Peer Observation of Teaching and Beyond

Matti Lappalainen Kristine Mason O'ConnorUniversity of Turku University of GloucestershireFinland UKmatlap@utu.fi kmoconnor@glos.ac.uk

http://users.utu.fi/matlap/POT_Lappalainen_Mason.pdf

ICED Conference, 23rd-25th July 2012, Bangkok, Thailand

Session in brief

• Introducing Peer Observation of Teaching (POT)• Beyond POT: Peer review• Discussion: Towards more intensive collaboration in

teaching and learning?

Teaching in higher education = mostly work in isolation

• … especially when compared to research

However: POT

• 3 models (Gosling 2002)1. evaluation model is for assessment of performance (eg.

for promotion). It´s normally done by senior staff. 2. developmental model is to demonstrate competency and

improve teaching competencies. It´s for development and done by educational developers or expert teachers.

3. peer review model is to engage teachers in discussion about teaching and give an opportunity to self and mutual reflection. It´s done by teachers themselves.

Reasons for peer observation as a mean of educational development?

The phases of POT

1. Pre-observation– Guidelines, training, instructions…

2. Observation3. After observation

– Discussion with a peer– Report– Portfolio– …

Examples: even in a small country (Finland)a large variation

• ”inspection of teaching” by invitation (Engineering in Aalto University, FI)

• Pairing teachers by EdDev Unit (Abo Academi Univ, FI)

• Observing videos (Aalto University, FI)• As a part of professional training programme

(University of Turku, FI)

Teachers like… but don´t use

• An example after professional training programme: “POT worked as a tool for educational development”: badly 1 2 3 4 5 well

Average 4.3

However, very often POT has remained for a single

experiment

Beyond peer review?• Addresses ‘non-visible’ aspects e.g. context; planning

intentions and goals• Is not performance-based• Can be undertaken in pairs or teams of learning

communities• Expands beyond face to face teaching• Removes observer bias• Involves constructive scholarly inquiry and reflection

Addresses Teaching Problems

• Bass (1999) compares our different attitudes to research problems and teaching problems. Whereas research problems are a ‘good thing’ that academics are only too happy to discuss and debate with colleagues, often ‘teaching problems’ have been seen as implying a fault or deficiency in the teacher.Bass, R. (1999) Bass, R. (1999) The Scholarship of Teaching: what's the problem? Inventio, 1(1), pp.1-9.

UK Examples (SEDA Paper 124)1. Review of Professional Practice (Gloucestershire)2. Peer Review of learning Teaching and Assessment

(Sheffield Hallam)3. Peer Review of Teaching and Assessment (Cumbria)4. Peer Review of Learning and Teaching (Cardiff)5. Peer Supported Review (Ulster)6. Peer learning (Worcester)

(the publication http://www.seda.ac.uk/ )

Towards collaboration in teaching and learning

Conclusions and Questions

Peer Observation and Peer Review are not mutually exclusive. Peer observation may be incorporated into peer review

• Your experiences and examples, eg.:– Mandatory or voluntary?

• …• How can we further develop collaboration in teaching and

learning, for example, involving students?

References (more in conference publication) Bass, R. (1999). The Scholarship of Teaching: what's the problem? Inventio, 1(1), pp.1-9.

Gosling, D. (2002). Models of Peer Observation of Teaching. Report.http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/resource_database/id200_Models_of_Peer_Observation_of_Teaching (read 14th June 2012)

Thank You!