Peer observation, feedback
and reflection for online
practice
Mark H. Jones, Faculty of Science & eSTEeM
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
Motivation for the project
Models of peer-review
Implementation of a peer-review exercise
Evaluation
Comments on wider scale adoption
Motivation
• Level 3 physics and astronomy modules have moved
completely to online tuition – with online rooms replacing
face-to-face contact.
• Staff Tutor has a responsibility to:
– develop staff in their pedagogic practice
– monitor the quality of what is provided
• In an online environment, there are new possibilities to
set up peer observation.
• Can peer-observation be useful in developing practice
for synchronous online tuition?
Models of peer-review
• Peer-observation is used throughout HE in several
distinct contexts.
• A useful classification was provided by Gosling (2002):
- Evaluation model
- Development model
- Collaborative model
• “Observation” is a loaded term.
Peer observation models
Characteristic
Evaluation model
Development model
Collaborative model
Who does it,
and with whom?
Senior staff, or
chosen ‘evaluators’
other staff
Educational
developers observe
practitioners
Teachers/peers/
colleagues
Purpose
Quality assurance
(e.g. identify underperformance);
appraisal (e.g.
promotion cases)
Demonstrate or
improve competencies
in teaching;
assessment.
Improve teaching and
learning through
dialogue, reflection;
stimulate innovation
Outcome
Report / judgement
Report / action plan
Analysis, discussion,
wider experience of
teaching methods
Status of
evidence
Authority
Expert diagnosis
Peer shared
perceptions
Adapted from Gosling (2009)
The collaborative ideal?
• Purpose: improve teaching and student learning through
dialogue, self and mutual reflection; stimulate innovation
• Outcome: analysis, reflection, discussion, wider
experience, improvement to teaching and learning.
• Status of peer review: peer shared understandings and
perceptions. Non-judgmental, constructive facilitated
dialogue
• Intended beneficiaries: mutual benefits for both peers,
students
• Conditions for success: a culture in which teaching is
valued and discussed.
• Risks: confirms existing practice, passive compliance,
bureaucratic.
Implementation
• Voluntary participation
• Reviewee is in control of the process:
- makes initial contact with reviewer
- reports when process is complete
• Briefing for participants (online meeting – recorded)
• Aimed for review of live sessions (but some review of
recordings did take place)
• A cohort of tutors on third level physical science
modules
• Tutor group tutorials (rather than module wide
presentations)
• Aimed to observe different modules (wasn’t always
possible) SM358, SMT359, S382, S383
Practicalities: three stages
1.
2.
3.
4.
Pre-observation contact
Observation
Feedback and reflection meeting
(Notification that process is finished)
Pre-observation discussion
• The context of the tutorial (reviewers may not know the
module).
• Note-taking – are you both happy with the note-taking
protocols (see below)?
• Will whiteboards be shared beforehand?
• Will notes be shared before or after discussion (see
below)
• How will the reviewer be introduced to the students?
• Agree when feedback meeting will be held.
From briefing session
The observed session
•
•
•
•
Turn up in good time.
Tutor to introduce reviewer as agreed.
Reviewer takes notes as agreed.
Probably not a good idea to run on from the observed
session straight into the feedback/reflection meeting.
From briefing session
Feedback / reflection meeting
• Aim: to reflect on a teaching session in order to:
- identify good practice
- analyse situations which were less successful
- feel confident about making changes to practice
• NOT an aim to either identify everything that wasn’t
perfect, or to solve every issue in online teaching.
From briefing session
Timeline
•
•
•
•
•
Number of participants: 12 (out of possible 20)
Call for volunteers: April 2012
Online briefing: May 2012
Observations took place: June to September 2012
Feedback / reflection sessions after observations
Practical problems
• Timetabling (and use of recordings)
• Permissions setting on VLE
• Timescale for the process (too short)
Evaluation
Main tool for analysis is a structured conversation
conducted at the end of the presentation (October 2012).
Explores:
•Practical problems.
•Practical considerations.
•Themes around peer observation. The extent to which
the process meets the ideal of Gosling’s collaborative
model (see also Martin & Double 2006)
Evaluation: themes
• Purpose: learning and reflection? Other peerobservation experience.
• Apprehension (Bell, 2010) threatening nature (Cosh,
2006)
• Nature of the feedback (Bell, 2010). Training observers
to give constructive criticism (Cosh,2006)
• Effectiveness (Bell, 2010) and uncritical positive
feedback.
• Benefits to observer, creative reflection (Cosh,2006)
and Bell (2010) - 'modelling teaching skills'.
• Ongoing professional development (Bell, 2010)
• Identifying good online teaching (Swinglehurst, Russell,
Greenhalgh, 2008 )
Evaluation: current status
• Evaluative conversations were conducted in October /
November.
• Currently being transcribed to text.
• Qualitative data to inform understanding of the themes.
Wider adoption
Some comments:
• Findings of small scale qualitative survey should be a
useful guide to issues for any larger scale
implementation.
• There is a specific need to develop discussion around
practice in teaching using synchronous conferencing.
• Important to create a model that is perceived to be
collaborative.
• Care needed to avoid the process being appropriated for
other purposes (e.g. quality assurance).