Cross Faculty Peer Observation of Teaching:
Expanding Teaching and Learning Conversations
Introduction:
Congruent with Shortland (2004), the purpose of this pilot
study of peer observation in one university is to begin the journey towards
increased professionalism in university teaching. Peer Observation of Teaching (POT) at Bond
University hopes to foster interaction between and amongst disciplines. A conducive climate for such a scheme is
vital to move beyond involving post graduate, newly inducted teaching
academics, to the whole population of teaching academics. A supportive culture can instil an ongoing
process of intra and inter faculty peer observation. It is a structured, scholarly approach to an
interdisciplinary dimension of teaching practice comparing and contrasting the
observations, critique, feedback and reflection of couplets. To actualise this we also put in place a
mechanism to disseminate our findings, capitalising on the shared good practice
(Kember & McNaught, 2007) through a series of focus groups and web
resources. Observation of and by true
peers, not just pairing seniors with novices, is used to promote double
perspective learning where both parties in turn are the observed and the
observer, and are afforded opportunities for insight into personal
practice. We found when we took
academics out of the familiarity of their own disciplines and introduced a pluralistic
model including cross faculty observations, teaching and learning conversations
expanded from content focus to include a student-like perspective. We concluded
that participation in the scheme has the potential to take lecturers beyond
being subject specialists, to reflect on broader questions of content,
learning, teaching philosophy and culture, and to build the cumulative
narrative of excellence in teaching as a discipline.
This research began with the hypothesis that same faculty
and cross faculty partnerships would yield observations polarised into two
groups; content centred and learner centred, respectively.
A pilot study was conducted using Gosling and O’Connor’s
Collaborative Model (2005). This model
is based on equality between peers and reciprocity of benefit, not feedback as
judgement about quality. By recognising
the range of teaching activities that promote and support student learning,
cross team discussion and the introduction of new ideas occurs. Participants were drawn from all the
faculties of Bond University; Business (Bus), Law, Humanities and Social
Sciences (HSS), Health Sciences and Medicine (HSM), and the Institute of
Sustainable Development and Architecture (ISDA), as well as Bond College. Participants observed each other’s teaching
within their own faculty and across faculties.
To complement the observations we collected Likert Scale data using the
same questions as the internal student evaluation of teaching (TEVAL) system. This allowed for measurement using the same
question set and response scale, for consistency not only between faculties,
but also for comparison with student responses.
The study paired both inter and intra faculty participants
to examine any differences in the ways that the observations occur and are
recorded and reflected upon, and to encourage engagement with the teaching
method, not just familiarity of content. Each academic observed twice; one observation
of a same faculty academic and one observation of a cross faculty academic: and
was observed twice; once by a same faculty academic and once by a cross faculty
academic.
I volunteered expecting to be
monitoring others in their teaching. Instead, I discovered that they were
reminding me of all the good intentions and practices which I had some years
ago, and had let slide. I was reminded of the words of the song, 'Kids, teach
your parents well'. (Law Lecturer, 2011)
Literature Review:
About every 10 years there is some resurgence of peer review
but this time it addresses academic dissatisfaction with student evaluations as
sole arbiter of quality and it assists with the collection of evidence of
quality and of development using a scholarly process. To complement student evaluation of teaching
is Smith (2008) proposed a model of peer review, whereby academics observe and
provide constructive feedback on one another’s teaching. There are also affordances for quality
enhancement (QE) in an increasingly regulated sector and to compete on league
tables comparing universities in the quest for international and local students. The literature in this area provides many
papers that are aspirational, espousing position and ideology. Of these, the concentration is on qualitative
anecdotal reporting within schools or disciplines.
In 2005, Bell wrote a guide titled, 'Peer observation
partnerships in higher education', published by the Higher Education Research
and Development Society of Australasia. A search of the literature revealed a
paucity of empirical evidence in support of, or to challenge, the facilitation
of peer observation of teaching as appropriate use of university resources. The
Griffith PRO Teaching team have now reported on 10 dimensions of observation
with examples of evidence (Klopper & Drew, 2012). This is used in
conjunction with their peer observation form, to indicate teaching and learning
strategies for observations.
The ALTC Peer
Review of Teaching in Higher Education Handbook – (Harris, Farrell, Bell,
Devlin & James, 2007-2008), suggests there may be four types of program
design:
A.
a program for the purposes of enhancing the
teaching environment
B.
a program for the purposes of raising the
standard of teaching quality
C.
a program specifically for new staff
D.
a program specifically for sessional staff
There are
benefits for individuals as well as organisational units and whole
institutions. For the institution or
organisation unit and in tandem with student evaluations, peer observation
increases the volume and focus on teaching and provides a way of analysing
common practice for focused professional development. For individuals the benefits include:
-
Feedback on teaching for development
-
Evidence for use in promotion, probation, awards
-
Affirmation of good practice
-
Broader knowledge of curriculum taught by peers
(intra-faculty)
-
Insights into how colleagues teach and ideas for
teaching
-
Improved relationships with colleagues
-
Opportunities to develop skill in scholarship of
teaching
The label of peer review by inference and history suggests
negativity, with a review being perceived as a critical opinion and report,
rather than a constructive critique or analysis. Non-judgemental observation is the key action
to develop. In terms of design, this
project began with a name change and ensuing shift in attitude from review to
observation. The real change in emphasis
is not in the syntax but in the semantics and meaning imbued into the process
as it is promoted: critique versus criticism.
In an environment characterised by real or perceived problems of time
management for preparation and organisation by participants (Martin &
Double, 1998), where academics don’t want to be saddled with administrative
functions, the challenge is to cultivate a climate of cooperation. Shortland (2004) observed that peer
observation had become more prevalent in the academic landscape of the UK since
the mid 1990’s, primarily as a political tool to improve quality of teaching
through the sharing of good practice.
She saw a shift in the attitude of participants from mere compliance
with management to a motivated agenda for continuing professional development.
At the inception of peer review the concept of the ‘critical
friend’ (Handal, 1999) began the discourse of active and useful peer teaching
critique. Although it was established to
create an environment of safety and give the participants the courage to engage
in peer review, the observer was most often a senior staff member, mentor or
manager, someone in a position of power, and therefore not a true peer. For the purposes of this research we have
considered peers as perceived through self-concept; how we rank ourselves
through social comparison within the university. This was described by one of the academics as
follows:
We have senior and junior
academics in terms of our research record and our publications and so on. I wonder if we do have senior and junior
teachers. We’ve people who have taught
less often, but what makes a senior teacher, is it someone who has been doing
it a lot longer than you?
You get into bad habits, you get
complacent. Whereas in my experience the
younger teachers are so keen, so keen to learn to teach and to actually judge
the feedback they’re getting from the students by body language or whatever,
they’re probably far better teachers than old lags like me who’ve been doing it
for years. (Law lecturer, 2011)
While the role of support colleague as ‘critical friend’
(Handal 1999) is one of the vital elements for effectiveness, it was reported
that feedback is invariably encouraging.
The “all boats float on a rising tide” metaphor is the only collegial
model that will work for development.
Reciprocal associations and roles ensure there is consideration for the
peer as something more like “equal” and reduces any perception of a power
distance. If ‘critical friend’ was an
oxymoron it would reveal a tension. In a
developmental model there a greater need for a “trusted professional
friend”. In a summative role, for the
same reasons, the observer or peer must remain at arm’s length so they can be
an “objective and trusted critic”. Some
support colleagues mentioned how much they gained from the opportunity to
observe: collegiality and expanding the academic leadership role. In Martin and Double’s study (1998)
participants selected their own partners and since the pairs shared perceptions
of discipline and teaching philosophy this was ‘felt to have supported the
smooth implementation of the scheme’ (p 166).
Although consideration is put forward as to the usefulness
of cross faculty or school observation (Donnelly, 2007; Hammersley-Fletcher
& Orsmond, 2004), no empirical study has been conducted to analyse the
comparisons and contrasts of such observations.
The closest match is O’Keefe, Lecouteur, Miller and McGowan (2009) who
discuss multi-disciplinary peer observation, but within a single faculty, not
across multiple faculties. They mention
that some participants ‘sought the fresh eyes of a colleague from a different
discipline’ (p 1063). Other studies cite
cross faculty observation as it relates to what is considered best practice
teaching differing between disciplines (Newman et al, 2012; Donnelly, 2007),
and how perceptions of the process differed or were similar (Schuck, Aubusson
& Buchanan, 2008).Often discussions with same discipline peers are centred on the content of teaching rather than pedagogical knowledge and procedures. The framework suggested by Martin and Double (1998) of pre-observation meeting, observation, and feedback meeting, looked to address this misalignment and assist higher education teachers to cope with the broad needs of contemporary students. This sought to activate a shift in emphasis from subject knowledge and content to a balance with skills to support learning. Further anecdotal evidence from observations of researchers and participants, but not empirical data, suggests that the background feeling is that heterogeneous (Handal, 1999) or cross faculty peer review will likely yield more complete, authentic, impacting observation, because there is some difference in culture and industry expertise. This translates into greater attention to how the teaching occurs, not what is being taught. Commentary is expected to be more forthright as the observer is one degree more removed from the observed.
Indications of the potential benefits of cross-school
observations were posited by Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond (2004) who
documented that some lecturers reported previous experience of observing in
other departments or schools, and saw advantages in discovering how different
disciplines approached the ‘craft’ of teaching.
Their concern was that in an unknown domain, the observer may be unable
to make an informed decision or judgement, but they did not go so far as to
suggest this would be detrimental (Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2004).
Further indication for the direction of analysis for this
paper to interchange the roles of observed and observer, was Shortland’s (2004)
identification of the double perspective.
Strengthening the model is that the Educational Developer, another of
the three elements, monitors Teaching Development Program (TDP) to ensure the
process is effective through all cycles, and experience is positive and useful
(Bell, 2001). One concern is the extent
to which this intervention influences the process, and the capacity to engineer
a positive outcome, thus proving the hypothesis. This research sought to achieve a sample of
observations producing uncontaminated data for analysis, by having the
researching academic developer, filling the role of a ‘critical friend’ (M.
Healey, personal communication, May 29, 2012) providing process instruction and
guidance only. Bell (2001) also raised
the question of how to ensure reflection provides a worthwhile learning process
when feedback is always positive. Peers
are always supportive of peers and are rarely critical to the point of
providing fuel for developmental intervention for the observed teacher. It is always important, for development, that
some “ideas for enhancement” are generated in agreement between peers and an
implementation “how to” plan is discussed. In this way the low hanging fruit of
development can be addressed; simple stuff that will make a quick and
noticeable difference to some aspect of their teaching craft. Obtaining feedback from students as a
contrasting perspective adds validity to the perceived need for change and in
follow-up efficacy and impact of any change made. If no developmental advice is considered and
tested, all development is through the indirect lens of reflection and
analysis. Praxis is about using research
to change practice so the doing step is important.
Donnelly (2007) identified further areas of research in
subject domain and generic matching of observer and subject as a way of
increasing academic debate. Pratt (1997)
discusses beliefs, intentions and actions as the interacting conceptions of the
teaching.
We submit that the cross discipline observer, far from being
a mere technique checker, provides the ability to comment in a meaningful way
through a learner’s lens. Pratt (1997)
questioned whether moving the focus of observation from the academic’s
discipline would reduce the critique to points of technique. This paper provides evidence of analysis that
indicates how a process of inter and intra faculty peer observation can provide
feedback on all the interacting aspects of teaching, beliefs, intentions and
actions, from various perspectives and through conversation. It is ‘collective
reflection ’.
Method and Methodology:
In 2011, Bond University Human Research Ethics Committee
research project approval was granted (BUHREC RO1200). Using Design Based Research (DBR) methodology
(Barab & Squire, 2004) this paper presents an empirical, evidence based
contribution to the scholarly literature.
Although the discussion is limited to one small group within Bond
University, it is the intention of the researchers to expand this research via
collaboration with the Griffith PRO Teaching team.
Context matters and as learning and teaching theory is an
applied field, participant researchers bring their own agendas to their
work. The use of a Design Based Research
Model such as Kelly, Lesh and Baek (2008),
seeks to produce theories on learning and teaching. The research involves design (intervention), takes
place in a naturalistic setting (the classroom), is iterative (creates and trials
a model, asks participants what they thought, evaluates, revises and retrials,
seeks feedback and refines). There is an
‘expectation that researchers will systematically adjust aspects of the
designed context, so that each adjustment serves as a type of experimentation
allowing researchers to test, generate theory, and retest in a naturalistic context’
(Barab & Squire, 2004, p 3).
The context of this research, the delivery of education in a
university setting, is at its most basic a system of inputs (content),
processes (teaching) and outputs (learning).
It also has similarities to Biggs (1987) 3P Model of Student Learning,
where three stages of presage, process and product, work together to effect
study behaviour. In this setting the
stakeholders are the consumers (students), the producers (teachers and tutors),
internal community (peers, program convenors, university hierarchy), and the
external community (disciplines and professions). The students may also be producers; producers
of feedback. The affordances of this
design framework suggest how the program will unfold (Norman, 1988); the
iterations that occur through test and retest.
These exist relative to the action capabilities of a stakeholder,
independent of the stakeholder’s ability to perceive it, and within the
changing needs or goals of the stakeholder (Gibson, 1979).
Using the methodology of DBR, we collected qualitative and
quantitative teaching observation data from participants in naturalistic
settings, and transcripts from the focus groups of observed and observers for
perceptual evaluation of the experience.
In this research, the researchers came to include the participants in a
living practice of Action Research, as used by Zuber-Skerrit (1994) for a
theoretical framework of professional development in higher education, and Carr
and Kemmis (1986) who identified with critical reflection for education
knowledge and action research. The participants’
willingness to embrace a change orientation was evident. As they progressed through the program they traversed
Kolb’s (1984) cyclical experiential learning process, from concrete experience
to self-reflection, evaluation and conceptualisation, then active
experimentation, from where the cycle begins again.
In Semester 2, May 2011 the Office of Quality Teaching and
Learning (QTL) conducted a pilot POT study with academics representing all Bond
faculties (n=14). Each academic observed
twice; one observation of a same faculty academic and one observation of a
cross faculty academic: and was observed twice; once by a same faculty academic
and once by a cross faculty academic. The
structured program we developed (See Appendix B for an extract from the ethics
application.) set the ground rules to ensure consistency and allow
measurements, from which we could seek inferences. After an initial group orientation session,
participants arranged and conducted their observations throughout the
semester. From intra and inter faculty
pairings, a total of 28 inter-faculty and 28 intra-faculty observations of
teaching occurred. The pro forma POT
form was provided. (Appendix x) Of those returned, 15 of the 17 cross faculty
forms and 7 of the 8 same faculty forms contained usable responses. The researchers acknowledge the limitations of
the data collected from a small sample group of lecturers sharing a willingness
to enquire into their teaching and their students’ learning.
Analysis:
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used
for statistical analysis of the quantitative data. Analysis of Likert Scale (1-5) data of
evaluation of teaching questions obtained from the POT Forms is tabled below in
Figure 1. Across all respondents, and
comparing cross and same faculty responses, most questions exhibited little
variation in the mean response. With
sample sizes of n=7 or 8 it is dangerous to draw conclusions about
significance, but still useful to extrapolate the results. All means were above 4. It may be inferred from this result that the
eager and engaged nature of the participants led to a skewed sample population and thereforethe positivity and optimism of results. However at the 5% level of significance on
a mean response of 4.5/5 then a “significant” difference might be at least
+/-0.225/5. That being the case, two
constructs are worth revisiting quantitatively.
For example – “the educator provides timely feedback”; and “the educator
challenges me to do my best” both show a significant difference. Using the lens of cross discipline observer
as providing a student view, what do these two constructs indicate? Timely feedback is important for formative
assessment questions so that students can clarify concepts before building upon
them. A cross-discipline observer may be
looking to test their own understanding in order to test the efficacy of the
teaching. For the “challenges students”
question there is a 4.2 vs 4.8 mean, which is a greater than 13%
difference. The notion of being
challenged to do their best is about keeping students in the zone of proximal
development so they have to struggle to build and test their mental models. In this way it is works in conjunction with
the timely feedback question, as students will be looking for feedback as part
of the mental model testing. What is
most important is that the cross-discipline observer felt challenged or felt
that the students must have been challenged and maybe transferred their own
perceptions to students. Further data
would need to be gathered and examined to see if significance and correlation
persisted.
At the end of the semester we conducted two different focus
groups: one to discuss being observed, and one to discuss being an
observer. An additional focus group
covering both aspects was held to allow for timetabling difficulties. There were 13 contributors over 3
groups. NVivo qualitative data analysis
software was used to analyse these transcripts.
The completed POT observation forms were divided into two groups: same
faculty observations and cross faculty observations. An examination of the comments recorded
revealed the following. Same faculty
observers concentrated their attention on content expertise. Comments on technique used specific content
examples, from the observation and their own experience. For example the law lecturers referred to
‘posed a challenge’ and ‘judicial notice’, and the medicine lecturers
illustrated their observations with ‘genetic counselling’ and ‘emotional
impact’ statements, identifying with their “discipline knowledge in the subject
matter being taught” (Kreber, 2002, p.15).
Cross faculty observers framed their comments from a learner’s
perspective, often referring to ‘engagement’, ‘eye contact’, ‘interest’ and
‘vicarious learning through storytelling, links and metaphors’. In conversations about the POT project some
reported a conscious mental shift from immersion in the observation as a
learner, through a feeling of information saturation (around the 10 to 15
minute mark), to conscious attention to the observation of the teaching
technique.
An NVivo analysis of the focus group transcripts highlighted
eight concept clusters. A manual
analysis of the POT Pro Formas identified the same themes expressed by the
individual observers. The NVivo analysis
and data reduction and sorting, allowed further separation of the themes to
associate observations of same and cross faculty. The researchers in this phenomenographic
analysis were then able to identify and bracket the concepts with reduced bias
and contamination from their own expectations or involvement in the work of
facilitating the peer observation partnerships.
The emergent themes are outlined below, each with a
descriptive context and illustrative comments from multiple focus group
participants representative of all faculties and identified as same or cross
faculty observations.
1. Participation: The willingness and motivation, and
associated fear of being part of a peer observation process.
Same faculty:
I initially went in for the observations being a bit
selfish, because I wanted to see what are they doing that I can use in my own
teaching and use that. (HSM Lecturer,
2011)
It’s the initial thought that’s daunting, but when you
actually go through it it’s not a big deal at all. (ISDA Lecturer, 2011)
Cross faculty:
I think there is a difference to going to observe, or being
observed by, someone from another faculty.
In a vague sense, there’s less threat.
The guy from Business isn’t worried that I’m going to be talking down
the corridor and saying “You should have seen what he did!”, which is not going
to happen, but there is that slight element of fear when you’re putting
yourself up for observation. (Law
Lecturer, 2011)
2. Consciousness: Awareness of being observed by a peer/s.
I was far more conscious of my
own Law peer being there than I was about someone from another faculty. [After about 10 minutes] I’d forgotten that I
was being observed which is interesting to me.
I was obviously conscious that I was being observed but by 100
undergraduates, not a couple of peers.
(Law Lecturer, 2011)
3. Preparation: Of content and delivery, with peer
observation partners and because of peer observation partners.
In terms of preparation there was
nothing I did that was special just because I was being observed, because the
point being they should observe a typical day of teaching not someone
performing for them or something like that so there was no special
preparation. (HSM Lecturer, 2011)
4. Content: Comparisons of engagement during the
observation.
Cross faculty:
It might get us closer to appreciating the quality of the
teaching […] areas that we aren’t familiar with, because we are then also going
through the learning experience. I was
far more able to assess the teaching when I was actually learning in the
process. (Law Lecturer, 2011)
When you’re in a different field you don’t really need to
understand the stuff, just the teaching style.
(HSM Lecturer, 2011)
I found it really good because you were just able to watch
the teaching as it happened and think, am I learning like the students as well. It sort of made me feel like a student – that
was good. (Business Lecturer, 2011)
Same faculty:
[It was] very difficult not to participate. (HSS Lecturer, 2011)
Because I know the content [I had] more time to focus on
student participation. (HSM Lecturer,
2011)
5. Performance: How, or if, the observed lecture changed
because the lecturer was being observed.
Both same and cross faculties:
[It’s] as if the ghost of the observer is still in the
room. So in a sense I’m, performing is
an awful world, but I’m delivering my class as if there were an observer in the
room. It is a form of reflection I
suppose. That’s what I’m doing – I’m
self-reviewing almost, self-observing.
(Law Lecturer, 2011)
Cross faculty:
[It’s] potentially off-putting than being observed by
someone who wasn’t, because my approach to someone who wasn’t from my faculty
was, well they are learning in the same way my students are learning. (Law Lecturer, 2011)
6. Feedback: The experience of giving and receiving
feedback.
Both same and cross faculties:
I think I was a little bit nervous giving the feedback
because I was quite honest in my peer observations. (HSM Lecturer, 2011)
I took this quite seriously, I went into this situation
observing based on what we’d been asked to do in terms of the materials given
to us, but then I also explained things in terms of, that as a fellow teacher I
appreciated these aspects of what you’ve done as well. (HSM Lecturer, 2011)
A lot of positive reinforcement plus some suggestions. It’s important to give feedback in a
professional manner that is supportive and not destructive. (ISDA Lecturer, 2011)
7. Reflection: Continuing self-evaluation.
It gives us another perspective too. I think we all realise
we’re actually all doing the same job.
How you’re delivering it, basic things like expressions and
the amount of work you might put into getting some good quality exercises up
and running and things like that. You
know, you’re giving a damn and making a bit of an effort. (ISDA Lecturer, 2011)
So, I think that reflection lives on beyond the actual
exercise. It does for me anyway. (Law Lecturer, 2011)
8. Collaboration: Applying feedback to make changes in
teaching.
[We] did something jointly together so it enhanced
relationships. (ISDA Lecturer, 2011)
[I’m] using the technique that he
suggested in my lectures. (HSM Lecturer,
2011)
The cross faculty observations have clearly added an extra
layer to the reflection and conversations experienced by the participants;
beyond same faculty validation. On the
whole the participants reported the experience was worthwhile and informative,
as summed up by this comment. “It wasn’t ‘This is the time where I will be
critiquing what you did.’ It was a
conversation. It was comfortable,
positive and I got a lot out of it.”
(Law Lecturer, 2011). Many
participants actively developed the relationships formed through the project,
continuing the conversations begun and going on to collaborative projects. One relationship in particular has put this
scholarship of teaching in motion.
Both [HSM Lecturer] and I have a
keen interest in education and technology research. [POT] lead to a successful cross disciplinary
research opportunity working on the integration of 3D models and the Unity
games development platform, for enhanced multimedia e-books and medical anatomy
education. The continued working
relationship has seen [us] work on two additional grants. The first being a
joint Royal Society UK Grant between Bond University and Coventry University’s
Serious Games Institute. The aim of the
grant is to extract best practices and value stream/chain in the design,
development and deployment of games technologies on a mobile and social
platform to support health promotion.
The second being a faculty of Humanities grant to apply the theory of
human motion control and gesture based learning to examine applied medical
imaging for first year anatomy students via a 3D human skeleton and associated
character rig controlled via the Xbox Kinect.
This opportunity to evolve the application of games technology to
medicine has been possible through the cross discipline collaborations between
the Faculties of Humanities and Social Science and Health Science and
Medicine. (HSS Lecturer, 2022)
Discussion:
This research began with the hypothesis that same faculty
and cross faculty partnerships would yield observations polarised into two
groups; content centred and learner centred, respectively. This has been born out to a point, but
through the course of the cross faculty observations, comments about both
learner centeredness and technique have emerged. Likewise in the same faculty observations,
there were comments on both content and technique. The participants behaved consistent with Pratt’s
(1997) interpretevist sociology where he stresses the importance of remaining
receptive to other teaching styles and methods, and awareness of teaching
context.
To delve into the substance of what was observed and
therefore to frame or understand our observations, we found references bound up
in the literature of evaluation of teaching.
When formulating her concept of how higher education teachers can engage
with teaching Kreber (2002) identified scholars of teaching to be both expert
teachers and excellent teachers. She
further described the construction of pedagogical content knowledge as being
the meeting of the expertise of discipline and knowledge of how to teach, to
attain expertise in teaching. This is
helpful to understand how the observation unfolds in practice. A cross-faculty observer, positioned in a
zone that has some pedagogical knowledge but little or no content knowledge,
impacts on the dynamic of observation.
It is not just the fresh eyes and ideas and broader collegial
relationships referenced earlier that are the sole advantages. The student-like lens of an external observer
provides a collegial way to express student-like concerns.
The following focus group anecdote illustrates just one
example of how the POT cycle is collaborative and enhances teaching.
I was first observed by the same
faculty person and it was very early on in the semester and he made a really
good suggestion about, instead of me just talking throughout […] and asking
people to discuss where everyone kind of looks at each other […] he suggested,
which was a really good idea, is to break them up into little groups and then
ask them to discuss among their groups and then within those people one person
presents so there’s no pressure on the others who don’t want to speak up but
would still like to communicate their ideas .
And that was a great suggestion
which I used throughout the rest of the semesters, discussing in groups and
then ‘what were your ideas’ and ‘what were your ideas’ then put the ideas up on
the whiteboard and then map it to the actual content of the slide saying “oh
look you covered most of it intuitively anyway” and the theory behind it. So that was a really good technique. (HSM Lecturer, 2011)
I saw [her] doing that very
effectively in the one that I looked at anyway, observed, and you could see
that process so you obviously picked that one up very strongly because you were
doing it. (Law Lecturer, 2011)
You went to my last lecture so it worked out perfectly. [He] came in the last lecture so I got really
good positive feedback which left me with a glow... (HSM Lecturer, 2011)
By the inclusion of cross faculty pairings, we have
presented a set of observations which encompass an evaluation of both teaching
and learning. This is worthy of further
investigation. The different valences
could be overlaid to build a richer evaluation of teaching and to substantiate
the value of peer observation as a resource for continuous improvement in an
open system of teaching.
From the first design iteration, and through discussion with
the Griffith PRO Teaching Team, we have made some changes to the POT form. The form is reordered and now provides a
section for self-reflection. We have
aligned our ‘Educator Questions’ with the student evaluation questions. The questions now mirror the Bond student
evaluation questionnaire (TEVALs) and will allow us to correlate the answers
for evidence and use in professional development [for example using Smith’s
(2008) BETTER Framework model].
Participants have commented:
Peer observation in that way
truly helps because if you’re teaching an unpopular compulsory subject which
students don’t like you just have the TEVALs to go by, whereas if you had a
peer observer looking at your style of teaching then you kind of get a sort of
360 degree feedback which is obviously what you want. (It) distinguishes between the educational
experience of the student and the ability of the teacher. (HSS Lecturer, 2011), and,
Having peer observations a number
of them throughout the semester is a great way to keep things fresh and make
sure everything is on track properly and getting feedback and continue updating
on techniques and suggestions and things like that. (HSM Lecturer, 2011)
In the second iteration of the POT Project in 2012 we have
developed the web resources available on the Bond Teaching and Learning web
pages. In Semesters 1 and 3 academics
are able to access an online orientation session, download the POT form and
register their interest as an observer and/or observee via an interactive
link. In Semester 2 Bond Learning and
Teaching is running a guided POT project.
Orientation consists of a half hour briefing followed by actual live
observation with ‘guinea pig’ lecturer in real classroom followed by a group
debrief session, with the lecturer.
There will be four lecture observations (two observing and two being
observed) and a final one hour focus group.
One participant this semester described this as ‘set and forget’. The researchers agree the ultimate aim is for
the project to be self-perpetuating, but there will always be a role for the
teaching and learning representative as a ‘critical friend’.
Conclusion:
Our research expanded on the limitations in the literature
on peer observation of teaching by including cross faculty pairings. The results delivered a broader perspective
in the teaching and learning conversations and professional development of the
participants, exposing them to different teaching approaches and facilitating
inter-disciplinary collegial relationships.
On campus our aim is to increase participation in the POT Project,
providing professional development and evidence of Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning best practice leading to increased student confidence in teaching, and
fostering a cross campus collegial environment of collective reflection among
academics. Support for the project has
been expressed by participants, for example:
... the formality to the process
I don’t think is a bad idea at all. It’s
not just for your research, it’s something that’s embedded into the quality,
teaching, learning of the university as a whole. That way you’re picking everybody up so if
you’re an exceptional teacher other people are getting exposure to those people
and learning off them and if you’re not so great you might feel, ok well I
actually need to lift my game because I’m underachieving and getting a bit
complacent in my teaching methods and styles.
(ISDA Lecturer, 2011)
Beyond Bond we see expansion via collaboration with the
Griffith PRO Teaching team and the opportunity for cross campus peer
observations of teaching, exploring additional variables of class size
differences and socio economic community impact.
References
Barab, S. & Squire. K. (2004).
Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.
Bell, M. (2001). Supported reflective
practice: a programme of peer observation and feedback for academic
development. International Journal for Academic Development. 6(1),
21-28.
Bell, M (2005). Peer observation
partnerships in higher education. Milperra, NSW: HERDSA Inc.
Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and
studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Education Research.
Donnelly, R. (2007). Perceived impact of
peer observation of teaching in higher education. International Journal of
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19, 117-129.
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming
critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Melbourne: Deakin
University Press.
Gibson, J.J. (1979). The Ecological
Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gosling, D. & O’Connor, K. M. (2005).
From peer observation of teaching to review professional practice (RPP): A
model for continuing professional development (CPD). Educational
Developments, 7(3), 1-4.
Handal, G. (1999). Consultation using
critical friends. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 79, 59-70.
Hammersley-Fletcher L. & Orsmond, P.
(2004). Evaluating our peers: Is peer observation a meaningful process? Studies
in Higher Education. 29, 498-503.
Harris, K-L., Farrell, K., Bell, M., Devlin,
M. & James, R. (2007-2008). Peer review of teaching in Australian higher
education: A handbook to support institutions in developing and embedding
effective policies and practices. Melbourne: Australian Learning &
Teaching Council.
Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A. & Baek, J.
Y., Eds (2008). Handbook of design research methods in education:
Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and
teaching. New York: Routledge.
Kember, D. & McNaught, C. (2007). Enhancing
university teaching: Lessons from research into award-winning teachers.
Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential
learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Klopper, C. & Drew, S., (2012). Defining and developing a rigorous
literature-based approach to peer observation of teaching. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Kreber, C. (2002). Teaching excellence,
teaching expertise, and the scholarship of teaching. Innovative Higher
Education, 27(1), 5-23.
Martin, G. A. & Double, J. M.
(1998).Developing higher education teaching skills through peer observation and
collaborative reflection. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 35(2), 161-169.
Newman, L. R., Brodsky, D. D., Roberts, D.
H., Pelletier, S. R., Johansson, A., Vollmer, C. M. & Schwartzstein, R. M.
(2012). Developing expert-derived rating standards for the peer assessment of lectures.
Academic Medicine, 87(3), 356-363. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182444fa3
Norman, D.A. (1988). The psychology of everyday
things. New York: Basic Books.
O'Keefe, M., Lecouteur, A., Miller, J.,
& McGowan, U. (2009). The colleague development program: a
multidisciplinary program of peer observation partnerships. Medical Teacher,
31(12), 1060-1065. doi: 10.3109/01421590903154424
Pratt, D. D. (1997). Reconceptualizing the
evaluation of teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 34, 23-44.
Schuck, S., Aubusson, P. & Buchanan, J.
(2008). Enhancing teacher education practice through professional learning
conversations. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(2), 215-227.
Shortland, S. (2004). Peer observation: a
tool for staff development or compliance? Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 28(2), 219-228.
Smith, C. (2008). Building effectiveness in
teaching through targeted evaluation and response: connecting evaluation to
teaching improvement in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 33(5), 517-533.
Zuber-Skerrit, O. (1994). Professional
development in higher education: A theoretical framework for action research.
London: Kogan-Page
