Higher Education Studies; Vol. 3, No.

2; 2013
ISSN 1925-4741 E-ISSN 1925-475X
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

Peer Evaluation of Teaching or ‘Fear’ Evaluation:

In Search of Compatibility
Abdel Rahman Abdalla Salih1
1
Department of English Language & Literature, Al-Zahra College for Women, Sultanate of Oman
Correspondence: Abdel Rahman Abdalla Salih, Department of English Language & Literature, Al-Zahra College
for Women, P. O. Box 3365-P. C., 111-Airport Heights-Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. Tel: 968-9236-8309. E-mail:
mujabs@yahoo.com

Received: December 6, 2012 Accepted: January 23, 2013 Online Published: March 25, 2013
doi:10.5539/hes.v3n2p102 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/hes.v3n2p102

Abstract
Peer evaluation or review of teaching is one of the factors of quality assurance system at the present time.
However, peer evaluation is sometimes approached with trepidation and with the feeling that it may not be fair
and free of bias. This paper examines teachers’ perceptions of peer evaluation as an enhancement for quality
teaching. A questionnaire was designed and distributed among forty tutors in two higher learning institutes in the
Sultanate of Oman. The study drew some results pertaining to the teachers’ views of peer evaluation and its
impact on teaching quality enhancement.
Keywords: peer evaluation/peer review, quality assurance system, quality teaching, subjectivity, professional
development
1. Introduction
The history of teaching has revealed a pertinent fact that a new relevant practice or an innovation always has a
major effect upon teaching, whether methodological or technological. The teaching profession in general and at
the tertiary level, in particular, has witnessed a series of ‘revolutions’ in various aspects by promoting and
implementing new practices, techniques and theories. The pre-twentieth-century language teaching practices, for
instance, were different from the teaching trends practiced in the twentieth century (Celce-Murcia, 2001). It is
worth noting that such changes and shifts happen at varying degrees and speed depending on the field, subject or
discipline. Moreover, it has been natural to see each practice receiving different responses and producing
different results. The teaching practices prevalent in the twentieth century have been associated with numerous
concepts and practices such as effective teacher and effective teaching, exploring teacher beliefs, teacher
education, teacher training, teacher perceptions; and all have been introduced to assist teachers perform better
and effectively (Borich, 2004). The keen interest into tailoring and exploring the best practices and innovations
that may lead to better outcomes is realised by Biggs and Tang (2007) who stated that “the new agenda for
universities, to sell education and to provide for market needs, makes them like any other corporation that sells a
product” (p. 3).
In recent years, both feedback on teaching for professional development and the teaching practice have
witnessed a new phase of revolution by the implementation of the concept of quality assurance (QA) in
education which has become an international trend and brand widely adopted by institutions of higher education;
and the Sultanate of Oman is no exception. Richards and Schmidt (2002) defined quality assurance as the
“system an organization has in place to ensure the quality of its practices” (p. 436). This notion has put
significant impact on the teaching practice and is deemed to change its landscape and direction forever. The
quality assurance system operates with the view that quality teaching and quality learning are the best response
to the market and employment demands for skilful graduates equipped with academic and non-academic skills.
In this context, Cowan (2006) viewed teaching as “the purposeful creation of situations from which motivated
learners should not be able to escape without learning or developing” (p. 100). Thus, the equation rests on a
well-connected cycle of good teaching leading to quality learning outcomes and full satisfaction of the work
market. In addition, the effective teaching-learning process enables teachers to receive constructive perspectives
on their teaching consistent with motivating students and professional development. As far as feedback for
quality teaching is concerned, teacher peer review (PR) or evaluation is one of the fundamental steps in the

102
www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 3, No. 2; 2013

quality assurance system and an important requirement for teacher growth and development. Biggs and Tang
(2007) defined peer review as a process for the evaluation of teaching by a colleague; and identified the rationale
behind peer review system as they argued that “the primary purpose of peer review is to provide formative
feedback for continuing professional development of individual teachers” (p. 269). Taking quality assurance and
professional development as two basic purposes of teacher evaluation process, Danielson and McGreal (2000)
suggested that peer evaluation of teaching is designed to provide either formative feedback for enhancing teacher
development and good practices, or summative feedback for personnel decision making such as
promotion/tenure renewal, or reappointment. Peer evaluation or review is, then, a process where teachers are
evaluated by peers on a number of identifiable aspects (academic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal) covering
specific areas such as teaching methods, assessment preparation, materials development, scholastic activities, to
provide feedback for reflection on teaching and professional growth. Quality-oriented teaching is believed to be
grounded on continuous reflection on practice by teachers in order to develop professionally and motivate
students’ active engagement in the learning process (Cowan, 2006). It could be argued that lecturers’ awareness
of teaching-learning process within the notion of quality assurance in teaching is an important factor for effective
peer evaluation of teaching and the lecturers’ willingness to take part in the process. However, the quality
assurance system and its call for feedback on teaching for quality learning raises some concerns and controversy
as it is seen by some as unnecessary and as such it should be approached cautiously. In this context, peer
evaluation in particular was not taken positively by many teachers who feel that it opens the door for bias and
subjectivity as well as interference in their teaching (Saarinen, 2010; Danielson & MacGreal, 2000). As far the
present study’s setting is concerned, it is important to note that different institutions of higher learning in the
Sultanate of Oman have different procedures and purposes in practicing peer evaluation exercise. The current
practice in peer evaluation bears on summative purposes by some institutions of higher education and on
formative purposes or the combination of both by some other institutions. An absence of a unified system for the
execution of peer evaluation across universities and colleges is expected to raise fear and rejection among tutors
and create some unwanted problems. Thus, uniformity of procedures and purposes in conducting peer evaluation
in these institutions is imperative without which the whole supreme purpose of the quality assurance practices in
teaching may be jeopardised.
The changing scene of learning and teaching in higher education in recent years presents teachers with
challenges one of which is to develop transformative reflection and look positively on the perspective provided
by colleagues or peers who are “in the role of critical friend” (Biggs & Tang, 2007, p. 46). Research has
attempted to explore the significance of peer evaluation for teaching and teacher professional development.
Sullivan, Buckle, Nicky, and Atkinson (2012) examined the three steps of peer evaluation: pre-observation
meeting, observation, and post observation feedback and concluded that teachers found both written and verbal
feedback constructive and useful for reflection and enhancement of teaching. In their study, Kumrow and Dahlen
(2002) examined a number of aspects of peer review such as process, objective, usefulness as well as financial
implications and concluded that peer review practice has effects for evaluating teachers and promoting good
teaching practices. In another study, Bodenhausen (1990) explored teachers’ attitudes toward peer evaluation and
the factors that shaped them. The researcher concluded that teachers’ support or opposition to peer evaluation is
affected by some factors such as the structure of evaluation, professionalism, and role of administration which
need to be taken into consideration in assessing teachers’ reaction towards peer review. Lomas and Nicholls
(2005) examined the introduction of peer review of teaching in higher education in England and the effect of the
practice in enhancing teaching quality. The researchers argued that an understanding of the concept of peer
review of teaching in itself is crucial in perceiving it as a mere process for quality enhancement or a significant
tool in quality assurance. Saarinen (2010) assessed the evolution of the concept of quality assurance in higher
education in the last fifteen years and its development from an issue of controversy and rejection to a
well-consolidated and acceptable practice. The author demonstrated how quality assurance has provided a
paradigmatic shift in higher education by moving the focus from the debate on the relevance and validity of the
system to practical issues relating to the best way of implementing it. This study is significant as it asserted the
relevance of practices such as peer evaluation of teaching in the quality assurance system. It is a pertinent fact
that a clear understanding of peer review as a quality assurance process for the empowerment of teaching and
teacher professional development encourages the adoption of the process rather than to be viewed as an imposed
policy for quality enhancement.
It could be argued that despite the growing interest in peer evaluation as a quality assurance instrument and its
beneficial effects on teaching and learning development, more research is needed about teachers’ perceptions
towards the process of peer evaluation and its possible impact on the whole teaching practice. Thus, research that

103
www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 3, No. 2; 2013

investigates teachers’ reactions towards peer assessment is imperative. Such research will need to highlight peer
evaluation process, reviewer’s focus, reviewee’s preferences and the effects of feedback on teaching and in
guiding teachers’ professional growth and development. Thus, there is a necessity to advocate the examination of
teachers’ responses to peers evaluation and the effect of that on the quality of teaching and learning. This paper
reports the views of English language teachers in two higher education institutes in the Sultanate of Oman about
peer evaluation and feedback on teaching. Specifically, the study addressed the following questions:
1. How do teachers view peer review?
2. To what extent do views of peers affect a teacher’s performance?
3. How does peer review enhance teaching quality?
4. Why is peer evaluation disfavoured by some teachers?
2. Method
This study explores English language teachers’ reactions towards peer feedback. To achieve such an objective, a
questionnaire, focusing on different aspects of peer evaluation, (see Appendix) was designed by the researcher
and distributed to total of (40) teachers with varieties of experiences in teaching English in (2) higher learning
institutes in the Sultanate of Oman. The two colleges in the study run both General Foundation Programme (GFP)
and BA degree in English and adopt peer evaluation as one of the essential requirements in the quality assurance
systems and procedures. All the participants (N=40) had taken part in peer evaluation before, and were given the
right to choose their review partners. Peer evaluation process followed the three steps of pre-observation meeting
to discuss the visit timing or any other issue of concern, observation where the teacher would be evaluated in
terms of teaching and materials, and post-observation or follow-up meeting/discussion in order to highlight
points and aspects of good practices and areas of improvement and development.
2.1 Procedures
This study utilised one source of data: questionnaire surveys. Researchers commonly employ questionnaires as
instrumentation to elicit data. To meet their objectives, researchers, may design questionnaires to explore
subjects’ attitudes and personal characteristics (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991; Karava-Doukas, 1996). The
questionnaire (Appendix) was designed to explore the respondents’ perceptions about providing to and receiving
feedback from peers. The questionnaire was also administered to understand the effects of peer review on
teacher reflection, the teaching process, and teacher professional growth and development. The statements in the
questionnaire were placed in random order, and next to the statements were five columns with five options:
‘strongly agree’, ‘agree’, ‘uncertain’, ‘disagree’, and ‘strongly disagree’. The values 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 were placed
under the five options respectively, i.e., ‘strongly agree’=5, ‘agree’=4, ‘uncertain’=3, ‘disagree’=2, ‘strongly
disagree’=1. Informants were told to select their favourable items by placing a tick in the box. By so doing, it
was possible to ascertain the respondents’ agreement or disagreement with the statements and explore their
perceptions about the issue the item discussed.
3. Results and Discussion
The questionnaire sheets (40 sheets in 23 items) were collected and analysed to examine the respondents’ views
on the significance of peer review practice for reflection and professional development. The informants’
responses to each item were calculated and frequencies and percentage equivalents were taken as shown in
Table1 below.

104
www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 3, No. 2; 2013

Table 1. Peer evaluation questionnaire frequency count and percentage equivalent

S.A A U D S.D
Questionnaire items:
Peer evaluation is useful in teaching. 12 (30%) 23(57.5%) 5(12.5%) - -
I prefer to choose my reviewer(s) and reviewee(s). 2(5%) 9(22.5%) 12(30%) 5(12.5%) 12(30%)
I always look positively about peer evaluation. 16(40%) 16(40%) 6(15%) 1(2.5%) 1(2.5%)
In the peer evaluation sessions, I found it interesting 14(35%) 22(55%) 3(7.5%) - 1(2.5%)
to exchange feedback with colleagues.
I can only carry out peer evaluation with friends. - 3(7.5%) 8(20%) 15(37.5%) 14(35%)
Peer evaluation may be bias sometimes. 7(17.5%) 19(47.5%) 11(27.5%) 1(2.5%) 2(5%)
Peer evaluation doesn’t work objectively when there 13(32.5%) 20(50%) 6(15%) - 1(2.5%)
is some misunderstanding among staff.
Peer evaluation helps me to develop positive relations 5(12.5%) 17(42.5%) 15(37.5%) 2(5%) 1(2.5%)
with my colleagues.
Peer evaluation enables me to reflect on my teaching 18(45%) 20(50%) 2(5%) - -
positively.
I find all reviewers’ feedback useful. 8(20%) 22(55%) 7(17.5%) - 3(7.5%)
Peer evaluation exercise enables me to give 8(20%) 28(70%) 4(10%) - -
suggestions to my colleagues.
The feedback given is always constructive. 1(2.5%) 17(42.5%) 18(45%) 1(2.5%) 3(7.5%)
Through peer evaluation I feel I develop 8(20%) 21(52.5%) 8(20%) 1(2.5%) 2(5%)
professionalism in teaching.
Peer evaluation motivates my research interest and 6(15%) 21(52.5%) 9(22.5%) 2(5%) 2(5%)
activities.
The feedback I get from my reviewers helps me 12(30%) 26(65%) 2(5%) - -
to modify my teaching methods.
In peer evaluation I focus mainly on rating my 2(5%) 1(2.5%) 5(12.5%) 20(50%) 12(30%)
colleagues’ weaknesses.
I prefer to receive additional oral feedback from my 9(22.5%) 21(52.5%) 4(10%) 2(5%) 4(10%)
reviewer(s) during review sessions as well.
Peer evaluation draws my attention to certain 12(30%) 23(57.5%) 3(7.5%) - 2(5%)
areas that I overlook to improve.
Since I have rich experience in teaching, - 1(2.5%) 5(12.5%) 14(35%) 20(50%)
peer evaluation is not necessary.
My junior colleagues are unable - 2(5%) 16(40%) 10(25%) 12(30%)
to evaluate me effectively.
Peer evaluation gives me more 8(20%) 26(65%) 5(12.5%) - 1(2.5%)
confidence about myself.
Peer evaluation builds trust among teachers. 5(12.5%) 12(30%) 17(42.5%) 3(7.5%) 3(7.5%)
For peer evaluation to be successful, it must - 5(12.5%) 7(17.5%) 10(25%) 18(45%)
be done once in a life time.

105
www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 3, No. 2; 2013

Thematic relations were sought in grouping the questionnaire items and the results were shown and discussed
under the categories of the ‘importance of peer review’ (Figure 1), ‘tutors’ preference’ (Figure 2), ‘review focus’
(Figure 3), ‘fear for subjectivity’ (Figure 4), and ‘peer review and experience’ (Figure 5) as follows:
3.1 Importance of Peer Review
The respondents’ score on the significance of peer review of teaching which presents their perceptions about its
importance is summarised in Figure 1 below.

100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60 SA
55 A
50
45 U
40 D
35
30 SD
25
20
15
10
5
0
Q1 Q3 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q21

Figure 1. Importance of peer review

The study’s first question explores the significance of peer review of teaching as perceived by teachers. Item (1)
in the questionnaire was about whether the respondents considered peer review as useful in the teaching practice.
The analysis revealed that (30%) “strongly agreed”, and (57.5%) “agreed” that peer review was useful in
teaching. This finding suggests that the informants believed that peer review has relevance to teaching and
professional development. In addition, this result confirms the relevance of peer review of teaching practice for
enhancing the quality of teaching as argued by Biggs and Tang (2007). On the other hand (12.5%) were
“uncertain” about their stand. Item (3) was designed to examine teachers’ perceptions about the feedback
provided by colleagues, where the respondents scored the same for “strongly agree” and “agree” (40%) that they
appreciated positively the feedback given by peers. There were (15%) “uncertain”, (2.5%) who “disagreed” and
(2.5%) “strongly disagreed” that they looked positively about peer evaluation. It could be argued that the way
peer review is executed in an institute plays a role in shaping teachers’ perceptions either positively or negatively.
This finding is significant as it accords with Bodenhausen’s (1990) call for considering factors shaping teachers’
reactions towards peer review of teaching. The analysis of item (8) revealed that (12.5%) “strongly agreed”, and
(42.5) “agreed” that peer evaluation helped them in establishing positive relations with colleagues, whereas
(37.5%) were “uncertain” about their stand. On the other hand, (5%) “disagreed”, and (2.5%) “strongly
disagreed” that peer review assisted in keeping good relations with other colleagues. This result is important as it
serves the study’s first question, confirms the findings reported by Saarinen (2010); Danielson and MacGreal
(2000), and suggests the fact that peer review was taken cautiously by some teachers who felt peer feedback
might cause rift among colleagues. In addition, the social solidarity, for some teachers, is something that should
not be sacrificed for the sake of any managerial procedure and as such peer feedback should always be positive.
It could be argued that it is sometimes difficult to convince some teachers to act as critical friends and accept
reviewers’ feedback positively. Thus, lecturers’ willingness to participate in peer evaluation may contribute to
more constructive and less controversial feedback.
The respondents’ perceptions about the significance of peer review in motivating them to reflect on their
teaching were examined in item (9). Consistent with their responses to item (1) in the questionnaire, (45%)
“strongly agreed”, and (50%) “agreed’ that peer review enabled them to reflect on their teaching, whereas (5%)

106
www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 3, No. 2; 2013

were “uncertain” about their stand. This result is significant as it accords with what Biggs and Tang (2007)
observed about the positive effects of reflection in good teaching as they argued that “an important aspect to
effective teaching is reflective practice, using transformative reflection, which enables teachers to create an
improved teaching environment suited to their own context” (p. 31). Thus, viewing and designing peer review as
a tool for transformative reflection is postulated to provide great opportunities for establishing the kind of
climate that will optimise effective teaching and good practices. Item (10) was designed to examine the way
teachers looked at the reviewers’ feedback. The analysis revealed that (20%) “strongly agreed”, and (55%)
“agreed” that all feedback given was useful. On the other hand, (17.5%) responded as “uncertain”, and (7.5%)
“strongly disagreed” that all peer review feedback was useful. The percentage of those who perceived peer
evaluation as partially useful, though less significant, suggests that not all teachers felt that the reviewers’
feedback was always accurate. However, the overall result here is consistent with the informants’ responses to
items (1, 3, and 9). The analysis of item (12) revealed another interesting result pertaining to the teachers’
feelings about peer feedback with (42.5%) who “agreed”, and (2.5%) “strongly agreed” that peer review has
been constructive all the time. Interestingly, (45%) were “uncertain” about their view, while (2.5%) “disagreed”,
and (7.5%) “strongly disagreed” with the statement. The variation in the respondents’ views here conflicts with
their response to item (10) and might be attributed to the view held by some teachers that peer evaluation might
be affected by some negative factors (item 8) in the questionnaire.
As far as the relation between peer evaluation and professional development is concerned, the analysis of item
(13) revealed that (52.5%) of the respondents “agreed’, and (20%) “strongly agreed” that peer review enhanced
their professional growth. Those who chose “uncertain” scored (20%) from the total responses, while (2.5%)
“disagreed”, and (5%) “strongly disagreed” that peer review helped them grow professionally. In fact, one of the
prime objectives of quality assurance system is teachers’ continuous learning through reflection for professional
development, whose effective tool is peer review. Thus, teachers’ understanding of the significance of peer
review for professional development is better supported for active teacher involvement in the process of teaching
quality, effective learning and teacher professional development. In the same vein, Lomas and Nicolls (2005)
called for viewing peer review as an effective factor for enhancing teaching quality and teachers’ professional
development. In drawing on the significance of peer review for the scholarly activities, item (14) revealed that
(52.5%) of the informants “agreed”, and (15%) “strongly agreed” that peer evaluation motivated them to indulge
in research activities. The respondents who were “uncertain” of the significance of peer review in developing
sense and interest for research scored (22.5%), and both those who “disagreed” and “strongly disagreed” with
the idea in the item scored the same percentage (5%). It is interesting to find that peer review stimulates teachers’
interest for research as a part of professional development. Such an understanding among teachers is deemed
useful for the learning process itself. In other words, peer review provides teachers with opportunities for
formative feedback that motivates good teaching practices underpinned by scholarly activities. The analysis of
item (15) revealed a significant result in support of the positive effects of peer review for teaching. (30%) of the
respondents “strongly agreed”, and (65%) “agreed” that peer evaluation helped them to modify their teaching
methods. Only (5%) of the respondents were “uncertain” about their stand. This result serves the study’s second
and third questions and confirms the report by Biggs and Tang (2007) on the significance of feedback on
teaching and teacher personal and professional growth. It is worth noting here that the essence of peer review is
to provide teachers with constructive feedback so that they reflect on their teaching experience and improve their
practice. Peer review then keeps teachers in continuous reflection, modification, and adjustment which all lead to
professional development and enhancement of good learning. The respondents’ perceptions about the effects of
peer review on personal growth and self-confidence development were explored in item (21). The analysis of
this item revealed that (20%) “strongly agreed”, (65%) “agreed” that peer review gave them more
self-confidence. On the other hand, (12.5%) appeared to be “uncertain” of their stand, while the score for
“strongly disagree” was (2.5%). It is observed that the percentages of those who supported the statement suggest
the idea that the respondents held positive opinion by perceiving peer evaluation as useful for enhancing
self-confidence. This result is consistent with the respondents’ responses to items (1, 3, 8,9,10,12,13,14, and 15)
in the questionnaire.

107
www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 3, No. 2; 2013

3.2 Tutors’ Preference

Figure 2 below presents a summary of the respondents’ score on their preferences of peer review.

100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65 SA
60
55 A
50
45 U
40
35 D
30
25 SD
20
15
10
5
0
Q2 Q5

Figure 2. Tutor's preference

In an attempt to ascertain the tutors’ choices and preferences for reviewers, item (2) explored whether tutors
preferred to select their reviewers and reviewees or were open to receive and give feedback to a non-friend
colleague. The analysis revealed that (5%) of the respondents “strongly agreed”, and (22.5%) “agreed” that they
felt comfortable with peer feedback if they selected their reviewers. On the other hand, the respondents scored
(30%) for both “uncertain” and “strongly disagree”, while (12.5%) “disagreed” that they preferred to choose
their reviewers and those to evaluate as well. It could be argued that giving peer review participants the right to
choose their review partners might motivate teachers’ involvement in the process. It is worth noting that peer
review of teaching is a flexible process that seeks teachers’ willingness for participation. Item (5) examined the
respondents’ perceptions about peer review as a process for feedback exchange among friends. The analysis
revealed that (7.5%) of the respondents “agreed” that they could carry out peer review with friends only. On the
other hand, (20%) were “uncertain”, while (37%) “disagreed”, and (35.5%) “strongly disagreed” that they could
exchange feedback with friends only. The findings here serve the study’s first question which explores the
teachers’ perceptions of peer review of teaching. It is interesting to observe that the percentages of the responses
to items (2) and (5) are consistent in reflecting the respondents’ openness and willingness for participating in
peer evaluation with non-friend colleagues. It could be argued that, in this context, tutors’ preference is feedback
for transformative reflection which encourages continuous learning and adjustment rather than social gains and
group solidarity. The result supports the views of Danielson and MacGreal (2000) who suggested that if peer
review is provided with a professional and supportive environment, teachers will be willing to view it positively
without any suspicion or trepidation.

108
www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 3, No. 2; 2013

3.3 Review Focus

Figure 3 below provides a summary of the respondents’ score in relation to the review focus.

100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65 SA
60
55 A
50
45 U
40
35 D
30
25 SD
20
15
10
5
0
Q4 Q11 Q16 Q18

Figure 3. Review focus

Peer review is believed to draw individuals’ attention to certain aspects for improvement and to support positive
points and good practices as well. Hence, the respondents were asked about their focus, expectations and
understanding of peer review and the feedback out of that. The analysis of item (4), Figure 3, revealed that (35%)
of the informants “strongly agreed”, and (55%) “agreed” that they found it interesting to share and exchange
feedback with colleagues through peer review. On the other hand, (7.5%) were “uncertain”, while (2.5%)
“strongly disagreed” that they found it interesting to share feedback with colleagues. This finding serves the
study’s first question as it throws light on the significance of peer review in giving teachers opportunities to
provide supportive feedback to colleagues and reflect on their own teaching and practices. In addition, this
finding is consistent with the view expressed by Cowan (2006) that quality-oriented teaching factors such as peer
review enable teachers to reflect on their practice, develop sense of professionalism and motivate learners for
more effective learning. It could be argued that involvement in peer review enables teachers to evaluate and
support each other, learn from others’ perspectives, and improve one’s own teaching and performance. However,
for peer review to achieve such goals, peer evaluation must be done in a collegial and professional manner. Item
(11) examined the respondents’ focus and use of peer review. The analysis revealed that (20%) of the
respondents “strongly agreed”, and (70%) “agreed” that peer review offered a platform for giving colleagues
some constructive feedback and practical suggestions. However, only (10%) appeared “uncertain about their
stand. This result serves the study’s third question and suggests that teachers found peer review an effective
factor in stimulating professional growth and improving effective teaching. Moreover, peer review in its social
context provides opportunities for teachers to exchange formative feedback with colleagues, reflect on their
practice, and it motivates effective teaching which affects positively the learning environment.
The analysis of item (16) which examined the respondents’ understanding of the objectives of peer review and
the decisions they made while evaluating colleagues revealed that (5%) of the informants “strongly agreed”, and
(2.5%) “agreed” that they looked only for highlighting their colleagues’ weaknesses. On the other hand, (12.5%)
were “uncertain” of their stand. Interestingly, (50%) “disagreed”, and (30%) “strongly disagreed” that their
main objective and focus was to rate colleagues’ weaknesses. This finding reveals the fact teachers tended to
provide constructive and balanced feedback on both good practices and areas of improvement without resorting
to selectivity by focusing on weaknesses only. In fact, selectivity in peer evaluation by ignoring good practices
and highlighting weaknesses only can be one of the factors that lead to bias and subjectivity. Thus, objective
peer evaluation needs to bring constructive perspective on teaching and teacher professional development.
Researchers argued that for peer review to be successful, it is necessary to eliminate all negative factors and
make sure that peer evaluation is not bias and that reviewers act as critical friends whose aim is constructive

109
www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 3, No. 2; 2013

perspective (Biggs & Tang, 2007; Bodenhausen, 1990). The analysis of item (18) revealed that (30%) of the
respondents “strongly agreed”, and (57.5%) “agreed” that peer review drew their attention to certain areas that
needed further attention and improvement. On the other hand, (7.5%) were “uncertain”, while (5%) “strongly
disagreed” that feedback given by peers helped them improve certain neglected areas whether personal or
professional. This result serves the study’s third question and is consistent with the respondents’ response to item
(13) and with the understanding that one of the main purposes of peer review is to provide teachers with
opportunities for reflection and improvement in their teaching practices, personal growth and professional
development. This view is strongly asserted by Danielson and McGreal (2000) who argued that peer evaluation
has powerful effects on teaching as it directs teachers to concentrate their reflection on the areas they need to
improve.
3.4 Fear for Subjectivity
The respondents’ score on the questionnaire items regarding the concerns about peer review of teaching is given
in Figure 4 below.

100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65 SA
60
55 A
50
45 U
40
35 D
30
25 SD
20
15
10
5
0
Q6 Q7 Q22

Figure 4. Fear for subjectivity

It has been observed that peer review was taken by some cautiously and with fear of creating rooms for bias and
subjectivity. One of the main objectives of this study as reflected in its fourth question is to examine teachers’
fear and to try to understand the degree to which such fear affects teachers’ beliefs in peer evaluation as a quality
assurance instrument. The analysis of item (6) revealed that (17.5%) of the respondents “strongly agreed”, and
(47.5%) “agreed” that peer review might be bias sometimes. On the other hand, (27.5%) were “uncertain”, while
(2.5%) “disagreed”, and (5%) “strongly disagreed” that peer review might be bias sometimes. In the same vein,
the analysis of item (7) revealed that (32.5%) “strongly agreed”, and (50%) “agreed” that misunderstanding
among teachers creates a high possibility for subjectivity and as such jeopardising any opportunity for a fair and
an objective peer evaluation. Six of the respondents’ remained “uncertain” of their stand with (15%), while
(2.5%) “strongly disagreed” with the idea that peer review doesn’t work objectively when there is some
misunderstanding among teachers. This result is significant as it serves the study’s fourth question and throws
some light on the causes of the controversies and debates in peer evaluation. The result is also consistent with the
research which reported that teachers sometimes approached peer review with some concerns and trepidation
(Saarinen, 2010; Bodenhausen, 1990). If practiced in a safe and professional context, peer review may maximise
possibilities for effective teaching, professional development and effective learning. It could be argued further
that the elimination of factors that lead to the creation of negative energy will assure fair and reliable peer review
as well as teachers’ willingness to participate in the process. Moreover, the analysis of item (22) revealed that
(12.5%) of the respondents “strongly agreed”, and (30%) “agreed” that peer review helped in building trust
among teachers. However, (42%) were “uncertain”, while the score for both “disagreed”, and “strongly
disagreed” that peer review facilitated building trust among teachers and helped teachers to view peer evaluation

110
www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 3, No. 2; 2013

as a source of constructive perspective from critical friends rather than as ‘criticisms’ at someone’s performance
was (7.5%) each. The results of this section serve the study’s fourth question and support the need for
encouraging active participation of teachers in the peer review process (Biggs & Tang, 2007). For peer review to
be reliable and less-threatening, teachers’ willingness to participate in the process is of significant importance.
3.5 Peer Review and Experience
Figure 5 summarizes the score of the respondents’ views about the relation between peer evaluation and
experience.

100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65 SA
60
55 A
50
45 U
40
35 D
30
25 SD
20
15
10
5
0
Q17 Q19 Q20 Q23

Figure 5. Peer review and experience

The analysis of item (17), Figure 5, revealed that (22.5%) of the respondents “strongly agreed”, and (52.5%)
“agreed” that they preferred to negotiate additional oral feedback with reviewers during review sessions. On the
other hand, the respondents scored (10%) for both “uncertain” and “ strongly disagree”, and (5%) for “disagree”
to the idea of receiving further additional oral feedback from reviewers, preferring to have formative feedback on
paper. Teachers’ support for a follow-up meeting indicates the interest teachers have for peer feedback and this
creates another opportunity for reflection and mutual learning. Peer written and verbal feedback, according to
Sullivan et al. (2012), is perceived by teachers as an effective factor for reflection for it addresses the teachers’
need for improvement and professional growth. The analysis of item (19) revealed that (2.5%) of the respondents
“agreed” that with rich experience, in teaching, peer review was not necessary and as such it did not add to them
anything. (12.5%) were “uncertain”, while (35%) “disagreed”, and (50%) “strongly disagreed” that with
experience in teaching peer review was not necessary. This result serves the study’s first question and suggests
that the majority of the respondent teachers understood the relevance of peer review of teaching as one of the
crucial parts of quality teaching and learning, and the necessity of feedback for reflection and continuous
professional development. This observation accords with the view that quality-driven teaching motivates
effective and purposeful learning (Cowan, 2006). Item (20) focused on the involvement of teachers of different
experience levels in providing feedback on teaching and the perceptions of senior teachers toward such feedback.
The analysis revealed that (5%) of the informants “agreed” that junior colleagues were unable to provide
effective feedback. On the other hand, (40%) were “uncertain” of their stand, while (25%) “disagreed”, and
(30%) “strongly disagreed” with the statement in the item by giving more value to feedback provided by the
less-experienced colleagues. This result is significant in a sense that it serves the study’s first question and
reveals at the same time the fact that the bulk majority of the respondents were in favour of feedback given
through peer review regardless of reviewers’ experience in teaching. It could be argued further that peer review
minimises the gap between teachers as it enhances junior teachers’ sense of professionalism and gives
experienced teachers a chance to appreciate other teachers’ feedback. The study also explored the respondents’
view on conducting peer review on regular basis. The analysis of item (23) revealed that (12.5%) of the
respondents “agreed” to have peer evaluation once in their career, while (17.5%) were “uncertain” about their

111
www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 3, No. 2; 2013

stand. On the other hand, (25%) “disagreed”, and (45%) “strongly disagreed” to experience peer review once in
a lifetime. This suggests the tendency of teachers to keep peer review as a tool that enhances quality teaching
and professional development. Thus, when teaching is informed and supported by constructive feedback,
teachers are expected to have high expectations for professional growth and motivating students’ effective
learning. This is true because “expert teachers continually reflect on how they might teach even better” (Biggs &
Tang, 2007, p. 41).
4. Conclusion
This study attempted to examine the perceptions of teachers about peer evaluation or review of teaching as a
factor for quality enhancement and professional development. The analysis of data provided varieties of insights
into the teachers’ perceptions of peer review as a process in the quality assurance system. Overall, the results of
this study were supportive of the relevance and effectiveness of peer review for the teaching profession as
perceived by the respondents. The evidence of the teachers’ positive perceptions together with some fear of bias
towards peer review exercise provides important professional implications for teaching profession within quality
enhancement context. The study’s focus on both positive perceptions and ‘reservations’ over peer review by
teachers provided some insights on the importance of peer review in enhancing quality teaching and professional
growth. For peer review to be more effective, a special care needs to be given to its social dimension to assure
that reviewers act as critical friends providing constructive feedback in a professional and collegial manner
without any subjectivity or bias. Furthermore, there must be some consistency in the interpretation, outlining
policies and implementation of peer review or evaluation practice by institutes of higher education which adopt
it.
To conclude, peer evaluation or review of teaching is a necessary process in today’s teaching practices and as
such it should be encouraged and promoted among teachers. In this regard, institutes of higher learning may need
to encourage research activities among academic staff, encourage good teaching practices and innovative ideas,
outline teaching standards, and promote quality assurance culture and professionalism as well as cooperative
competition. In addition, the establishment of teaching development centres for enhancing academic
performance and training is deemed necessary in promoting quality teaching for quality learning practices and by
so doing controversies over peer review may change to willingness to participate in the process.
References
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university (3rd ed.). New York: Society for
Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Bodenhausen, J. (1990). Teacher attitudes toward peer evaluation: What shapes them? Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, April 16-20, 1990. Retrieved
from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED
Borich, G. (2004). Effective teaching methods (5th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.
Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.). (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.). USA: Heinle &
Heinle.
Cowan, J. (2006). On becoming an innovative university teacher: Reflection in action (2nd ed.). New York:
Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. (2000). Teacher evaluation. USA: Educational Testing Service.
Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using Attitude scales to investigate teachers’ attitudes to the communicative
approach. English Language Journal, 50(3), 187-198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/50.3.187
Kumrow, D., & Dahlen, B. (2002). Is peer review an effective approach for evaluating teacher? The Clearing
House, 75(5), 238-241. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/00098650209603947
Laresen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London:
Longman.
Lomas, L., & Nicholls, G. (2005). Enhancing teaching quality through peer review of teaching. Quality in
Higher Education, 11(2), 137-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538320500175118
Richards, J., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics (3rd ed.).
London: Pearson Education.
Saarinen, T. (2010). What I talk when I talk about quality. Quality in Higher Education, 16(1), 55-57.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538321003679507

112
www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 3, No. 2; 2013

Sullivan, P., Buckle, A., Nicky, G., & Atkinson, S. (2012). Peer observation of teaching as a faculty
development tool. BMC Medical Education, 12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-12-26
Appendix

Questionnaire
Dear colleagues:
This questionnaire forms part of a study about exploring the effects of peer review on quality of teaching I am
currently undertaking. The researcher would therefore very much appreciate if you could spend a little time to
respond honestly and objectively to this questionnaire. Your responses will help me to identify preferences, and
perceptions within quality teaching and learning context. Kindly be informed that the questionnaire is conducted
for research purposes only.
This questionnaire consists of two parts. Part I focuses on your teaching experience. Part II deals with the effects
of peer review practice as perceived by you. Please respond to All the items in this questionnaire precisely.

I thank you in advance for your cooperation and help with this research.
____________________________________________________________________
General instruction: Please respond to all the items/questions in the questionnaire.
Part I
Please provide relevant information by filling in the blank spaces below:
1. Years of experience in teaching: _______________

Part II
Please respond to the following statements by placing a tick (√) mark in the box that represents your attitude.
5= Strongly Agree 4= Agree 3=Uncertain 2= Disagree 1= Strongly Disagree

Statements S.A A U D S.D

1 Peer evaluation is useful in teaching.
2 I prefer to choose my reviewer(s) and
reviewee(s).
3 I always look positively about peer
evaluation.
4 In the peer evaluation sessions, I found
it interesting to exchange feedback with
colleagues.
5 I can only carry out peer evaluation
with friends.
6 Peer evaluation may be bias sometimes.
7 Peer evaluation doesn’t work
objectively when there is some
misunderstanding among staff.
8 Peer evaluation helps me to develop
positive relations with my colleagues.
9 Peer evaluation enables me to reflect on
my teaching positively.
10 I find all reviewers’ feedback useful.

113
www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 3, No. 2; 2013

11 Peer evaluation exercise enables me to

give suggestions to my colleagues.
12 The feedback given is always
constructive.
13 Through peer evaluation I feel I develop
professionalism for teaching.
14 Peer evaluation motivates my research
interest and activities.
15 The feedback I get from my reviewers
helps me to modify my teaching
methods.
16 In peer evaluation I focus mainly on
rating my colleagues’ weaknesses.
17 I prefer to receive additional oral
feedback from my reviewer(s) during
review sessions as well.
18 Peer evaluation draws my attention to
certain areas that I overlook to improve.
19 Since I have rich experience in
teaching, peer evaluation is not
necessary.
20 My junior colleagues are unable to
evaluate me effectively.
21 Peer evaluation gives me more
confidence about myself.
22 Peer evaluation builds trust among
teachers.
23 For peer evaluation to be successful, it
must be done once in a life time.

114