Content uploaded by David Gosling
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Gosling on Nov 06, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Models of Peer Observation of Teaching
David Gosling
Co-Director, Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund
National Co-ordination Team
August 2002
LTSN Generic Centre 2 August 2002
Introduction
When someone observes another teaching there are many factors which influence the success of the
activity. In order to understand the complexities which affect the situation and to identify three models
of peer observation, I shall begin 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’?
Peer
The term ‘peer’ can include a variety of relationships within an organisational setting. For example the
QAA’s Subject Review process was, in one sense, a ‘peer review’ model, but the power relationship
between reviewer and the teacher being observed was far from equal. Peers can be colleagues from
the same department, either of a similar status or there can be differentials of status, or the colleagues
can be from another department or from a central educational development unit.
If the purpose of the observation is merely to make a judgement about the person observed then the
differences in power and status are only relevant in so far as they may bias the judgement. But if the
purpose of observing teaching is to promote learning about teaching then we must remember that
‘Learning’ cannot be abstracted from the social relations within which it occurs ‘ (Webb, 1996:94). If
POT is used to determine performance related pay (see Liz Allen’s article on this web-site), or as part
of an appraisal mechanism, or to determine promotion, or to investigate ‘under-performance’ then the
opportunity to learn will be reduced. In these circumstances the discourse of management, and the
social relationship of power and authority will clearly impact on the interaction.
POT is also often used as part of a training course for new lecturers or as part of a development
process for individual lecturers or the whole department. Sometimes this is by mutual agreement and
sometimes it is imposed. Here, the observer occupies the role of the expert - although still a peer.
When the teacher being observed accepts, or even welcomes, the comments of the observer, it can
be a powerful learning experience (Gosling, 2000), but it can also prevent full engagement by subject
staff if the ‘expert’ is not fully trusted.
The way in which the peer observation is organised within a department impacts on the extent to
which there is shared understanding and mutual willingness to use the observation process to learn
about teaching. If observers are senior in a hierarchy to those observed then issues of inequality and
lack of mutuality can undermine the process. Particularly when professional autonomy may seem to
be under attack from other quarters there can be considerable suspicion of the process and
sensitivities that need to be recognised and addressed. (Keig and Waggonner, 1995). It is important
for a fully successful peer review model that staff are regarded as genuine peers, in which there is real
mutuality and respect for each of the participants as equal, whatever their status in the department.
As peers what knowledge do we bring to the process of observing others teach? There is a view that
‘none of us are qualified to make judgements on the teaching of our peers, and that our judgements’
(Cosh, 98). Many subject lecturers focus their discussions on course content, not on learning
processes, because that is where they feel best qualified to comment. Evidence from American
research in 1970’s suggested that the greatest influence on the way we teach is neither theories of
education nor our training, but is instead our notion of good teaching derived from our own experience
of being taught (Lorte, 1975 - quoted by Cosh 98:173). This calls into question the value of colleague’s
judgements.
If, however if the participants are ‘orientated towards reaching understanding.’ (Habermas, 1984)
rather than making judgements then these objections lose much of their force. An important
precondition for achieving an ‘orientation towards understanding’ is to ensure that confidentiality is
guaranteed. Any information that can be used outside the context of the observer and observed
should be aggregated and anonymised before it is discussed - for example in departmental
seminars. Secondly, staff can be given some training in how to give constructive feedback to
maximise the benefits of POT, since this is a demanding skill (Cosh, 98: 173).
LTSN Generic Centre 3 August 2002
Thirdly, the emphasis should be on both parties learning from the observation to get away from the
one-way model, when the observer comments on the observed. In this way both parties benefit from
the process - ‘I found it useful to watch someone else teach: it gave me ideas for my own teaching’.
(Martin and Double, 1998)
Fourthly, the locus of responsibility should not be regarded as solely with the individual teacher. By
encouraging staff to think about a collective responsibility for teaching within a department the
isolation of lecturers can be removed. Historically there have been a lack of ‘safe’ places where
discussion about teaching can take place. POT can play a large role in creating an environment in
which such discussions can occur.
Observation
Let us now consider the second, apparently innocuous word in POT - ‘observation’. By emphasising
watching teaching, the focus becomes that which is observable? It is by definition that which is visible.
In so far as POT is making teaching observable, it is part of a trend towards make teaching more
public and less of a private activity. This is a desirable trend, but there is a limitation of this model. We
need to ask what is, and what is not, observable? POT tends to focus on the ‘performance’ element in
teaching and learning and in doing so miss out what is less observable.
A second point about observing teaching concerns what is seen and what is noticed. Observers do not
simply ‘see’ teaching behaviours, they interpret what they see as ‘a lecture’, ‘an innovation’, ‘traditional
method’ and so on. The experience and level of expertise of the observer influences what is seen and
what is missed and what is thought to be important.
It has been argued that to avoid the subjective/anecdotal nature of much observation it is advisable to
use more systematic means of collecting data, for example using observation schedules, check lists,
time-line analysis, data on interactions, type of question asked and so on. All of these methods can
have a value, but for the purposes of POT which is used for development purposes (rather than
research into classroom behaviour) informal recording of what happens is probably best. However, it
is important for the observer to try to observe and record what happens and not rely on memory and
interpretation without any evidence. To assist in this process some have argued strongly for using
video recording to help validate feedback, documenting and preserving the strengths of teachers,
identifying weaknesses, and comparing teaching at different points in teachers’ careers’ (Keig and
Waggoner, 1995)
However the observer, or the presence of a video camera, can influence what is observed, especially
when the class is small. This can distort the value of the observations. Martin and Double, 1998 quote
comments which support this, ‘It was clear that my presence may him nervous’ but also those who felt
that although they were aware of the observation taking place it did not influence their teaching -
‘Gareth was unobtrusive in the class but I was conscious of his presence: this did not alter my style in
any way,’
In conclusion, observing is not a neutral process, it is influenced by circumstances, the method of
observation as well as what the observer brings to the event.
Teaching
How do conceptions of teaching influence the POT process? Sometimes staff make presumptions
about what is worth observing.– which tends to favour lectures and seminars where the tutor is
clearly ‘performing’. There is much of what is teaching, which is less easy to observe, such as
tutorials, supervision, studio work or in computer labs when a tutor is having individual conversation
with students that are much harder to observe in the normal sense.
How important is it that the teaching occurs in authentic settings? An alternative is micro-teaching
which is very useful as a training tool. This is when a tutor is videoed ‘teaching’ for just a few minutes
focusing on a particular skill – such as explaining, introducing a topic, concluding a session.
LTSN Generic Centre 4 August 2002
Concentrating on teaching as an activity can also lead to neglect of what teaching is for – namely to
promote student learning. It is important to broaden our conception of what is to be seen and what is
the evidence being collected? We need to ask how the performance of teaching relates to other kinds
of evidence, such as student feedback, assessment processes, student learning outcomes, learning
materials and so on.
We need a wider understanding of what the peer review process will include to go beyond observing
teaching to consideration of all aspects of curriculum design, learning support and assessment.
Subject staff need to be able to engage critically with conceptions of teaching (Ho IJAD 2000) through
dialogue with peers. Teaching must become a discussible topic to challenge what is taken for granted.
Through collective peer review teaching can become a matter of collective responsibility and not
individual blame or praise. But staff are less familiar with discussing teaching than research methods.
To tackle this problem we need to consider ways of making teaching important and to find ways of
valuing reflection? Teaching staff need to develop a language to discuss teaching and adopt a more
scholarly approach to discussion of it through a peer review model.
From this discussion we can distinguish three distinct models of POT – a ‘management model’, a
‘development model’ and a ‘peer review model’.
LTSN Generic Centre 5 August 2002
Models of Peer Observation of Teaching
Characteristic
evaluation model
development model
peer review model
Who does it & to
whom?
Senior staff observe
other staff
Educational
developers observe
practitioners; or
expert teachers
observe others in
department
teachers observe
each other
Purpose
Identify under-
performance, confirm
probation, appraisal,
promotion, quality
assurance,
assessment
Demonstrate
competency/improve
teaching
competencies;
assessment
engagement in
discussion about
teaching; self and
mutual reflection
Outcome
Report/judgement
report/action plan;
pass/fail PGCert
Analysis, discussion,
wider experience of
teaching methods
Status of evidence
authority
expert diagnosis
peer shared
perception
Relationship of
observer to observed
power
expertise
equality/mutuality
Confidentiality
Between manager,
observer and staff
observed
Between observer
and the observed,
examiner
Between observer
and the observed -
shared
within learning set
Inclusion
Selected staff
Selected/ sample
all
Judgement
Pass/fail, score,
quality assessment,
worthy/unworthy
How to improve;
pass/fail
Non-judgemental,
constructive
feedback
What is observed?
Teaching
performance
Teaching
performance, class,
learning materials,
Teaching
performance, class,
learning materials,
Who benefits?
Institution
The observed
Mutual between
peers
Conditions for
success
Embedded
management
processes
Effective central unit
Teaching is valued,
discussed
Risks
Alienation, lack of co-
operation, opposition
No shared
ownership, lack of
impact
Complacency,
conservatism,
unfocused
LTSN Generic Centre 6 August 2002
References:
Cosh, J. (1998) Peer Observation in Higher Education - A Reflective Approach. Innovations in
Teaching and Training International. 35, 2, pp 171 - 176.
Gosling, D. (2000) Using Habermas to Evaluate Two Approaches to Negotiated Assessment.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 25 (3), 293-304.
Ho, A. (2000) A Conceptual Change Approach to staff development: A model for programme design.
International Journal for Academic Development. Vol 5.1. 30-41
Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol 1. Trans McCarthy T. London:
Heineman.
Keig, L and Waggoner, M. D. (1994) Collaborative Peer Review. The Role of Faculty in Improving
College Teaching. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No 2. Washington, DC: The George
Washington University.
Martin, G. A. and Double, J. M. (1998) Developing Higher Education Teaching Skills Through Peer
Observation and Collaborative Reflection. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 35: 2,
161- 176.
Webb, G. (1996) Theories of Staff Development: Development and Understanding. The International
Journal for Academic Development, Vol 1, No 1. May, 63-69
