Richard Edwards, Assistant Registrar, Teaching Support Unit

1
Richard Edwards, Assistant Registrar, Teaching
Support Unit

• Peer observation in Medicine and Dentistry
• Social Medicine, 1 November 2006

2
Presentation structure

• Why run peer observation?
• What are the expectations on departments?
• Differences between the University and Faculty of
  Medicine and Dentistrys chosen model
• Some points to note from experience gathered from
  elsewhere in the University and other HEIs
• Over to Yoav for details of the practicalities

3
Why run peer observation?

• University decided that peer observation was an
  effective light touch method of improving
  teaching
• It is important to recognise the importance of
  the professional development of teachers
• Gives an opportunity to reflect on existing
  practice of benefit to teachers and reviewers
• Strong examples of good practice exist already,
  particularly in Dentistry
• Guidelines were passed by University Senate in
  June 2005

4
Expectations of departments

• To embrace the spirit of the guidelines, which
  ask departments to establish local peer
  observation
• Three stage process
• Preliminary meeting
• Observation of teaching using proforma
• Feedback/review meeting
• Information remains within the Faculty the
  University wont ask for any detail
• Simple administration - not time consuming,
  review at least once every x years

5
Differences between the University and the
Facultys chosen model

• University model process is confidential between
  reviewer and teacher, unless teacher opts to use
  it for promotion purposes
• Faculty model feedback forms are passed to unit
  and element lead, as appropriate, as a quality
  assurance mechanism. Can also be used for
  promotion purposes if the teacher wishes

6
Points to note from existing practice

• Need for sensitivity in phrasing feedback
• Highlight what went well credit where it is due
• Avoid the expert/novice mindset treat as equals
• Reviewer can ask teacher what they would do
  differently
• Teachers need to be willing to accept
  constructive comments
• Setting realistic and achievable targets is
  useful
• Unconscious competence

7
References/further reading

• University guidelines on peer observation
• http//www.bristol.ac.uk/tsu/lta/policies/peer_obs
  _guide.doc
• Gilpin, E (2000) Discussion Paper Peer
  observation in departments of Education. Bristol
  Escalate (Education Subject Centre of the Higher
  Education Academy. Available from
  http//escalate.ac.uk/resources/peerobservation/10
  .html Accessed 23 October 2006

8

• Richard Edwards
• Assistant Registrar
• Teaching Support Unit
• University of Bristol
• Tyndall Avenue
• Bristol BS8 1TH
• Tel [phone]
• Fax [phone]
• Email r.h.edwards_at_bristol.ac.uk
• http//www.bristol.ac.uk/tsu/