Peer Development as an alternative to Peer Observation

1
Peer Development as an alternative to Peer
Observation
Jenny Byrne 2nd April 2008
2
Background to Peer Observation

• The purpose of peer observation
• Accountability for the quality of teaching
• Improves the quality of teaching
• (Hamersley-Fletcher and Orsmond, 2004 Shortland,
  2004 )
• Potential outcomes of top down peer observation
• Evaluative only (Peel, 2005).
• Does not necessarily lead to improvement (Hendry
  and Dean, 2002Peel, 2005) .

3
Peer Observation in the School of Education

• Practice
• A one off observation
• Non-reciprocation
• Little opportunity for discussion
• A paper based exercise
• Return rates
• Staff opinions of the process

4
The impetus for change

• Staff opinions
• Paper from LATEU (Berthiaume,2006)
• Research base
• LATEC - discussion and decision to explore
  alternatives
• Working party

5
Peer Development rationale

• Key purposes
• a greater emphasis on peer collaboration between
  colleagues
• mutually beneficial and collegiate
• enhance professional development of teaching
  staff through a collaborative process
• intended to enhance long-term professional
  development

6
Peer Development rationale

• Benefits
• foster a non-judgemental climate
• offer planned rather than ad hoc conversations
• have long term benefits for those engaged in the
  process
• provide opportunities for a shared understanding
  of problematic issues
• opportunities to evaluate problematic issues and
  consider possible improvements
• offer opportunities for colleagues to research
  and develop pedagogy

7
Peer Development the process

• Structure
• pairs or small groups work together over an
  extended period in a mutually supportive
  environment
• Parameters
• needs to be pragmatic e.g. realistic amount of
  time, number of meetings
• includes a broad definition of teaching activity

8
Peer Development the process

• identify a colleague/ colleagues willing to work
  with you collaboratively
• complete a proposal form and return it to the
  Head of School
• be prepared to meet at mutually agreed times over
  the academic year
• meet early in the academic year to decide on the
  focus/context of your meetings, the nature and
  purpose of what you wish to consider
• consider how you will record your observations
  and conversations
• complete a résumé of your activities to be handed
  in to the Head of School

9
Peer Development 2007-08

• A pilot run alongside the Universitys peer
  observation process
• 26 SoE staff involved
• 10 different peer activities planned
• Feedback to date -
• gives us the chance to discuss and share ideas
  about our practice
• we can say anything to each other without being
  worried
• weve had the chance to explore an aspect of our
  practice thoroughly

10
Peer Development evaluation of the pilot

• Questionnaire to participants
• Focus group interviews with non- participants
• Alter/ amend in light of feedback

11
Peer Development where next?

• One model developed and amended
• Other alternatives?
• Retain standard peer observation
• Offer choice

12
References

• Berthiaume, D. (2006) Peer observation of
  teaching in higher education. Learning and
  Teaching Enhancement Unit, University of
  Southampton.
• Hamersley-Fletcher, L. and Orsmond, P. (2004)
  Evaluating our peers is peer observation a
  meaningful process? Studies in Higher Education,
  29, 4, 489-503.
• Hamersley-Fletcher, L. and Orsmond, P. (2005)
  Reflecting on reflective practices within peer
  observation. Studies in Higher Education, 30, 2,
  213-224.
• Hendry, G.D. and Dean, S.J. (2002)
  Accountability, evaluation of teaching and
  expertise in higher education. The International
  Journal for Academic Development, 7,1, 75-82.
• Shortland, S. (2004) Peer observation a tool for
  staff development or compliance? Journal of
  Further and Higher Education, 28, 2, 219-228.