Peer observation

Peer observation is well established, particularly in health sciences (eg Blanco 2007; Martsolf et al. 1999; Siddiqui, Jonas-Dwyer & Carr 2007) and has been an important component of many foundations of university teaching courses (Bell 2002) (eg Carew et al. 2008). It has also provided evidence of the scholarship of teaching in higher education for teaching portfolios (Seldin 1997; D’Andrea 2002; MacAlpine 2001; Quinlan 2002).

Of significance to the Australian higher education sector, Maureen Bell’s extensive work on peer observation of teaching includes both self-directed reviews and guided experiences with an expert reviewer or educational developer (Bell 2002). Her work emphasises promoting and valuing partnerships for improving teaching practice and the importance of ‘teaching conversations’ (Bell 2005, p50), and has provided useful resources (Bell 2005, 2010) for those supporting or conducting reviews. Building in part on Bell’s work, the University of Wollongong has been supporting peer observation as an institution for more than a decade (University of Wollongong, 2009). However, quantitative evaluation data has been difficult to collect due to the very personal nature of peer observation partnerships and outcomes (Bell 2002).

Many important projects have been developed from this foundation, ranging from an Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) project (Harris et al. 2008a) to a project that has enhanced the teaching practice and experiences of tutors (Bell & Mladenovic 2008; Bell, Mladenovic & Segara 2010). The evaluation of teaching in disciplinary or departmental groups has also become a common goal of peer observation initiatives, in order to support both good practice and for ‘quality enhancement’ (Menzies et al. 2008). Consequently many universities across Australia have developed their own peer observation resources for staff development on their websites (eg Goody 2004).

Peer observation is also well established in the United Kingdom, strongly influenced by the national quality assurance processes’ drive towards ‘best practice’. The ESCALATE project and guidelines (Gosling 2000a; Gosling 2000b) have been widely used across many departments and universities (Gosling & Ritchie 2003). The emphasis on reflective practice for developing as a teacher (see for example Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond 2005) is joined in the United Kingdom to the requirement for institutional reporting. This has resulted in confidential formative review processes that are also aggregated for outside stakeholders (Race, Staff & Fellows 2009). A significant motivating factor for many individual teachers to engage in peer observation has been to complement mandatory institutional student evaluation data (Brent & Felder 2004). However, peer observation reports have also become a requirement in certain universities in the United States (Ackerman, Gross & Vigneron 2009) and especially in the United Kingdom, providing a challenge to the formative benefits of voluntary review (Byrne, Brown & Challen 2010).

Who the ‘peer’ is in peer observation is an important consideration (Gosling 2002), with the most successful interactions being collegial partnerships between those who are equals in terms of teaching and learning, although not necessarily in administrative terms (Bell & Mladenovic 2008; Anderson, Parker & McKenzie 2009; Kell & Annetts 2009; Bell, Mladenovic & Segara 2010). Nonetheless, peer observation often refers to visitations from more senior academic managers, quality auditing teams or academic developers (Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond 2004; McMahon, Barrett & O'Neill 2007).

The value of peer observation is well accepted for reflection on teaching, and has been linked to different types of reflection (Bell & Mladenovic 2008; Bell, Mladenovic & Segara 2010), and the importance and value of a critical friend to support and challenge these reflections is frequently reiterated in the literature (see for example Symons 1987 in Bell 2005; Melrose in Lomas & Nicholls 2005; Shortland 2010). However, establishing and managing supportive interactions throughout the process of observation, how best to do this and the dangers if this dynamic does not function well are crucial aspects for successful outcomes (see for example Bell 2010). The consequent requirement for training in peer observation, so that teachers understand that there are a variety of ways to be an effective teacher, is an important consideration (Courneya, Pratt & Collins 2008). Mixing observers across disciplines should not be problematic (Hatzipanagos & Lygo-Baker 2006) if the relationship is carefully established and nurtured. Collaborative models of teaching and peer observations across areas, as well as within teaching teams, are both strengthened by and can develop from such peer interactions (Anderson, Parker & McKenzie 2009). Indeed the development of the ‘critical friend’ relationship is not only important for facilitating peer review but can also be a significant outcome in its own right (Shortland 2010).

The classroom observation methods that form the basis of peer observations inevitably lead to a focus on classroom teaching behaviours, and can lead to a performance mindset and anxiety in one-off reviews (Bell 2002). The importance of the affective dimensions of peer observation (Kell 2005; Kell & Annetts 2009), both positive and negative, is explicitly discussed by Bell, Mladenovic and Segara (2010), who note the links to reflective practice in this respect. There is also positive affirmation through peer observation for academics who are able to value and reclaim teaching (Peseta 2006). In this process teaching practice and identities can be strengthened: ‘Peer observations within the course communities served particularly to further the emergence of academic teacher identities’ (Warhurst 2006, p119). McMahon, Barrett and O'Neill (2007) make the point that the essential requirement is that the reviewee needs to be able to control the whole process: from whether they participate or not, to what is done as a result of the review (this has been strongly echoed by the case studies in the current project).

Despite highlighting that the relationships between participants are central to its success (Hatzipanagos & Lygo-Baker 2006), the face-to-face setting of peer observation has encouraged a preponderance of checklists (eg Fernandez & Yu 2007; Jarzabkowski & Bone 1998; MacAlpine 2001). These are often combined with peer review of materials (Brent & Felder 2004) but tend to focus on the conditions that are necessary for learning (such as accessibility of materials and availability of facilities for student interaction). These preconditions are not, however, sufficient to support and inspire high quality learning. What are important are the intentions, processes and outcomes of learning (McKenzie et al. 2008) and therefore these three phases of learning together (Biggs 2003) need to be part of teaching reviews. Gosling’s differentiation of the managerial (or evaluative), developmental and finally peer review models, including his move to go beyond peer observation, provides a useful conceptual and temporal transition to the consideration of peers reviewing teaching (Gosling 2002).