensions or standards (adapted from Crisp and colleagues [15]). After each review, reviewers were invited to provide feedback on their experience, thereby contributing to the quality process.
Ongoing feedback and quality assurance data suggested that changes were needed to maintain a good fit with the university culture and to improve the quality of the initiative. Three issues about the current standards were identified: the research evidence underpinning the standards, a shared understanding of the standards, and whether the indicators for each standard were indeed observable.
In practice, these standards, called dimensions, were regularly questioned and even challenged by academics who, entrained by their disciplinary research, expected evidence of a sound scholarly basis. (The original SPRoT framework was made up of eight “dimensions” to act as the criteria for evaluating good teaching and each had indicators, or examples, of what could be observed for that dimension. The outcome of the review replaced “dimension” with “standards” as the term for the criteria to evaluate good teaching and retained the structure of indicators for each standard). When the genesis of the dimensions was examined as part of the university quality review process, publicly available information offered only scant evidence of their grounding in scholarship. Secondly, there was no shared understanding among reviewers and reviewees of what each dimension meant in practice. For example, an audit of the dimensions that were selected by reviewees revealed that Dimension 3, “Teaching caters for student diversity”, was less frequently, or in some departments, never selected as part of a SPRoT. (It was selected at half the rate as other dimensions over three years). Two reasons provided for this were that this dimension “was difficult to determine” and “not generally understood” [16].
Indicators have been provided for each of the original dimensions to guide reviewers with examples of what could be observed. The review process undertaken by the project team—consisting of three staff located within a central learning and teaching unit, including an Academic Director, Senior Lecturer (Academic Development) and Manager responsible for operationalising the peer review initiative—revealed that some of the indicators were not observable or well understood in practice, for example, building student confidence or catering for cultural diversity. Overall, both the dimensions and indicators were judged to require a more rigorous scholarly foundation.
The project team identified a need to develop new standards, formerly called dimensions, to better reflect contemporary scholarship, empirical evidence and institutional culture—all recognised characteristics of a quality peer review programme [13]. Despite the growing use of summative peer review of teaching, there remains limited guidance on the development of evidence-based standards that are fit for contemporary higher education contexts. These issues inspired and informed the design of the Summative Peer Review of Teaching (SPRoT) quality review project.
Responding to a call by Devlin and Samarawickrema [17] (p. 29) for standards to be “re-interrogated, reconsidered, revised and updated”, the SPRoT quality review process addressed the following question: “What are the evidence-based standards of quality teaching?” to underpin a model for SPRoT. In simple terms, what can, and what should we observe in peer review of teaching?

1.2. Quality Teaching

Establishing standards firstly requires serious consideration of what is meant by quality teaching—a concept long discussed and debated, sustaining an “enduring interest” [17] (p. 23). Measuring teaching quality is increasingly driven by a need for metrics [18], and this extends to SPRoT.
While there can be disciplinary differences in how quality teaching is perceived [19], as well as differences between academic and student perspectives, there are many common characteristics across values, methods and skills such as establishing clear expectations and structures [20]. “Quality teaching must be thought of dynamically, in light of contextual shifts in the higher education environments” [21] (p. 10) as a concept that needs continuous investigation [22]. Consequently, these concepts are “highly varied and in constant flux” [21] (p. 10).
As a result, defining teaching quality or excellence remains a “challenge” [20] (p. 9). At its most basic, however, it is “the use of pedagogical techniques to produce learning outcomes for students” [23] (p. 7). This provides the conceptual basis for the SPRoT review project. Our position is that, although teaching quality is complex and contested, peer review requires a shared and observable basis for evaluation. Integral to the project is therefore a need to identify and reaffirm observable “pedagogical techniques” for the SPRoT process. Recognising the complexity of the concept of quality teaching and the lack of a consensus regarding its definition [24], the project follows the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) [25] in not adopting a single universal definition. Instead, it respectfully defers to institutional definitions.

2. Materials and Methods

The SPRoT review was an Action Research project, suitable for research in higher education contexts [26] with the steps of Plan, Act, Observe and Reflect. This embeds and aligns with reflection as our theoretical approach [27]. The project adopts an embedded, single case study [28] as the research methodology: “The essence of a case study, the central tendency among all types of case study, is that it tries to illuminate a decision or set of decisions: why they were taken, how they were implemented, and with what results” [29] (p. 6).
A case study methodology is appropriate if a contemporary event or phenomenon is being studied [28], which, in this case, is the use of current standards for SPRoT within the context of the case university. The case university presented a critical case as it was the only university in Australia engaged with systematic summative peer review of teaching at an institution-wide level at the time the research was initiated. This meant the research project had “access to a situation previously inaccessible to empirical study” [29] (p. 52) and provided the rationale for its selection. The validity and generalisation of findings can be enhanced by engaging methodological rigour, multiple methods and sources of data [30], as outlined in Table 1. The approach to data collection was informed by the theoretical approach of reflection and uses Brookfield’s four lenses to ensure multiple unobtrusive data sources [31]. The case study approach allows for the in-depth investigation of a phenomenon. While generalisations of the findings cannot be made across the higher education sector broadly, the key learnings contribute new knowledge to inform peer review programmes in other contexts.
The embedded unit of analysis is each dimension, or principle, of SPRoT. The project focuses on the process [32] of why and how the standards that frame SPRoT are decided and enacted, and how those standards can be revised and updated. Iterative Action Research cycles [33] of plan, act, observe and reflect were completed for the project, spanning a period over three years. Each step in the Action Research cycle is not always linear; rather, there is a constant interplay between cycles and with reflection informing every decision. An example of this reflective interplay can be seen in the approach to the literature review, which started very traditionally as a first step in cycle 1, but required a revisit in cycle 3 to support the new standards which had been developed (Table 1).
Table 1. Unobtrusive data matrix categorised by Brookfield’s reflective lenses [31] *.

2.1. Action Research Cycle 1

The iterative Action Research cycles started with planning and enacting a systematic inquiry [34] to investigate the development of the original standards for summative peer review and how they aligned with the case university context and culture. The plan for a review was initiated by a university multi-faculty working group including Associate Deans of Learning and Teaching. The success of any peer review initiative is dependent upon its alignment with faculty [35]. The case university held a set of seven evidence-based “beliefs about learning” [36], as shown in Table 2, which provided scholarly guidance for the learning and teaching culture at the university for over a decade. Alignment of a peer review initiative with the beliefs about learning would, in turn, strengthen alignment with university culture. The project team observed that the development of the original standards for summative peer review [15] was found to have been influenced by a precursor version of these beliefs, amongst other factors. Reflecting on and evaluating the fact that there was an alignment between the dimensions of the peer review programme with the university’s beliefs about learning (Table 2) was a positive outcome in the process. A literature review was undertaken to ensure research currency of the beliefs and that their contemporary validity was affirmed, i.e., the beliefs continued to be supported by and/or extended by the current literature.
Table 2. Evolution from dimensions to standards of quality teaching for SPRoT.

2.2. Action Research Cycle 2

The second Action Research cycle re-interrogated the alignment between the original standards (called “dimensions”) and the university by planning to map the standards against each of the university’s seven beliefs to identify alignment and gaps. The research team were responsible for acting out this process. The intention was to propose the beliefs as the new standards of quality teaching, ensuring an alignment between university culture and peer review. It was observed that the mapping displayed good alignment between beliefs and standards. The mapping of dimensions and beliefs about learning with the new standards is summarised in Table 2. These results were shared with the university’s reference group who reviewed the mapping document and encouraged us to continue redeveloping the standards.

2.3. Action Research Cycle 3

To plan a redevelopment of the standards, an inductive approach [37] was employed by the project team to re-interrogate, reconsider, revise and update the original standards [17]. Additional research was consulted. The new standards underwent expert review (observe and reflect) by the university’s peer review reference group which resulted in some changes to wording and ensured that each standard started with a verb to emphasise the activity of teaching.
Next, new criteria for indicators were developed for each of the standards as follows:
  • Framed as an observable teacher action (not student action);
  • Observable within the observation timeframe, that is, not based on what might have happened before or might happen later;
  • Focused on good teaching practice, not personal attributes (such as a strong voice).
All stakeholders supported the new standards and their indicators and were confident that they should be formalised.

2.4. Action Research Cycle 4

The standards were then mapped, or aligned, to the organisational culture and to the scholarly research which provided evidence for each. The final plan for action was to present the new standards for review and endorsement by the university’s academic governance bodies. This was achieved as a consensus had been reached with all stakeholders prior, including reviewees, reviewers, the executive and administrators. To activate the new standards, supportive resources were designed and developed, including reviewer reporting templates, a university book of guidelines, new reviewee and reviewer workshops and an updated website.
It needs to be noted that individual standards are in practice interrelated and interdependent as part of a holistic pedagogical ecosystem. When an observer is focusing, for example, on the principle of diversity, this principle is also specifically related to engaged and active learning.
Originally the case study university relied on eight standards (originally called dimensions) plus an option for the reviewee to determine their own area for review [15]. Some of the standards and their indicators were challenged by the project team, reviewers and reviewees. Following interrogation of the original standards, together with consideration of the cultural context of the institution (including the beliefs about learning [36]), the outcome was the development of six standards for SPRoT. (The progression is depicted in Table 2).

3. Results and Discussion: Standards of Quality Teaching for SPRoT

When undertaking SPRoT, a fundamental question is “what is observed in peer review of teaching?” The new standards of quality teaching address this question. Each of the six standards is now presented together with the supporting research evidence. The standards are simply numbered for ease of reference only. Examples of what the observable indicators for each principle may be in practice are then provided.

3.1. Engages Students in Active Learning

A holistic approach was adopted to examine student engagement from multiple perspectives; that is behavioural, psychological and socio-cultural factors reveal that student engagement is a complex process [38]. This process “occurs within an educational interface at the intersection of the student and their characteristics and background, and the institution and its practices” [39] (p. 59). Leach and Zepke [40] present six key dimensions impacting engagement: motivation and agency, transactional engagement with teachers and with students, institutional support, active citizenship, and non-institutional support. Of these dimensions, “transactional engagement with teachers and with students” can be observed.
A systematic review of 30 years of predominantly US and Australian studies on student engagement ironically notes that there has been little, if any research which captures the student voice on student engagement [41]. So, what does student engagement mean to students themselves? UK research suggests that student engagement comprises three factors: having a unique identity, group and peer expectations, and the desire to gain new skills and experiences [42]. Interpersonal relationships matter as students associate with teachers who engage them from the beginning of lectures as high-quality teachers [20]. Teachers who actively engage students are demonstrating quality teaching practices [23]. Other models for student engagement encompass factors such as communicating expectations (refer to Section 5), inclusiveness (refer to Section 3.6), working in teams for problem-based learning and active teaching strategies [43].
Student engagement has a positive effect on student motivation [44], which, in turn, supports the attainment of learning outcomes [45]. Student engagement and learning can be enhanced through active learning [46,47,48], which engages students in the process of learning and constructing knowledge and understanding, through activities and discussions in class, as opposed to passive listening. It focuses on higher-order thinking and commonly features group work [49]. Students make sense of new ideas or experiences and develop as autonomous learners [50], while the teacher adopts the role of facilitator [51].
Active learning has been contrasted to “traditional” transmission modes of instruction in which teachers do most of the talking and students are passive. Hence, active learning represents a paradigm shift towards a student-centred approach. Even though an active learning activity can be as short as a few minutes long, nearly half of observed lecturers do not enable active learning [52]. Active learning can be supported with a wide range of learning and teaching strategies, for example: collaborative learning; experiential learning; inquiry-based instruction; inquiry-guided learning; problem-based learning; and self-regulated learning [53,54].
Observable indicators of engaging students with active learning include:
  • Providing student-centred activities such as “think, pair, share” or “turn and talk”;
  • Engaging students in group activities such as brainstorming;
  • Questioning students;
  • Supporting students to pose new questions;
  • Encouraging problem solving through online polling and immediate feedback;
  • Utilising reflective activities such as minute papers.

3.2. Builds on Students’ Existing Knowledge

To support student learning, we need to know our students and acknowledge that they have individual histories of learning so that we can understand how to best enhance their ongoing development. Therefore, learning activities should connect new content with students’ existing knowledge, skills and values while also extending and challenging their current ways of thinking and acting [36]. Drawing on socio-cultural theory of learning, the concepts of “Zone of Proximal Development” (ZPD) and “scaffolding” provide foundational guidance for this teaching standard. The central tenet of this approach is that students learn in social contexts and through social interactions: between educators and students and between students and their peers.
ZPD refers to the “the distance between the actual development level…and the level for potential development” [55] (p. 86), or the distance between what learners can “do by themselves and what they can do with the help of others” [56] (p. 87). Scaffolding is “a process of teaching within the ZPD” [57] (p. 16) where educators provide support for students to attain a challenging, but achievable, learning goal before incrementally removing the support [58]. Setting challenging learning goals can increase student motivation [59] (see also “Challenges and supports student learning”) and this has positive outcomes for academic performance. Scaffolding can accelerate the pace at which learning occurs.
Observable indicators of building on students’ existing knowledge include:
  • Breaking learning activities into achievable steps;
  • Seeking student feedback and adapting teaching in response to this;
  • Providing constructive feedback so students know they are progressing towards their learning goals;
  • Accepting mistakes as part of the learning process;
  • Modelling solutions to learning activities and supporting students to do the same;
  • Encouraging social interaction, through discussions or group activities where students collaborate to solve a problem and to connect to prior knowledge.

3.3. Links Learning to Professional, Disciplinary, Industry and/or Personal Contexts

For learning to be effective, it should ideally be purposeful, situated and authentic. Purposeful learning means that new knowledge is processed in a way that is personally relevant and applicable to real-life/professional situations and contexts, which promotes learner motivation and deeper engagement [60]. When learning is embedded within authentic contexts of practice, students complete increasingly complex tasks through engagement in social communities [61]. This develops their knowledge and capabilities in meaningful ways. Through low-stakes tasks, novice learners apply knowledge in authentic settings, interacting and collaborating with peers (through communities of practice). Gradually, they become more independent and engage in more complex activities, thus transitioning into the role of an expert. This often, unintentional process, is called “legitimate peripheral participation” [61]. It connects students’ existing knowledge, extending and applying it to new contexts, thereby integrating theory and practice.
Evidence to support the use of learning communities in authentic contexts has been reported across numerous disciplines and approaches to learning (e.g., e-learning and work-integrated learning) (e.g., [62,63]). In work-integrated learning for example, students actively engage in work-related tasks in the same way a professional would be expected to and receive feedback from a workplace supervisor [63]. Assessment tasks are similarly designed to support development of employability skills by providing opportunities for students to demonstrate the application of skills and knowledge in authentic work-based tasks.
Herrington and colleagues [64] provide a useful framework of innovative authentic learning design, distinguishing between formal learning situations and future applications of learning. The nine key elements include: an authentic context to applying knowledge to life; authentic tasks; access to expert performances and modelling of processes; multiple roles and perspectives; collaborative construction of knowledge; reflection (on real life situations/professional contexts); articulation; coaching and scaffolding; and authentic assessment.
Observable indicators linking professional, personal and disciplinary knowledge include:
  • Utilising case studies reflecting real-life scenarios;
  • Providing examples from professional, disciplinary, industry and/or personal contexts;
  • Incorporating group/teamwork learning activities;
  • Embedding reflection activities where students connect their area of study to their personal life and/or future professional practice;
  • Inviting industry/community guest speakers who can provide examples from disciplinary/industry professional contexts and speak to professional values;
  • Providing opportunities for, and referring to, work-integrated learning, field trips, volunteering and simulations.

3.4. Challenges and Supports Student Learning

For students to learn, teaching must take them beyond the transmission and recalling of content and actively engage them in the learning process. Drawing on Bloom’s revised taxonomy [65], this means that students are challenged to apply, analyse and evaluate what they have learned or even create knowledge, depending on the level of understanding. This can be achieved in different ways. Experiential learning design engages students by applying knowledge to real-life or simulated activities and contexts and prepares them for future employment [66]. In the process, students not only extend their understanding of content, but also acquire skills in cognitive, social and affective domains [67,68].
Application of knowledge alone, however, is not sufficient. If students are to be challenged to analyse and evaluate their learning, the lecturer must also incorporate requirements for reflection and awareness of the students’ intuitive and emotional responses to the task and their learning [69].
Challenging students’ learning and encouraging them to extend themselves beyond what has been presented to them requires venturing into unfamiliar territories. This, in turn, means supporting their cognitive and emotional risk-taking. To a degree, this can be achieved through careful task design. Where tasks require collaboration and teamwork, the potential for learning communities and mutual support among students have been created. This does not absolve lecturers from supporting them through the provision of technologies and tools [70].
Chalmers and colleagues [71] offer indicative criteria for teaching and supporting student learning from which we can extrapolate observable indicators, for example:
  • Encouraging active student participation;
  • Explaining concepts simply and checking students’ understanding;
  • Supporting students who encounter difficulties;
  • Enacting a range of teaching activities;
  • Integrating examples and resources from different countries and from industry.

3.5. Communicates Expectations and Requirements

The importance of clearly communicating expectations and requirements of learning to students is well recognised in higher education. Learning is effective when it is purposeful, when the reasons for study are explicit and attractive, and when students understand what is expected of them. Several studies have pointed to mismatched expectations between university teachers and students, with the consequences being a less satisfying learning experience, student disengagement and poorer learning outcomes (e.g., [72]). When learning activities and assessment tasks are aligned with students’ discipline, academic programmes, and more broadly, personal/career interests and/or future professional work, this can promote motivation, engagement, learning and achievement [73]. Having an aligned and connected curriculum, however, is not sufficient; the connections must also be made explicit to students [74].
This can be achieved by having clear learning outcomes which are aligned to learning activities and assessment [75]. Communicating with students in face to face and online environments [76,77] about (and expectations for) class preparation/participation, assessment tasks, engaging with feedback, grading and other aspects of the course is also important. The importance of communication to student learning is also reflected by recent theoretical developments in the higher education literature such as the concept of feedback literacy, which emphasises the need for two-way communication via facilitating dialogue with learners to improve their engagement with feedback [78]. Clearly communicating expectations and requirements is crucial for ensuring students understand what is expected of them and to create a positive learning environment.
Observable indicators for communicating expectations and requirements include:
  • Aligning learning outcomes to learning activities and assessment tasks and restating these in class to make explicit connections between the session and other parts of the curriculum.
  • Establishing and facilitating dialogue with students around expectations and requirements relating to:
    ○
    Class attendance;
    ○
    Preparation and participation;
    ○
    Assessment tasks;
    ○
    Quality and standards of submitted work;
    ○
    Academic integrity;
    ○
    Student–teacher interactions;
    ○
    Group work, etc.
  • Fostering an environment of open communication so students feel comfortable to seek help.
  • Regularly reviewing important information, such as upcoming deadlines, assessment expectations, etc., to reinforce understanding and remind students of their responsibilities.

3.6. Caters for Student Diversity

As the number of students engaging in higher education grows, so too does student diversity. Many universities have policies and strategies to support student diversity and may need to address relevant national legislation as well. The scope of diversity and inclusivity can be broad and include age, gender, ethnicity and culture, LGBTIQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer or questioning), and regional location to name a few. Cognitive styles and approaches to learning can differ among students [79,80]. Educators can support their students using a range of learning and teaching activities, methods and modes. The content of the formal curriculum needs to be diversified, led by students, and have hidden curriculum made explicit. Utilising a variety of assessment methods and choices as well as employing active learning strategies and promoting interaction between teachers and learners, are useful approaches [81].
Diverse cohorts can promote rich classroom discussions, integrating multiple ideas and perspectives. In turn, educators need to know their students [82] so that they can design and deliver a curriculum to engage a diverse cohort of students that is accessible as well as relevant and meaningful. Educators should engage students “by encouraging them to draw on and apply their own and others’ knowledge” [82] (p. 47). This approach “embraces a view of the individual and individual difference as the source of diversity that can enrich the lives and learning of others” [83] (p. 1).
Applying the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) enables inclusive curriculum design, development and delivery. Embracing learner variability and designing for it by applying multiple strategies to cater for differences in learning preferences and approaches can reduce barriers to learning and create a sense of belonging. The three key principles are for educators to provide multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression [84].
When observing teachers for the principle of diversity, the focus should be on how the principles of UDL are being enacted, for example:
  • Ensuring subject materials are representative of diverse student populations;
  • Acknowledging a wide range of interactions and viewpoints;
  • Presenting information in a range of media;
  • Engaging students in ways that take into account individual goals, preferences, abilities and/or interests (e.g., flexibly designing learning activities/assessments);
  • Applying multiple strategies to cater for differences in learning approaches, e.g., visual infographics as well as text (see Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework and guidelines: https://www.cast.org/).

4. Limitations and Future Research

These standards are offered with the caveat that while they were influenced by international research, they were developed within a single Australasian university, and shaped by its specific institutional culture, policies and quality assurance processes. Therefore, in offering the standards to higher education colleagues, they need to be adopted with respect, and possibly adapted, to an “appropriate geopolitical perspective for the context” to ensure alignment [17] (p. 28). Furthermore, to ensure the quality of the whole peer review process, there are many steps which need to be followed; this is the focus of a separate paper [13].
The new standards have not yet been empirically validated following their implementation, or tested across different institutions, disciplines and national contexts. This suggests multiple opportunities for future research, including the need to validate the standards and their associated indicators across different institutions, nationally and internationally, and more broadly to a diverse range of higher education providers beyond universities. We also believe that the standards would equally be applicable to formative peer review of teaching; thus, another implication would be the application of the standards to a range of peer review contexts.
Furthermore, we acknowledge the limitation of a reliance on unobtrusive data, that is, institutional documents, project-team reflections and unsolicited stakeholder feedback. Therefore, a recommendation is for future research to draw upon a range of data collection methods and sources and expand to quantitative analysis. As the research team was directly involved in developing and operationalising the initiative, there was also the potential for subconscious biases. The iterative relationship between the Action Research stages of planning, action, observation and reflection were not documented with the same level of detail across the cycles. The recommendation is for action researchers to plan for and maintain detailed documentation of every stage of every cycle.
Finally, since the indicators focus on practices observable within a limited review period, care should be taken not to interpret these as encompassing every dimension of teaching quality or as direct evidence of improved student learning outcomes.

5. Conclusions

In answering the research question of “What are the evidence-based standards of quality teaching (to underpin a model for SPRoT)?” existing standards for peer review include “re-interrogated, reconsidered, revised and updated” [17] (p. 29). Simply stated, we answer what is, can be, or should be observed in peer review. The contribution of this research is the development of six new scholarly and evidenced-based standards of quality teaching (Table 2) which extend previously established dimensions [15]. Having applied these dimensions at scale at a research-intensive university, and having critically evaluated them, it is our recommendation that the six new standards replace previously established standards (dimensions) [15] for summative peer review observations. The new standards can be used in formal peer observations programmes or individually to benchmark teaching quality against the standards.
While the standards were developed within a specific context of an Australian university, the challenges it sought to address are not unique to Australia. Hence, the principles underpinning them provide a useful starting point as they are likely applicable to a range of higher education settings with contextual adaptation to align with their own policies, cultures and quality assurance processes. Adapting the standards and their indicators provides flexibility for developing and customising reporting templates and other supportive resources to best align with different higher education contexts and reflect the culture of the institution. When adapting the examples of indicators for each of the standards, we stress that indicators must be observable, specifically within the time period of the review. A single review does not necessarily need to focus on all the standards and all the indicators, as it may be more appropriate and relevant to focus on a selection of standards and indicators. Peer review of teaching will continue to play an important role in ensuring good teaching practices and enhancing quality teaching. The proposed standards are offered as a contemporary perspective with clear evidence-based indicators. We conclude with a call for other universities to make use of the standards and their associated indicators to continue the ongoing development of peer review teaching process.

Author Contributions

All authors (A.D.R., M.H. and C.J.-T.) contributed to project planning and conceptualisation, literature reviews, data analysis, manuscript preparation, and manuscript editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analysed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
PRoTPeer review of teaching
SPRoTSummative peer review of teaching

References

  1. Bell, M.; Cooper, P. Implementing departmental peer observation of teaching in universities. In Peer Review of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education; Sachs, J., Parsell, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 151–164. [Google Scholar]
  2. Harris-Huemmert, S.; Mitterauer, L.; Pohlenz, P. Evaluation im Kontext der Hochschule. In Evaluation in Deutschland und Österreich—Stand und Entwicklungsperspektiven in den Arbeitsfeldern der DeGEval—Gesellschaft für Evaluation; Böttcher, W., Kerlen, C., Maats, P., Schwab, O., Sheikh, S., Eds.; Waxmann: Münster, Germany, 2014; pp. 167–182. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hutchings, P. The peer review of teaching: Progress, issues, and prospects. Innov. High. Educ. 1996, 20, 221–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. de Moel-Mandel, C.; Gupta, S.; Buenfil, F.N.; Anderson, K. From peer observation to collegiality: Breaking down silos and dissolving boundaries in tertiary education. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2026. advance online publication. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Chalmers, D. Recognising and Rewarding Teaching: Australian Teaching Criteria and Standards and Expert Peer Review; Office for Learning and Teaching: Sydney, Australia, 2019.
  6. Godbout-Kinney, K.; Watson, G.P.L. Institutional approaches to evaluate teaching effectiveness: The role of summative peer review of teaching for promotion and tenure. Can. J. Educ. Adm. Policy 2022, 201, 2–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Cutroni, L.; Paladino, A. Peer-ing in: A systematic review and framework of peer review of teaching in higher education. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2023, 133, 104302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Hendry, G.D.; Georgiou, H.; Lloyd, H.; Tzioumis, V.; Herkes, S.; Sharma, M.D. ‘It’s hard to grow when you’re stuck on your own’: Enhancing teaching through a peer observation and review of teaching program. Int. J. Acad. Dev. 2021, 26, 54–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Marchant, J.; Gonzalez, C.; Faure, J. The impact of a university teaching development programme on student approaches to studying and learning experience: Evidence from Chile. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2018, 43, 697–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Iqbal, I. Faculty Members’ Professional Growth in Teaching Through the Summative Peer Review of Teaching and Other Departmental Practices. Doctoral Dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Harper, M.; Patfield, S.; Gore, J.; Prieto-Rodriguez, E. A new pedagogical approach to peer review of teaching in higher education. Int. J. Acad. Dev. 2026. advance online publication. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Johnston, A.L.; Baik, C.; Chester, A. Peer review of teaching in Australian higher education: A systematic review. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2022, 41, 390–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Harvey, M.; Rowe, A.; Jacenyik-Trawoger, C. Quality indicators for summative peer review of teaching. Teach. Dev. 2026, 30, 22–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Krause, K. A quality approach to university teaching. In University Teaching in Focus: A Learning-Centred Approach, 2nd ed.; Hunt, L., Chalmers, D., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 304–327. [Google Scholar]
  15. Crisp, G.; Sadler, R.; Krause, K.-L.; Buckridge, M.; Wills, S.; Brown, C.; McLean, J.; Dalton, H.; Le Lievre, K.; Brougham, B. Peer Review of Teaching for Promotion Purposes; Australian Learning and Teaching Council: Sydney, Australia, 2009.
  16. UNSW. Summative Paper Review of Teaching Forum; Unpublished Report; UNSW: Kensington, Australia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  17. Devlin, M.; Samarawickrema, G. A commentary on the criteria of effective teaching in post-COVID higher education. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2022, 41, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Bamber, R. Our Days Are Numbered: Metrics, Managerialism and Academic Development; SEDA Paper 125; Staff and Education Development Association: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  19. Greatbatch, D.; Holland, J. Teaching Quality in Higher Education: Literature Review and Qualitative Research; Department for Business, Innovation and Skills: London, UK, 2016.
  20. Page, N.; Burden, P.; Poma, S. Defining high-quality teaching: Perceptions of students and academics. Educ. Dev. 2022, 23, 9–12. [Google Scholar]
  21. Henard, F. Learning Our Lesson: Review of Quality Teaching in Higher Education; OECD Publications: Paris, France, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Devlin, M.; Samarawickrema, G. The criteria of effective teaching in a changing higher education context. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2010, 29, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Henard, F.; Roseveare, D. Fostering Quality Teaching in Higher Education: Policies and Practices; OECD: Paris, France, 2012; Available online: https://www.oecd.org/education/imhe/QT%20policies%20and%20practices.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2026).
  24. Harrison, R.; Meyer, L.; Rawstorne, P.; Razee, H.; Chitkara, U.; Mears, S.; Balasooriya, C. Evaluating and Enhancing Quality in Higher Education Teaching Practice: A Meta-Review. Stud. High. Educ. 2022, 47, 80–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Henard, F.; Leprince-Ringuet, S. The Path to Quality Teaching in Higher Education; OECD: Paris, France, 2008; Available online: https://www.oecd.org/education/imhe/44150246.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2026).
  26. Zuber-Skerritt, O. An educational framework for participatory action learning and action research (PALAR). Educ. Action Res. 2018, 26, 513–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Fook, J. Reflective practice and critical reflection. In Handbook for Practice Learning in Social Work and Social Care: Knowledge and Theory, 3rd ed.; Lishman, J., Ed.; Jessica Kingsley: London, UK, 2015; pp. 440–454. [Google Scholar]
  28. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 6th ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  29. Schramm, W. Notes on Case Studies of Instructional Media Projects; Institute for Communication Research: Stanford, CA, USA, 1971. [Google Scholar]
  30. Rozsahegyi, T. Case study. In Practical Research Methods in Education: An Early Researcher’s Critical Guide; Lambert, M., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; pp. 124–131. [Google Scholar]
  31. Brookfield, S.D. Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher, 2nd ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  32. Miles, M.B.; Huberman, A.M.; Saldaña, J. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, 4th ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kemmis, S.; McTaggart, R.; Nixon, R. The Action Research Planner: Doing Critical Participatory Action Research; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  34. Daniel, B.K.; Harland, T. Higher Education Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide to the Research Process; Routledge: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  35. Teoh, S.L.; Ming, L.C.; Khan, T.M. Faculty perceived barriers and attitudes toward peer review of classroom teaching in higher education settings: A meta-synthesis. SAGE Open 2016, 6, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Lee, A.; Scoufis, M. Guidelines on Learning That Inform Teaching at UNSW; UNSW Learning and Teaching Unit: Sydney, Australia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  37. Saldaña, J. Thinking Qualitatively: Methods of Mind; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kahu, E.R. Framing student engagement in higher education. Stud. High. Educ. 2013, 38, 758–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Kahu, E.R.; Nelson, K. Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2018, 37, 58–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Leach, L.; Zepke, N. Student engagement in learning: Facets of a complex interaction. In Engaging with Learning in Higher Education; Solomonides, I., Reid, A., Petocz, P., Eds.; Libri Publishing: London, UK, 2012; pp. 231–255. [Google Scholar]
  41. Trowler, V. Student Engagement Literature Review; Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University: Lancaster, UK, 2010; Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6d0c/5f9444fc4e92cca76fe9f426bd107e837a9f.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2026).
  42. Ratcliffe, A.; Dimmock, A. What does student engagement mean to students? In The Student Engagement Handbook: Practice in Higher Education; Dunne, D., Owen, D., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.: Bingley, UK, 2013; pp. 59–76. [Google Scholar]
  43. Li, S.; Kwok, S.W.H.; Siu, S.C.N.; Chung, J.Y.S.; Lam, H.C.Y.; Tsang, E.Y.M.; Li, K.C.; Yeung, J.W.Y.; Lam, S.C. Development of generic student engagement scale in higher education: An application on healthcare students. Nurs. Open 2023, 10, 1545–1555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  44. Owens, D.C.; Sadler, T.D.; Barlow, A.T.; Smith-Walters, C. Student motivation from and resistance to active learning rooted in essential science practices. Res. Sci. Educ. 2020, 50, 253–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Linnenbrink-Garcia, L.; Patall, E.A. Motivation. In Handbook of Educational Psychology, 3rd ed.; Corno, L., Anderman, E.M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 91–103. [Google Scholar]
  46. Baldwin, L. Editorial. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2018, 19, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Perks, T.; Orr, D.; Al-Omari, E. Classroom re-design to facilitate student learning: A case study of changes to a university classroom. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. 2016, 16, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Deslauriers, L.; McCarty, L.S.; Miller, K.; Callaghan, K.; Kestin, G. Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 19251–19527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  49. Freeman, S.; Eddy, S.L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M.K.; Okoroafor, N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M.P. Active learning boosts performance in science, engineering, and mathematics courses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 8410–8415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  50. Murphy, M.P.A. Active learning as destituent potential: Agambenian philosophy of education and moderate steps towards the coming politics. Educ. Philos. Theory 2020, 52, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. European University Association (EUA). Learning and Teaching Paper #5: Promoting Active Learning in Universities: Thematic Peer Group Report; EUA: Brussels, Belgium, 2019; Available online: https://cora.ucc.ie/bitstream/handle/10468/7672/eua_tpg_report_5-_promoting_active_learning_in_universities.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 8 May 2026).
  52. Noben, I.; Folkert Deinum, J.; Adriaan Hofman, W.H. Quality of teaching in higher education: Reviewing teaching behaviour through classroom observations. Int. J. Acad. Dev. 2022, 27, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Dzaiy, A.H.S.; Abdullah, S.A. The use of active learning strategies to foster effective teaching in higher education institutions. Zanco J. Hum. Sci. 2024, 28, 328–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Wittayakom, S.; Kanjanavisutt, C.; Rumpagaporn, M.W. Online training by active learning approaches: A systematic literature review. High. Educ. Stud. 2024, 14, p53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  56. Krause, K.; Duchesne, S.; Bochner, S.; McMaugh, A. Educational Psychology for Learning and Teaching, 4th ed.; Cengage Learning Australia: Melbourne, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  57. Shvarts, A.; Bakker, A. The early history of the scaffolding metaphor: Bernstein, Luria, Vygotsky, and before. Mind Cult. Act. 2019, 26, 4–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Wood, D.; Bruner, J.S.; Ross, G. The role of tutoring in problem-solving. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 1976, 17, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  59. Haenen, J.; Vink, S.; Sjoer, E.; Admiraal, W. Motivating students with optimal challenge in an open learning environment. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 2025, 11, 101577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  60. Sogunro, O.A. Motivating factors for adult learners in higher education. Int. J. High. Educ. 2015, 4, 22–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  61. Lave, J.; Wenger, E. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  62. Pitchford, A.; Owen, D.; Stevens, E. A Handbook for Authentic Learning in Higher Education: Transformational Learning Through Real World Experiences; Routledge: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  63. Zegwaard, K.E.; Pretti, T.J.; Rowe, A.D.; Fern, S.J. Defining WIL. In International Handbook of Work-Integrated Learning, 3rd ed.; Zegwaard, K.E., Pretti, J., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2023; pp. 29–48. [Google Scholar]
  64. Herrington, J.; Parker, J.; Boase-Jelinek, D. Connected authentic learning: Reflection and intentional learning. Aust. J. Educ. 2014, 58, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  65. Anderson, L.W.; Krathwohl, D.R. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives; Addison Wesley Longman: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  66. Shepherd, I.; Leigh, E.; Davies, A. Revisiting the impact of education philosophies and theories in experiential learning. In The Palgrave Handbook of Learning and Teaching International Business and Management; Gonzalez-Perez, M.A., Lynden, K., Taras, V., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2019; pp. 9–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  67. Zhoc, K.C.H.; Webster, B.J.; King, R.B.; Li, J.C.H.; Chung, T.S.H. Higher education student engagement scale (HESES): Development and psychometric evidence. Res. High. Educ. 2019, 60, 219–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  68. Olesen, H.S. Learning and experience: A psycho-societal approach. In The Palgrave International Handbook on Adult and Lifelong Education and Learning; Milana, M., Webb, S., Holford, J., Waller, R., Jarvis, P., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.: London, UK, 2018; pp. 169–189. [Google Scholar]
  69. Cranton, P.; Taylor, E.W. Transformative learning. In The Routledge International Handbook of Learning; Jarvis, P., Watts, M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2011; pp. 194–203. [Google Scholar]
  70. Gallagher, S.E.; Savage, T. Challenge-based learning in higher education: An exploratory literature review. Teach. High. Educ. 2023, 28, 1135–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  71. Chalmers, D.; Cummings, R.; Elliott, S.; Stoney, S.; Tucker, B.; Wicking, R.; Jorre de St Jorre, K. Australian University Teaching Criteria and Standards Project; Office for Learning and Teaching: Sydney, Australia, 2014.
  72. Naylor, R.; Bird, F.L.; Butler, N. Academic expectations among university students and staff: Addressing the role of psychological contracts and social norms. High. Educ. 2021, 82, 847–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  73. Hailikari, T.; Virtanen, V.; Vesalainen, M.; Postareff, L. Student perspectives on how different elements of constructive alignment support active learning. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2022, 23, 217–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  74. Ramsden, P. Learning to Teach in Higher Education, 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  75. Biggs, J.; Tang, C. Teaching for Quality Learning in University, 4th ed.; Open University Press: Maidenhead, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  76. Yang, L.; Borrowman, L.; Tan, M.Y.; New, J.Y. Expectations in transition: Students’ and teachers’ expectations of university in an international branch campus. J. Stud. Int. Educ. 2020, 24, 352–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  77. Vlachopoulos, D.; Makri, A. Online communication and interaction in distance higher education: A framework study of good practice. Int. Rev. Educ. 2019, 65, 605–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  78. Carless, D.; Boud, D. The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2018, 43, 1315–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  79. Smith, D.G. Diversity’s Promise for Higher Education: Making It Work, 4th ed.; John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  80. Yang, C. Adapting teaching methods to accommodate diverse learning styles in education. J. High. Educ. Res. 2024, 5, 535–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  81. Thomas, L. Inclusive teaching: Becoming an effective facilitator of learning. In University Teaching in Focus: A Learner-Centred Approach, 2nd ed.; Hunt, L., Chalmers, D., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 217–242. [Google Scholar]
  82. Hockings, C. Inclusive Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: A Synthesis of Research; Higher Education Academy: York, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  83. De Fazio, T. Inclusive Teaching Practices; Deakin University: Melbourne, Australia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  84. CAST. CAST Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Version 3.0; CAST: Lynnfield, MA, USA, 2024; Available online: https://udlguidelines.cast.org (accessed on 8 May 2026).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Science or Arts? Anxiety Towards Experimental Sciences in Pre-Service Teachers: Associated Factors and Implications for Science Teaching
Previous
Epistemic Agency and Future Knowledge Transformation Among International Students
Next