Reading and links to other resources
Further reading
Peer observation of teaching is a generic description of what occurs when colleagues engage in 'classroom' observation of one another. However, as Gosling (2002) notes, there is a lot buried in all three key terms: Who are peers? What constitutes observation? And, what is teaching? In Higher Education it occurs in many guises, for example, as part of TQA, Subject Review etc where quality assurance processes are / were monitored by external reviewers, sometimes including observation of teaching. On the other extreme of the continuum, new academic staff may be grouped into action learning sets and give feedback to one another on microteaching sessions that form part of educational development programmes. In this context, Gosling provides three models of Peer Observation of Teaching and these are presented below in slightly adapted format. In all cases there is a confidentiality agreement between the observer(s) and observed about the outcomes of 'peer observation'. However, in the Judgemental model outcomes of peer observations are routinely made available to Heads of School/Departments; in the Developmental Model, Heads of School/Departments could be involved, but only at the request of the observed teacher; in the Reciprocal-Reflective model, involvement of Heads of School/Departments would not normally be briefed on outcomes, except in a collated, anonymised way.
1. Management-based evaluation model (judgemental)
This approach is a management-driven or evaluation (judgemental) model where performance is very much at the forefront of the process, and a power-relationship imbalance (eg Head of School and probationary member of staff) exists. Outcomes are likely to benefit the institution as much as the individual being observed, and the process is likely to be 'resisted' or not necessarily seen as helpful. Observation for promotion, teaching and other awards at institutional or national level may also fall into this category (eg NTFS organised through the Higher Education Academy).
2. 'Senior colleague' model (developmental)
This second model relies upon more senior staff, including educational developers as well as subject experts, to observe other, less senior, colleagues. There is still the aim of improving performance but the 'closed' process is developmental, though totally shared ownership is still lacking. Power and authority through expertise may be apparent, though intriguingly, more senior colleagues engaging in such processes often gain as much as they are able to pass on, even to new staff. In part, this model has been promoted in St Andrews as a constituent role of mentors to newly appointed academic staff.
3. Peer review model (equal-mutual or reciprocal-reflective)
Finally, Gosling identifies a 'third way'. This approach is also supported by Cornwell (2002), who links more generally the benefits of peer review of teaching with continuous professional development. A Peer Review model involves all staff, say in a School or Department, engaging in mutual or reciprocal observation of their teaching, where engagement in discussion to reach understanding of what is intended in a teaching session involves non-judgemental feedback and self as well as peer reflection. This model is also advocated by NATFHE (2002). Performance is inevitably still under review but the process is supportive and developmental.
Furthermore, learning arising from these mutual experiences may still be beneficially shared not only within partnerships but also across a whole department if collated and anonymised examples of both good and less good practice can be disseminated and used constructively. This approach was a crucial part of a FDTL project funded by the English Funding Council, HEFCE, though the project only involved volunteers (Slade, 2002). A strong feature of this project was the posting of case studies on a School and University web site of different methods of teaching, including examples arising from Cross Faculty observations. In all cases, these disseminations were with permission of the member of staff involved, and were also integrated into the University's annual conference on Learning and Teaching.
Annotated references
The four key references used in this review can be located in the Resources database of the LTSN Generic Centre, now absorbed into the Higher Education Academy. All entries are 'deep' links but they can be also retrieved by entering the LTSN Generic Centre site at: http://www.ltsn.ac.uk/genericcentre/index.asp (accessed on 01 October 2004).
Cornwell, A (2002). Peer Observation of Teaching and Continuing Professional Development: A Potential Way Forward?
This paper reviews the background to the adoption of a peer review approach to observation of teaching at the North East Wales Institute of Higher Education. The approach supports continuous professional development (CPD) particularly for new staff who have more experienced staff as mentors and, in particular, engage in action learning sets where a voluntary group of peers develop self-critical approaches to problem solving learning and teaching issues.
Gosling, D (2002). Models of Peer Observation of Teaching
"This paper looks at the complexities which affect peer observation of teaching and then describes three models: Judgemental, Developmental and Mutual Reflective. It starts by examining the meanings of the three key terms: What do we understand by 'peers', what is involved in 'observation' and what is our conception of 'teaching'?" Slightly modified from LTSN Generic Centre web site.
National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (2002). NATFHE Guidelines for Higher Education branches: Peer Review & Peer Observation of Teaching
This paper summarises good practice guidelines for HE institutions establishing an institution-wide approach to observation of teaching, focusing on a 'distinct-from-management' approach (eg capability procedure) to staff appraisal. The paper recommends the process as only one aspect of an approach to systematic enhancement and development of teaching learning activities, others such as peer group discussion and self-reflection being similarly important. The paper stresses the importance of ownership of outcomes belonging to the 'observee'. And finally, the guidelines acknowledge that any new initiative such as this is not free, but that time ought to be made available from within existing workloads, and that as a matter of equity, resources and such procedures adopted should be made available to part-time as well as full-time staff.
Slade, C (2002). Sharing Excellence: A Dissemination Model for Peer Observation of Teaching
This paper reviews the Sharing Excellence model of peer observation of teaching project carried out at Nottingham Trent University in 2001. About 400 staff across all departments of the University participated, including attending sessions on the process of peer observation and giving feedback. Staff were given the option to use structured feedback sheets developed by the project team or to develop their own approach including departmentally constructed checklists etc. One interesting conclusion, amongst others, was that, "it is harder to observe than be observed".