How can LSBU’s peer
observation scheme be
improved?
A research report for the LTEU:
Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit
by
Gail Langley (MSFS/EDUC)
and
Tom Hall (LTEU)
JULY 2006
CONTENTS
Page
1. Executive summary
3
2.
5
Acknowledgements
3. Introduction/methodology
3.1 The research question
3.2 LSBU’s current peer observation scheme
3.3 The need for this review
3.4 The methodology for the review
6
4. Literature review
4.1 Gosling 2005
4.2 Gosling 2006
4.3 Selected other sources
9
5. Summary of a small-scale review of peer observation schemes in UK universities
11
6. Review of LSBU staff views of LSBU’s current scheme and possible alternatives
12
7. Conclusions
7.1 From the literature review
7.2 From the survey of other UK universities
7.3 From the survey of LSBU staff
20
8. Recommendations
24
9. Bibliography
26
10. Appendices - list
28
10.1 Questionnaire for other UK universities
10.2 List of UK universities surveyed
10.3 Questionnaire for LSBU staff
10.4 LSBU staff questionnaire: comments in response to question 12
10.5 LSBU staff questionnaire: comments in response to question 13
10.6 LSBU staff questionnaire: comments in response to question 14
10.7 Comments on peer observation practices in LSBU partner
institutions in the UK and overseas
2
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This research report aims to provide recommendations to answer the question “How can
LSBU improve its peer observation scheme?”. It was commissioned by the LTEU for
completion July 2006. The research covered three areas: a limited current literature
review, a small-scale survey of other UK universities’ peer observation schemes (18
universities) and a survey of LSBU staff views of the current scheme and possible
alternatives (77 respondents).
Points from the current scheme to continue:
1. Have a university-wide scheme
2. Keep it developmental
Points to work on:
1. The scheme must be more strongly specified in terms of purpose, focus and procedure
and needs to allow for some element of local ownership (eg departments or faculties)
which may mean some local variations.
2. Aim to make it more collaborative and engaging and keep away from a managerial
audit-driven attitude which is demotivating
- emphasise reciprocal learning: both observer and observee aim to benefit from
this process
- emphasize CPD and scholarship of teaching and learning
3. Frequency – once a year is a possible model; variation allowed?
4. For whom: available to all teaching staff in whatever capacity
5. Keep in mind the problem of how the scheme is viewed over time. Does it need to
allow flexibility to vary the focus from one year to the next?
6. Proformas – have a proforma available; consider reference to the use of alternatives eg
the QAA form used in HSC; variation possible?
7. Record-keeping: consider two levels of record-keeping 7.1 what observer and observee want to record which is confidential to them:
variable?
7.2 summary of good practice from either or both observer and
observee to go to Head of Department for annual summary or
reporting. The use of this summary needs to be specified. Not variable?
8. Observers: 8.1 suggest ways of choosing peer observers: variable?
8.2 option for staff to invite educational developers to observe them
8.3 option for staff to make a recording of their teaching in order to
review it
3
9. Provide a well-developed system of training for participants in peer observation at
university-level, faculty-level, departmental-level and through self-access material
available electronically/in print.
10. Consider the option of peer review of any aspects of teaching eg development of
courses, of learning materials, of assessment, of tutoring, of dissertation supervision, of
field trips, of e-learning, of blended learning, of supporting diversity etc
11. Include clearly defined suggestions for providing evidence of good practice and
sharing evidence of good practice: variable
- self-access material available electronically, including recordings of teaching
performance
- workshops at departmental, faculty and university levels
12. Needs resourcing – to become integral to the work of teaching staff, not an add-on; to
allow for training as in 9 above; to allow for involvement of educational developers as
required (as in 8.2 above); to allow for recording of teaching (as in 8.3 above) etc
4
2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to the Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit for commissioning this research
project.
We are very grateful to Sara Bell (LTEU) for her work on the electronic versions of the
questionnaires. We wish to thank all the colleagues in LSBU and in other universities
who took the time and trouble to complete a questionnaire. Particular thanks to the
colleagues who commented on the pilot questionnaire, to Holly Nicholas (Director of
Collaborations) and to colleagues in partner institutions for their input.
We acknowledge that if there are any errors and omissions, they are entirely our
responsibility and hope that readers will inform us of these so that we can correct them.
Gail Langley (MSFS/Education): langleg@lsbu.ac.uk
Tom Hall (LTEU): tom.hall@lsbu.ac.uk
London South Bank University
July 2006
5
3. INTRODUCTION/METHODOLOGY
3.1 The research question
London South Bank University established a peer observation of teaching scheme over
ten years ago. The issue is that times have changed and the scheme needs reviewing to
make it more fit for purpose. The research question identified is “How can LSBU’s peer
observation scheme be improved?”
3.2 LSBU’s current peer observation scheme
The current scheme, established in 1995, aims to provide annual feedback on practice in a
non-threatening way and to support the development of teaching skills. Observer and
observee choose each other, are required to observe/be observed once a year, and simply
say they have done so. There is no requirement for any written record. Due to the
political climate in the mid 90s, it was important that there was no association with
appraisal or managers in any way.
Guidelines for the scheme covered:
 Description
 Organization
 Preparation for the observation
 During the observation
 After the observation
 A proforma for the observation with these headings:
Content
structure
level
Clarity
examples
handouts/materials
Audibility
pace and timing audio visual aids
Interaction
venue
We needed to find out what staff thought of the current scheme in order to recommend
any features to be retained and any appropriate links between old and new schemes.
3.3 The need for this review
What has changed that makes this review seem necessary? The external influences on the
sector have been profound. First, very simply observation of teaching in higher education
has become usual instead of being rather unusual. This has developed significantly due to
external pressure from the QAA, which began its work in 1997. Over 3200 Subject
Reviews have taken place and subject review assessors have observed staff across most
departments (QAA 2004). Currently QAA expects there to be a peer observation of
teaching scheme in place with written evidence of its workings.
Secondly, simultaneously the scholarship of teaching and learning has become a much
more known and estimable area of research, and pedagogy is a key area in this.
6
Thirdly, there is some influence from what is now the Higher Education Academy to
increase the interest of academics in the business of teaching.
Within LSBU, there have been changes reflecting these external influences. The
university’s mission statement makes a point of emphasizing the delivery of high quality
teaching. In order to achieve that, one element has been to set up a Learning and
Teaching Enhancement Unit (LTEU) in 2004. Part of its remit is to commission smallscale research projects to improve practice through evidence-based approaches. Thus the
LTEU has commissioned this research project to be completed in the academic year
2005/2006, undertaken by Gail Langley, who works in both Education (in the Faculty of
AHS: Arts and Human Sciences) and in MSFS (Maths Stats and Foundation Studies, in
the Faculty of BCIM: Business, Computing and Information Management) and Tom
Hall, an academic developer with the LTEU. Gail Langley heads the English Language
section in MSFS and is part of the course team for the PGCHE in Education.
3.4 The methodology
The focus of the methodology was a small scale survey which was manageable within the
time scale of the project (the academic year 2005/2006) but still gathered systematic data.
It was not intended that the findings should be generalisable or comprehensive but
provide systematic evidence to help address a practice problem.
The key tool used was a questionnaire with closed, open and Likert scale questions,
different for UK universities and LSBU. The questions were broad-ranging, including
questions on policy, implementation, record-keeping, stated purpose and how the
respondent felt his/her scheme could be improved.
Questionnaire design and analysis were guided by educational research theory as in
Cohen and Mannion 1994 (chapter 4 “Surveys”), Scott and Usher 1999 (Chapter 6
“Survey and correlational designs”), Wellington 2000 (Chapter 7 “Survey design”) and
Opie 2004 (chapter 6 “Research procedures”).
A small sample of higher education institutions in the UK was identified, covering:
 Urban/rural
 Metropolitan/regional
 Specialist/comprehensive
 Small/large
Data was collected through completion of a questionnaire (see Appendix 3, page 29 for
the full questionnaire) by educational developers (14 institutions) and from website
information (4 institutions). See Appendix 2, page 31 for a list of the institutions and the
sources of information used. This survey was carried out February-March 2006. The
questionnaire was sent out by email and completed electronically. Comments and data
from this questionnaire were used to inform the questionnaire for LSBU staff. Question
15 asked for views on 12 possible elements of peer observation schemes from other
7
universities current practice. A report was produced detailing the survey for March 2006:
“A small-scale review of teaching/peer observation schemes in universities in the UK”
(Langley 2006).
The questionnaire for LSBU staff covered the following areas:
 The nature of the scheme (institutional/departmental)
 Use of the scheme (by whom?)
 Purpose of the scheme (CPD, appraisal etc)
 Nature of the record (the proforma and its criteria)
 Use of the record (who keeps the record)
 Frequency of observation
 What changes you would like to make to the scheme
See Appendix 4, page 32 for the full questionnaire. This survey was carried out MarchApril-May 2006, after piloting the questionnaire with a few colleagues from each of the
four faculties. It was offered as either a web-based version to complete electronically or a
Word version to complete on paper, to allow maximum flexibility.
The collecting of data was guided and supplemented by a small sample of current
literature on peer observation schemes and attending a SEDA workshop on peer
observations schemes (10 May 2006) run by David Gosling and attended by educational
developers and others from 13 universities around the UK.
8
4. LITERATURE REVIEW
A small selection of current writing on peer observation schemes in the UK and Australia
has informed this report. The sources used are listed in the bibliography. The information
was used for the preparation of the questionnaires and for comparison with survey
findings across UK universities and within LSBU.
4.1 Gosling 2005: SEDA Paper 118: “Peer observation of teaching”
This comprehensive review of current issues in peer observation of teaching raises issues
around definitions of teaching observation, objectives, training, what the process should
look like, and crucially how to sustain a scheme over time.
The broad introduction is followed by five case studies of institutions’ peer observation
schemes:
 Buckingham Chilterns University College: scheme adapted locally within
departments and teams, creating ownership; key observation that staff say they
benefit most when they are the observers
 University of Gloucester: based around Teaching Development Groups of around
six staff – like an Action Learning Set; this has replaced a paired peer observation
scheme introduced in the mid 90s.
 Queen’s University, Belfast: experimenting with encouraging staff (observers and
observees) to write reflectively after observation
 University of Salford: simple peer observation scheme with clear Code of
Conduct; staff evaluation of the scheme is positive, the observers particularly feel
the value for themselves as at Buckingham Chilterns
 Staffordshire University: an experiment in the school of law, with one observer
appointed to three or four observees for a year; report summaries prepared for a
coordinator for the whole scheme
4.2 Gosling 2006: Gosling’s SEDA workshop on “Peer observation of teaching” 10 May
2006 in London
In an unpublished paper distributed at the SEDA workshop (May 2006 in London),
Gosling differentiates between three models of peer review: evaluative, developmental
and collaborative, crucially differentiated by who observes. Collaborative is presented as
the way forward. Evaluative review (observers are senior staff) is too managerial, auditdriven, top-down and potentially alienating. Developmental review (observers are
specialists such as educational developers) can be helpful but lacks shared ownership and
can lack impact. Collaborative review (observers are peers) can create “A culture in
which teaching is valued and discussed” (Gosling 2006)
9
In the same paper he lists nine key principles for successful implementation of a new
scheme and eight key questions to address. The principles relate to issues raised in the
survey of other UK universities and of LSBU staff:
1. Collaborative review
2. Reciprocal benefits
3. Inclusive of all aspects of teaching
4. Inclusive of all grades and categories of staff involved in supporting student
learning
5. Confidential between parties but with an opportunity to link to wider Faculty
processes
6. Independent of all management processes relating to probation, promotion,
regarding, renewal of contracts, under-performance or redundancy
7. Scholarship of teaching and learning: the outcome should be further enquiry into
teaching and learning
8. Linked in to staff CPD: should be opportunity for discussion of implications for
professional development for staff
9. Adequate resources devoted to the scheme: including training for staff involved
prior to implementation of the scheme and allocation of time for engagement in
the review process.
Similarly they key questions are also mostly addressed in the survey: frequency, observer
training, review of all aspects of teaching, going beyond current practice, both private and
public record keeping, promoting staff CPD, how to record the outcomes of peer review,
how to evaluate the scheme. The ones that aren’t directly addressed are “going beyond
current practice” and “how to evaluate the scheme”.
Gosling’s own key issues mentioned at the workshop were:
 How to create a process of renewal and recapture staff attention
 Decide what is observable
 Aim for consistency across an institution
 Decide who is a peer!
 Avoid feedback (ie the observer tells the observee what’s what) and go for peer
review ie a system that feels reciprocal and mutual not one-sided or top-down and
reviews all aspects of teaching not only classroom performance.
Other universities represented by their educational developers at the workshop
characterized their institutions’ approaches to POT in ways similar to the findings of the
small survey of other UK universities. Some had university-wide schemes (eg
Roehampton) and some departmental (eg City); some were reviewing (Cardiff, Liverpool
and Southampton) or had just reviewed their schemes (Derby, Canterbury Christchurch).
Concerns voiced included consistency across the institution (Manchester) and effective
use of reflective practice which encouraged staff to challenge their standard notions
(Central Lancs).
10
4.3 Selected other sources
Bell (2005) characterizes a peer observation scheme as being between action research and
experiential learning. She writes in relation to the Australian higher education context.
She emphasizes the reciprocity of the learning process for observer and observee and the
critical reflection that should follow on from the observed class. There is no mention of
written reports for line managers. One chapter discusses how educational developers can
provide guided peer observation partnerships and here written records called “reflective
reports” (Bell 2005: 48) are mentioned as a possibility.
The research of Carey and Maynard (2006) suggests that new staff or staff taking a
PGCHE course are most open and amenable to the experience of learning through peer
observation. Barriers may be caused by mixing staff at different levels and with different
attitudes to peer observation schemes.
Articles by Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond identify that “peers need to be more
aware of reflective practices” (2005) which suggests the need for training and that peers
need “a clear focus and goals” which suggests that schemes need to be well-specified
(2004).
Peel (2005) argues strongly that an instrumental interpretation of peer observation of
teaching will not change teaching performance. What is needed is the ability to transform
personal meaning through “active engagement with pedagogical theory, purposeful
critical reflection on classroom practice and a challenging of assumptions through shared
critical reflection” (Peel 2005: 489). She is very clear that:
“It is vital therefore that institutions are explicit about what POT is intended
to achieve, responsible about how it is resourced and articulate clearly how staff
and students may engage with and benefit from the process” (Peel 2005: 501)
11
5. SUMMARY OF A SMALL-SCALE REVIEW OF PEER
OBSERVATION SCHEMES IN 18 UK UNIVERSITIES
The review of peer observation schemes in UK universities covered 18 institutions, 14
from questionnaires completed by educational developers and four from website
information. The questionnaire is shown as Appendix 1 on page 29. The list of 18
institutions and how their data was collected is shown in Appendix 2 on page 31.
The information is limited and not generalisable as the questionnaire was intentionally
very short in order to increase the response rate. However, the data and comments are
rich. A verbal and written report of this survey was presented to the LTEU and NATFHE
representatives in May 2006. The written report is called “A small-scale review of
teaching/peer observation schemes in universities in the UK” (Langley 2006).
The results showed that approximately over 50% had university-wide schemes, 25% had
departmental schemes and 25% had no schemes. 75% considered their schemes aimed at
staff development and/or professional development, however phrased. Under half had a
standard proforma in use. 75% offer their scheme to a limited range of staff (full-time and
some to part-time staff) but only 30% offer their schemes to a full range of teaching staff.
A majority specified that written records of some sort went to line managers and/or
administrators as well as observer and observee. Only 30% suggested annual
observations were the norm. There was a wide range of comments in answer to the final
question which was “If you could make one change to your university’s teaching/peer
observation scheme, what would it be? And why?”
12
6. REVIEW OF LSBU STAFF VIEWS OF THE CURRENT PEER
OBSERVATION SCHEME AND POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES
There were 77 responses to the LSBU staff questionnaire in total which yielded a wealth
of quantitative and qualitative data. Results are summarised in this section, supplemented
by fuller lists of comments in appendices 4, 5 and 6 (pages 35-40) and conclusions are
given in the next section (pages 20-24).
Section A: Views of LSBU’s current peer observations scheme
6.1 Question 1: Profile of the 77 respondents
64 full-time academics including 1 practice placement facilitator (83% of the total)
5 fractional academics
5 HPLs (Hourly Paid Lecturers)
1 researcher
1 lecturer practitioner
1 director of collaborations
From the optional personal information completed by 61 of the 77 respondents the
breakdown of faculty representation was
 HSC (Health and Social Care) 24
 BCIM (Business Computing and Information Management) 17
 AHS (Arts and Human Sciences) 12
 ESBE (Engineering Science and the Built Environment) 8
Of the 59 who declared their position, over half (34) were Senior Lecturers, a quarter (16)
were at Principal Lecturer/Head of Department/Professor/Reader level, and 9 HPL and
other roles as listed above. No deans or senior management responded.
The profile information shows that there was a fair representation across types and levels
of jobs typical of the LSBU staff, thus a small but sufficiently representative sample was
obtained. Of approximately 882 staff (as listed in 2005), 77 responded: around 9% of the
total.
6.2 Question 2: When were you last observed?
71 had been observed in the last 3 years and 6 never, indicating that the questionnaire
appealed more to those whose experience of the current peer observation scheme had
encouraged their interest in it.
31 had been observed in 2006, 33 in 2005, 5 in 2004 and 2 in 2003, suggesting that the
scheme has reached more staff in the last 2 years than previously.
13
6.3 Question 3: Was there a written record?
60 said yes and 17 said no. 30 used the university proforma and 26 used other proformas,
mostly the PLTHE (Programme for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education) ones
where specified (15). One respondent had developed their own proforma.
6. 4 Question 4: Who kept the written record?
Of the 60 who kept a written record, 75% (45) said “you and your observer” and 25%
(15) said “other”. Of these, ten were kept by the observee only (“just me”), three by the
Head of Department only and two by the observer only.
6.5 Question 5: Were the observation criteria good/useful, OK, weak/not useful,
other?
Of the 70 respondents who commented on the criteria, 55% found them good/useful (39)
and 40% found them OK (27) and 5% found them weak (2) or not clear (2).
6.6 Question 6: What did you see as the purpose of the observation?
This elicited a large response (multiple answers were invited) and 14 comments,
indicating strong interest in this question.
The strongest purpose was CPD (Continuous Professional Development) chosen by 54
respondents, closely followed by “Enhancing the student’s learning experience” chosen
by 43 respondents. Eight people wanted it to be used for appraisal and none for
promotion.
The comments were positive, neutral and negative:
The positive comments:
1. Exchange of good practice
2. Giving me guidance in improvement
3. To support the lecturer
4. Assists in reflection of own style in relation to teaching
The neutral or negative comments:
1. Compliance with peer observation requirement
2. Meeting external requirements, for the QAA (3)
3. Necessity
4. Part of PGCHE (2)
5. Being hassled to show that this had been done
6. Ticking yet another administrative box
7. Can’t remember
14
Section B: Questions about alternatives or ways to develop the scheme
6.7 Question 7: How often do you think you should be observed?
There were75 responses to this question: 59 thought they should be observed once a year
and only seven thought they should be observed every two years. Nine voiced other
opinions:
 six suggested twice a year
 two suggested every three years
 one said it should depend on the results of the UEQs (student Unit Evaluation
Questionnaires).
6.8 Question 8: Who do you want to observe you?
Multiple answers were invited for this question. 50 chose an educational developer to
observe them and 49 a peer. Seven asked for the Head of Department to observe them.
Given the high number choosing educational developer and peer, I did a more detailed
breakdown which shows that:
 27 chose peer or educational developer
 26 chose peer only
 12 chose educational developer only
 3 chose Head of Department, peer and educational developer
 3 chose HOD and educational developer
 1 chose HOD and peer
 1 chose HOD only
 1 chose a nominated academic for a department for a year
Comments were:
“A peer chosen at random”
“Alternate peer and educational developer”
“Have an external expert with an objective approach”
“Have a nominated academic for the department for one year”
“Anyone – perhaps best from another faculty”
6.9 Question 9: Do you want the criteria for the observation to come from a
university proforma, a departmental proforma, a faculty proforma or other:
Of the 69 answers to this question, a slim majority, 45% (31) wanted a university
proforma, but 39% (27) wanted a departmental proforma and 16% (11) a faculty
proforma. Thus 55% want a more localized proforma from either department or faculty.
6% (8) made comments:
1. “Any as long as proven fit for purpose”
2. “None! I want feedback not ticked boxes”
3. “Setting my own developmental criteria”
15
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
“On the basis of what is relevant to the subject area”
“Develop my own”
“Based on published criteria but adapted for specific purpose”
“Depends how relevant the proforma is”
“My own needs as a teacher”
6.10 Question 10: What should be the purpose of the observation?
Multiple answers were invited. Three ideas were almost equally strongly supported:






74 said “enhance student learning”
70 said “mutual learning”
69 said “personal/professional development”
22 thought it could be used for probationary review
14 wanted it to be used for appraisal
7 wanted to use it for promotion.
6.11 Question 11: Who do you want to keep records of the observation?
There was almost equal support for 2 answers though many fewer responses than for
Question 10 about the purpose of the observation.
 39 said “you and your observer”
 37 said “you, your observer and your HOD”
There were a handful of other comments:
 4 – “just me”
 4 – human resources
 3 – departmental/course administrator
6.12 Question 12: How could we provide evidence of good classroom teaching
practice?
There were many interesting comments in response to this question which I’ve listed in
Appendix 4 on pages 35-36.
An overview of the most usual answers:
1. (24) from student feedback/questionnaires
2. (15) from some sort of written record on file, usually summarized in an annual report
by the HOD
3
(11) from recordings of exemplary teaching, made available as appropriate
(eg video, DVD, Blackboard, intranet)
4
(7) from unit and course results
16
5
(7) from the quality of learning material
6
(2) from lesson plans
7
(2) from triangulating evaluations from self-peer-students
Lone voices suggested using educational specialists, external reviewers, team teaching,
peer mentoring, online case studies and all round review of teaching in addition to
classroom performance.
6.13 Question 13: How could we share evidence of good practice?
Again as for question 12 there is a long list of comments, listed in Appendix 5 on pages
37-38. Several respondents considered these two questions overlapped significantly and
referred from one to the other.
An overview of the most popular answers:
1. (22) favoured some sort of staff development event either local or university-wide eg
workshop/awayday/seminar/team meeting/departmental meeting/university T&L
conference
2. (10) favoured written records of some sort eg summaries of good practice in an annual
departmental report
3. (10) favoured recordings of exemplary teaching
4. (10) favoured the use of a web site or Blackboard site for reports and for Q and A. Any
written records and recordings could be made available in this way.
5. (6) favoured team teaching
6. (5) had suggestions for different types of observations
7. One off suggestions included action learning sets for observations, shadowing
opportunities for new staff.
8. One respondent was cynical about the concept of good practice but thought peer
observation was helpful whereas another respondent believes “either you’re a good
teacher or you’re not”.
6.14 Question 14: How could we best prepare observers?
There were the most number of comments for this question – listed in Appendix 6 on
pages 39-40.
17

37 favoured some sort of training in the form of a workshop, preferably brief,
regularly available, to all teaching staff, on all campus locations, possibly
compulsory, especially giving training in what to observe and how to give
feedback, possibly department-based. Other elements are instilling confidence in
staff to be or become observers.

20 emphasised the importance of clear guidelines on purpose, roles,
preparation/process, observation criteria and how to use them. These could
include criteria for good practice and could be web-based. Some commented on
the need to set standards or ranges.
Other comments favoured:
 The use of recordings of classroom teaching
 Pairing experienced and inexperienced teachers
Interestingly, there were four comments suggesting not peers but educational specialists
are needed. This contrasted strongly with a small but vocal minority of four who stated
categorically that it is NOT necessary to train observers as for example “a good teacher
knows what to look for in a good teacher”.
6.15 Question 15: Which of these ideas from other UK universities’ schemes would
you like to see at LSBU?
Scores ranged from a high of 51 votes for developmental not judgemental feedback
(point 8 or h on the questionnaire) to a low of 15 votes point 9 or i: to use where
unsatisfactory teaching performance has been identified.
The ranking shows that departmental schemes would be slightly more popular than a
university-wide one: 30 to 24.
The full ranking is:
RANK ORDER
(question no./letter)
1
(8, h)
2
(4, d)
3
(11, k)
3=
5
(12, l)
(3, c)
NUMBER OF
RESPONDENTS
51
49
45
45
37
SUGGESTION
Developmental not judgemental
Provide training in peer observation
Have the option of inviting an educational
developer to observe
Make learning mutual and reciprocal
Review all aspects of teaching performance
18
6
7
8
9
10
(10, j)
(2, b)
(6, f)
(1, a)
(6, f)
33
30
27
24
22
11
(7, g)
18
12
(9, i)
15
Have the option of being recorded on video
Have a departmental scheme
Group report produced for dept
Have a university-wide scheme
Individuals provide feedback to HOD,
summarized for dept
Teacher develops an action plan postobservation
Use when there is evidence of
unsatisfactory teaching performance
6.16 Question 16: Any other comments
There were 20 comments in this section ranging from positive to helpful to negative.
They are quoted in full here as they show the strength of feeling about key aspects of a
peer observation scheme. The positive comments say let’s have a scheme that’s
informal, developmental and university-wide. The comments I have loosely classified as
helpful make various positive suggestions – link it to appraisal, rotate people involved to
avoid “cosy pairings”, give training for observers, build it into the work structure of
LSBU academics, make staff feel they own the scheme and are responsible for it.
The negative comments are few, professing ignorance of the scheme, or regretting it
being too bureaucratic.
Positive
1. “I encourage observation and I think we would value a university-wide proforma
although we are not currently using one. But please keep it simple”
2.“I prefer the idea of a university-wide scheme as I think it is important to feel that we
are all trying to raise standards and the debate that this requires would be of overall
benefit. Developmental – yes – but at some stage we have to have some sanctions for
poor teaching or we all get dragged down by poor reputation”
3.“Dissemination of good practice ensuring good practice is acknowledged and used.
Benchmarking against other faculties and other universities. Change the form to use
general criteria/aspects for best practice.”
4. “I very much like the informal nature of the current system, being able to have an
observer of your choice from your own department, is good. I am now lecturing and
having the option to request a member of staff who works in educational development
would be beneficial to help identify strengths and weaknesses of my approach and to
generate ideas to vary the structure of my classes.”
5. “I think we should be open to scrutiny in our teaching and have little time for those
who are not. However, as a member of HSC, we are confident about teaching and mostly
19
we have been required to show evidence of a teaching qualification through our
professional bodies”
Helpful
6. “Relate to appraisal – allow managers to observe you”
7. “Observers and observees should rotate rather than establish a cosy pairing”
8. “I have been an observer for colleagues and it has been difficult to be as constructive
as I may have wished due to working closely. More training on how to be an observer
and observing across faculty would broaden my horizons of teaching methods and also
my ability to give constructive feedback”
9. “To ensure observations are conducted and documented properly. Scheme to be
reviewed and improved continuously. Referring to question 8, educational development
specialists (internal and external) along with peers should be used for observations. The
identity of the observer should not be made known to the observee in advance”
10. “The main issue I have with the current system is the lack of support for the observers
as well as the failure to promote areas of good practice”
11. “The teaching observation scheme should not only exist for students’ benefit but
should aim to provide lecturers with the collegial support they require. For this reason,
the current system (discrete, non-judgemental, not part of an appraisal) seems appropriate
except that it is too frequent for established staff, putting unnecessary strain on resources.
Avoid imposition of an audit-driven system; this could be counter-productive waste of
resources, since it makes reliability uncertain.”
12. “We were told that we ‘had to do it’ and its linked to appraisal. Those promoting the
scheme should take more responsibility for owning and making more of the
developmental side rather than the managerialist side”
13. “Many of the above [points in question 15] sound very interesting, I would welcome
more sharing of practice but I think it must be scheduled in and not delivered as an addon”
14. “At present the current system appears patchy and staff are generally unwilling to
treat it as a genuinely positive experience, regarding it more as one of those boxes to be
ticked than as a means of developing student satisfaction”
15. “If observation is purely to be class-based this takes a highly limited view of what
teaching is. What about residential field trips, day field trips, dissertation tutoring – all
these are legitimate teaching techniques”
16. “I have already trialled video recording of classes for teacher feedback with success.
HODs do not have credibility as teachers so their role will be peripheral. It is vital for
20
each course at LSBU to be able to claim quality of teaching as a USP – but it won’t be
able to do that with a centralized formal system. The ‘Peer Partner’ approach could cover
all academic audit requirements as well as teaching observation, especially assessment
moderation”
Negative
17. “I have never been observed and as such have no idea what the scheme actually does”
18. “Didn’t know we had a scheme”
19. “Current system is purely for formal purposes and can’t encourage genuine feedback
or learning”
20. “Do not do 7g above [each teacher produces individual action plan post observation]
– very bureaucratic. Keep it simple.”
21
7. CONCLUSIONS
In order to answer the question “How can LSBU’s peer observation scheme be
improved?” a range of points has been extracted from the findings in sections 4, 5 and 6.
The selection is conditioned more by the need to present viable alternatives in a relatively
brief way rather than to be comprehensive. Conclusions are presented for each of the
three preceding sections: the literature review, the survey of other UK universities and the
LSBU staff survey.
7.1 Literature review
Gosling 2005
 A key question is how to sustain a scheme over time
 The case studies highlight how different approaches can work
Gosling 2006
 Key concerns: which model to choose
 Implementation concerns
Others
 Reciprocal learning partnerships taken as a norm (Bell 2005)
 Peer observation is the norm but guided partnerships using educational developers
are another option (Bell 2005)
 Training in observation is needed to develop the ability to reflect on practice
(Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond 2005)
 Schemes must be well-specified to provide a clear focus and goals (HammersleyFletcher and Orsmond 2004)(Peel 2005)
 Achieving appropriate peer partnerships needs care as differences of status etc
may cause barriers (Carey and Maynard 2006)
 To achieve personal development or transformation requires a high degree of
active engagement with the process of peer observation, considering teaching
practice, pedagogical theory and the reflective process (Peel 2005)
7.2 UK universities survey
Some conclusions derived from the survey of 18 universities were:
7.2.1
7.2.2
7.2.3
Schemes – may be university-wide or department-based
Use – still mainly for full-time staff but most institutions are keen to include
other teaching staff
Purpose – a strong emphasis on developmental purposes is preferred; it can be
judgemental but this is better done quite separately if needed eg for passing
probationary year; if it is to be used for appraisal or promotion it should be
optional
22
Proformas in use – surprisingly few institutions do have standard forms to use
Record keeping – everyone needs evidence but who it goes to and in what
form is a much more interesting question. Good practice seems to be any
detailed evidence is kept by observer and observee whereas a summary of
good practice is filed with managers/administrators. As evidence is handled
variably by managers, administrators or educational developers, it is unclear
what best practice could be, appearing to be dependent on local practice
7.2.6 Frequency – annually was the most usual answer though only from a third of
respondents
7.2.7 Training for observers is recommended
7.2.8 Flexibility – offer observation by peers OR by education developers
- with or without filming
7.2.9 NATFHE recognition – specified in two instances
7.2.10 Points which were specified as desirable but for which there is little evidence
to date are
1) the simple but novel idea that observer and observee should view the
process as mutually beneficial, that is both sides should aim to review
good practice and to learn from the experience and the discussion
2) the idea that all aspects of teaching and learning should be subject to peer
review not just teaching performance. The new Sheffield Hallam scheme
appears to do this which then means that the observation of teaching is
only one element of many which may be reviewed and/or may easily be
ignored.
7.2.4
7.2.5
7.3 LSBU survey
The LSBU survey of staff views of the current scheme and alternatives shows that staff
thinking on peer observation has moved on considerably from when peer observation was
first introduced in 1995.
7.3.1 Section A: Views of the current scheme
Section A collected information on the profile of the respondents and their views of the
current scheme.
The profile of respondents shows that they were representative of the LSBU staff in
having a range of job descriptions and that over half were full-time Senior Lecturers.
There was fair representation from across the 4 faculties though three times more from
HSC (Health and Social Care) than from ESBE (Engineering Science and the Built
Environment). The sample represents approximately 9% of LSBU teaching staff.
The current scheme is being used as 91% of respondents had been observed, mostly in
the last two years. A smaller number (82%) had kept a written record though this figure is
interestingly high given that it is not required. Half used the university proforma and half
used others. The written record was generally kept by observer and observee (75%).
Opinions of the usefulness of the criteria were 55% useful and 40% OK which suggests
23
that criteria are welcome whatever they are. As to the purpose, the two main ones
perceived were CPD and enhancing the student experience. But there were only four
positive comments as opposed to seven neutral or negative comments which suggests that
the process is not viewed particularly favourably, more as fulfilling audit requirements
than as enhancing quality of teaching.
7.3.2 Section B: alternatives to the current scheme
In section B, ten questions investigated the ideas of LSBU staff for alternatives or ways
to develop the scheme. The conclusions cover the specific questions about frequency
(question 7), who observes (question 8), source of observation criteria (question 9),
purpose (question 10) and who keeps the records (question 11). Then there were the
general questions about how to provide (question 12) and share (question 13) evidence of
good teaching practice, how to prepare observers (question 14), reactions to 12 ideas
from other UK university peer observation teaching schemes (question 15) and finally
any other comments (question 16).
FREQUENCY (Question 7): LSBU staff were clear that once a year was most preferable
WHO OBSERVES? (Question 8): a peer but with an education developer almost equally
available; these could be optional or alternated; choice of peer could be specified
or random
SOURCE OF OBSERVATION CRITERIA (Question 9):
45% accepted the idea of a university proforma but 55% favour departmental or facultyproduced proformas that is more local versions
PURPOSES (Question 10): 3 purposes were almost equally strongly supported:
- enhancing student learning
- mutual learning
- personal/professional development
25% supported its use for probationary review, 15% for appraisal and 10% for
promotion.
WHO KEEPS THE RECORDS? (Question 11) Just over half said observer and observee
And the other half said observer, observee and Head of Department
PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF GOOD CLASSROOM TEACHING PRACTICE:
(Question 12)
The two most favoured suggestions were first to use student feedback and secondly to
keep written records on file in some format eg annual report or summary compiled by
HOD. Other suggestions included recordings of teaching and using other types of
evidence such as learning materials and lesson plans.
SHARE EVIDENCE OF GOOD PRACTICE: (Question 13)
24
The most favoured suggestion is to have staff development activities, whether
workshops, seminars, meetings etc. Three suggestions were equally popular after that: to
have written records of some kind with anonymous summaries of good practice; to have
recordings of exemplary teaching and to use web or Blackboard sites for sharing ideas
HOW TO PREPARE OBSERVERS?: (Question 14)
The strongest preference was for some sort of training through a workshop etc strongly
followed by the need for effective printed guidance.
Other positive suggestions included: pairing experienced and inexperienced staff, or
some sort of shadowing or mentoring scheme.
There were four negative comments stating it was not necessary to train observers
balanced by four positive comments stating it was necessary to use only trained and
experienced observers.
REACTIONS TO 12 IDEAS FROM OTHER UK UNIVERSITY PEER
OBSERVATIONS SCHEMES: (Question 15)
The top six ideas supported by over half the respondents in order of popularity were
1. Have a scheme which is developmental not judgemental
2. Provide training in peer observation
3. Have the option of inviting an educational developer to observe
4. Make learning mutual and reciprocal
5. Review all aspects of teaching performance
6. Have the option of being recorded on video
There was a slightly higher preference for a departmental scheme than a university-wide
scheme in this section, which contrasts with the slight preference for the university-wide
scheme shown in the data for question 9 above.
OTHER COMMENTS (Question 16):
Sixteen out of twenty comments were positive about having a peer observation scheme
but want it for example to be better supported, more part of the system, and provide better
sharing of good practice
CONCLUSION
It is evident that LSBU staff who responded to the survey are favourably inclined to
having a peer observation scheme. The remit or need for significant development beyond
the limitations of the current scheme is clearly manifest as in for example the desire for a
tighter focus on purpose, more written records and training in observation. The need for
local ownership of some sort is strongly suggested by the interest in criteria being
determined by faculty or department as much as centrally. The counter-argument here is
the need for consistency across the institution, which is one of Gosling’s points.
25
The issue of what happens in partner institutions is not immediate but still of general
concern. The snapshot comments (in Appendix 7, pages 41-42) of partner institutions in
the UK and China show that peer and teaching observation schemes are strong in both,
which is positive as it indicates some degree of alignment between these institutions and
LSBU.
26
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
What can be derived from the above conclusions as to what good practice LSBU should
aim to consider when the peer observation scheme is redesigned?
Points from the current scheme to continue:
1. Have a university-wide scheme and 2. Keep it developmental
Points to work on:
1. The scheme must be more strongly specified in terms of purpose, focus and procedure
and needs to allow for some element of local ownership eg departments or faculties
which may mean some local variations.
2. Aim to make it more collaborative and engaging and keep away from a managerial
audit-driven attitude which is demotivating
- emphasise reciprocal learning: both observer and observee aim to benefit from this
process
- emphasise CPD and scholarship of teaching and learning
3. Frequency – once a year is a possible model; variation allowed?
4. For whom: available to all teaching staff in whatever capacity
5. Keep in mind the problem of how the scheme is viewed over time. Does it need to
allow flexibility to vary the focus from one year to the next?
6. Proformas – have a proforma available; consider reference to the use of alternatives eg
the QAA form used in HSC; variation possible?
7. Record-keeping: consider two levels of record-keeping 7.1 what observer and observee want to record which is confidential to them: variable?
7.2 summary of good practice from either or both observer and observee to go to Head of
Department for annual summary or reporting. The use of this summary needs to be
specified. Not variable?
8. Observers:
8.1 suggest ways of choosing peer observers: variable?
8.2 option for staff to invite educational developers to observe them
8.3 option for staff to make a recording of their teaching in order to
review it
27
9. Provide a well-developed system of training for participants in peer observation at
university-level, faculty-level, departmental-level and through self-access material
available electronically/in print.
10. Consider the option of peer review of any aspects of teaching eg development of
courses, of learning materials, of assessment, of tutoring, of dissertation supervision, of
field trips, of e-learning, of blended learning, of supporting diversity etc
11. Include clearly defined suggestions for providing evidence of good practice and
sharing evidence of good practice : variable
- self-access material available electronically, including recordings of teaching
performance
- workshops at departmental, faculty and university levels
12. Needs resourcing – to become integral to the work of teaching staff not an add-on;
to allow for training as in 9 above; to allow for involvement of educational developers as
required (as in 8.2 above); to allow for recording of teaching (as in 8.3 above) etc
28
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
BELL M. 2005 “Peer Observation Partnerships in Higher Education”
Milperra NSW Australia: HERDSA (HE Research & Development Society of
Australasia)
CAREY P. & MAYNARD C. 2006 “Peer Observation of Learning and Teaching”;
understanding the experiences of new staff” – abstract for SEDA conference
COHEN L. & MANNION L. (4th ed.) 1994 “Research methods in education”
London: Routledge
GOSLING D. 2005 “Peer Observation of Teaching”
SEDA Paper 118 – London: SEDA
GOSLING D. 2006 “Implementation of a peer review of teaching scheme”
SEDA workshop, London, 10 May 2006 (unpublished paper)
HAMMERSLEY-FLETCHER L. & ORSMOND P. 2004 “Evaluating our peers: is peer
observation a meaningful practice?”
in “Studies in HE” Vol 29 (4) pp 489-503
HAMMERSLEY-FLETCHER L. & ORSMOND P. 2005 “Reflecting on reflective
Practices within higher education”
in “Studies in HE” Vol 30 (2) pp 213-224
LANGLEY G. 2006 “A small-scale review of teaching/peer observation schemes in
universities in the UK”
unpublished report produced for the Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit
of London South Bank University
NATFHE (no date): “Guidelines for higher education branches: peer review and
observation of teaching”
available at: www.natfhe.org.uk/down/teachingobs (accessed 29 September 2005)
OPIE C. 2004 “Doing educational research”
London: Sage Publications
PEEL D. 2005 “Peer Observation as a transformatory tool?”
In “Teaching in Higher Education” Vol 10, no 4, October 2006, pp 489-504
QAA: Quality Assurance Agency 2004 Annual Report
www.qaa.ac.uk/aboutus/annualreports/0304 (accessed 16 June 2006)
29
SCOTT D. & USHER R. 1999 “Researching Education - data, methods and theory in
educational enquiry”
London: Continuum
WELLINGTON J. 2000 “Educational Research: contemporary issues and practical
approaches”
London: Continuum
University web sites used:
Abertay 2001: http://quality.tay.ac.uk/Modular/peerobsguide.doc
(accessed 29 September 2005)
Imperial College: www.imperial.ac.uk/educationaldevelopment
(accessed 7 February 2006)
Kings College, London: www.kcl.ac.uk/kilt
(accessed 9 February 2006)
Leeds Metropolitan 2000: www.leedsmt.ac.uk/natfhe/cobs.doc
(accessed 29 September 2005)
Warwick 2005: http//www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/cap/skills/observing/why observe/
(accessed 29 September 2005)
30
10. APPENDICES
PAGES
10.1 Questionnaire for other UK universities
32
10.2 List of UK universities surveyed
34
10.3 Questionnaire for LSBU staff
35
10.4 LSBU staff questionnaire: comments in response to question 12
38
10.5 LSBU staff questionnaire: comments in response to question 13
40
10.6 LSBU staff questionnaire: comments in response to question 14
42
10.7 Comments on peer observation practices in LSBU partner institutions in the UK
and overseas
44
31
LSBU’s TEACHING OBSERVATION SCHEME
For a research project for the LTEU* (2005/2006)
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR COLLEAGUES IN OTHER
UNIVERSITIES ABOUT THEIR TEACHING/PEER
OBSERVATION SCHEMES
I am conducting research about the Peer Observation Scheme at London South Bank
University for our Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit *. As part of this project I
have been asked to gather information on practice in other UK universities. The aim is to
improve our scheme based on current best practice across the UK.
I would be most grateful if you could complete this short questionnaire about your
university’s teaching/peer observation scheme, if any. Information will be collated
anonymously and only used for the purposes of this project.
Directions:
1. Save the questionnaire to your desktop.
2. Delete the check boxes as appropriate i.e. if you agree with the question delete the
 leaving the  box remaining.
3. Email the completed questionnaire to: langleg@lsbu.ac.uk if possible by 28th
February 2006.
Thank you for completing this questionnaire!
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Name:
Name of your university:
Job title:
1. DO YOU HAVE a teaching or peer observation scheme available for use across your
institution?
YES NO
2. Is your teaching observation scheme USED FOR: (Select any)






Staff development
Appraisal
Promotion
PDP
Nothing
Other – (please specify)
32






3. Do you have a standard PROFORMA used by all concerned? YES
If yes, if possible please send a copy.
NO
4. Are the CRITERIA on the proforma in your view: (Select one)




OK
Good/useful
Weak/not useful
Other – (please specify)




5. WHO uses the teaching observation scheme? (Select any)





FT academic staff
Hourly paid staff
PhD students who teach
Teaching support staff eg IT, skills
Other– (please specify)





6. EVIDENCE: who keeps records of teaching observations? (Select any)
The 2 people involved in the observation
Line manager e.g. head of dept
Human Resources Dept
Other – (please specify)








7. FREQUENCY required: how often are you required to have teaching/peer observations?
(Select one)




Every year
Every two years
Optional
Other– (please specify)




8. If you could make ONE change to your university’s teaching/peer observation scheme –
what would it be? And why?
CONTACT DETAILS
Gail Langley
BCIM, London South Bank University
103 Borough Road
London SE1 0AA
Telephone: 020-7815-7719
Email: langleg@lsbu.ac.uk
33
APPENDIX 2
PEER OBSERVATION PROJECT LTEU 0506
LIST OF UK UNIVERSITIES SURVEYED
UNIVERSITY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
TOTALS
ABERTAY
ARTS
BRIGHTON
BCUC
Buckingham Chilterns
University College
CITY
EXETER
GREENWICH
HERTFORDSHIRE
IMPERIAL COLLEGE
KENT
KINGS COLLEGE,
LONDON
KINGSTON
LEEDS
METROPOLITAN
LIVERPOOL JOHN
MOORES
LONDON
METROPOLITAN
LSE
SHEFFIELD HALLAM
WARWICK
WEB SITE
INFORMATION
X
-
QUESTIONNAIRE
RESPONSE
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
-
-
X
-
X
X
5
X
X
14
34
LSBU’s TEACHING OBSERVATION SCHEME
- a research project for the LTEU* (2005/2006)
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ALL ACADEMIC/TEACHING COLLEAGUES IN LSBU
I am conducting research about LSBU’s Peer Observation of Teaching Scheme for our Learning
and Teaching Enhancement Unit *. The aim is to improve our scheme based on your views and
on current best practice across the UK.
I would be grateful if you could complete this questionnaire about your views of 1) the current
scheme and 2) any possible alternatives or developments. Information will be collected
anonymously and only used for the purposes of this project.
Directions:
Please complete the attached form by typing your answer into the text boxes or by clicking on the
relevant radio button or check box. Save the form and then email it to Gail Langley at:
langleg@lsbu.ac.uk. The form should take about 10 minutes to complete.
Personal Information: (Optional)
Name:
Position:
Faculty:
THE QUESTIONNAIRE
[A] A review of the current scheme
Short description of the current scheme: set up in 1995 and not reviewed since then; it is a peer
observation scheme which is developmental and confidential but there is no evidence of good
practice, no sharing of good practice and no training for observers.
1. Are you : (choose one)
a FT Academic
If Other: please specify
2. When were you last observed?
Please specify.
If never, please go to question 7.
3. Was there a written record?
(if no go to question 5)
4. Who kept the record?
(choose one)
No
You and your observer
If Other: please specify
5. Were the observation criteria you used:
(choose one)
Good/Useful
6. What did you see as the purpose of the
observation?
a) Enhancing the student's learning experience
b) CDP/PDP personal or professional
development
(choose one or more)
c) Appraisal
35
d) Promotion
Other:
[B] Questions about alternatives or ways to develop the scheme
7. How often do you think you should be
a Once a year
observed? (choose one)
If Other: please specify
8.
Who do you want to observe you?
(choose one or more)
a) Your HoD
b) A peer of your choice
c) An educational development specialist
Other:
9.
Do you want the criteria for the
observation to come from? (choose one)
a A University proforma
If Other: please specify
10. What should be the purpose of the
observation?
(choose one or more)
a) Enhancing the student's learning
experience
b) Personal/professional development
c) Mutual/reciprocal learning & sharing of
good practice
d) Appraisal
e) Promotion
f) Passing probationary review
Other:
11. Who do you want to keep records of the
observation?
a) You and your observer
b) You, your observer and HoD
(choose one or more)
c) You, your observer and departmental
administrator
d) You, your observer, human resources dept
12.
Other:
How could we provide evidence of good classroom teaching practice?
13.
How could we share evidence of good classroom teaching practice?
14.
How could we best prepare observers?
36
15.
The following ideas come from other universities in the UK surveyed about their teaching
observation schemes.
Which of these would you like to see at LSBU? (Choose one or more)
a) A university-wide scheme eg Abertay, University of the Arts, LSBU.
b) A departmental scheme eg Imperial College, King’s College London.
c) All aspects of teaching included in the observation, such as preparation of unit and
course guides, teaching material and BB sites, assessment practice, e-learning support,
skills support etc. Considered desirable by several institutions eg University of the Arts,
University of Kent.
d) Training in teaching observation eg Leeds Metropolitan, Imperial College,
Buckingham Chilterns University College.
e) Each individual to provide annual feedback of their good practice to their good
teaching practice to their Head of Department and share at a departmental level: Leeds
Metropolitan.
f) A single departmental report prepared by peer observers, commenting on: the
observation process; examples of good practice; staff development needs and other
issues arising from the exercise eg London Metropolitan
g) Each teacher produces a developmental action plan post-observation eg London
Metropolitan.
h) Feedback should always be developmental and not judgemental eg LSBU, London
Metropolitan, University of the Arts, London School of Economics, NATFHE etc
i) Teaching observation available to use when student evaluation has identified
unsatisfactory teaching performance eg London School of Economics.
j) The option to have a teaching session recorded on video - and review it with an
educational developer from your dept or faculty or from another part of the university eg
University of Warwick.
k) Have the option to invite a member of staff working in educational development to
observe and discuss your teaching with you eg Abertay.
l) Observer and observee to reciprocally exchange views on good teaching practice, eg London
School of Economics.
16.
Any other comments about the current system or how you would like to see it develop?
Any other thoughts or ideas about peer and teaching observation at LSBU? Please email Gail
Langley: langleg@lsbu.ac.uk.
Questionnaire prepared by Gail Langley and LTEU staff in consultation with colleagues in all 4
faculties
THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE
PLEASE save this form onto your computer and email it as an attachment to Sarah Bell, LTEU
(lteu@lsbu.ac.uk) or if you wish to remain anonymous, please print the form and post it to:
Sarah Bell, LTEU, London South Bank University, 103 Borough Road, London, SE1 0AA.
37
APPENDIX 4
Staff comments in response to question 12 “How could we provide evidence of good
classroom teaching practice?”
The comments are ordered by frequency, from the highest number of respondents (24) to
those suggested by one person.
1. Use student feedback or questionnaires – suggested by 24 respondents
Eg “Consider classroom observation in relation to UEQs” or
“Link student feedback to feedback from observer”
2. Keep written records of observations on file – suggested by 15 respondents.
Including the following variations:
2.1 “Keep only a summary of good practice on file”
2.2 “Summary of issues that inform staff development”
2.3 “HOD to collate results anonymously and produce annual report for department –
to show diversity of teaching methods across the university”
2.4 “Annual reports to all outlining best practice”
2.5 “Proforma to HOD”
2.6 “A log of good practice developed for each department”
2.7 “Observer’s comments on good practice”
2.8 “Constructive observations of teaching to an agreed format”
3. Use recordings of exemplary teaching in whatever format (VHS, DVD,
Blackboard, intranet all suggested) – suggested by 11 respondents
4. Use Unit and Course results as evidence of good teaching – suggested by 7
respondents. Variant:
“following on from a change in teaching practice”
5. “Published class room materials” and “quality of learning materials”
including other public documents eg Unit Guides - suggested by 7 respondents.
Variant:
“Checklist: producing Unit Guide to template, useful Blackboard site, quality of
learning material, timely summative feedback to students”
6. “Quality of lesson plans” – suggested by 2 respondents
7. “External examiner comments” – suggested by 2 respondents
8. “Teachers get self – peer – student evaluations together and share this” –
suggested by 2 respondents
Suggestions 9 to 14 were made by one person only:
38
9. “Need educational specialists for different subject areas eg design, psychology,
maths”
10. “Same external reviewers should look at everyone so that standards are consistent
across the university”
11. “Team teaching”
12. “Peer mentoring or coaching”
13. “On-line case studies”
14. “Review any aspect of teaching but in addition to classroom teaching”
39
APPENDIX 5
Staff comments in response to question 13: How can we share evidence of good
practice?
Comments are listed according to popularity: most popular first through to those
suggested by one person only
1. Staff development activities – seminars, workshops, awaydays, team meetings,
departmental or faculty meetings, university T&L conference – suggested by 22
respondents: eg
“Annual LTEU T&L conference to highlight examples and issues”
“Through Teaching and Learning committees”
“Discussion amongst teaching teams of innovative teaching methods”
“Departmental workshops by education specialists and/or scenarios with actors like
the recent diversity training”
2. Written records of some kind – suggested by 10 respondents eg
“Box on observation proforma to identify good practice: HOD summarises contents
of boxes annually for staff”
“Non-attributable summaries of observation results available across faculty”
“HODs extract snippets from observation data and report to T&L Committee”
“A faculty digest”
“Departmental reports identifying transferable good practice”
“Departmental nominee/observer summarises good and bad practice to HOD who
takes action to address common problems and to disseminate good practice. We have
used this in the past and it worked.”
“Publish research results”
“Ask HODs to identify good practice and publish in newsletter”
“Share written observations”
“A library of fixed resource learning/teaching packs”
“Case study approaches with anonymised evaluations”
3. Recordings of exemplary teaching – suggested by 10 respondents
Whatever format was appropriate - VHS, DVD, Blackboard, intranet were all
suggested. A variant on this:
“Add to video library – examples of work[teaching?] graded at different levels for
new tutors to see for marking standardization; video of materials making; video of
joint planning for new courses”
4. Use of web site, Blackboard, intranet generally – suggested by 10
respondents:
Put the written records from 2. and/or the recordings from 3. here?
A variant on this:
“ a web site for sharing thoughts and ideas”
40
5. Team teaching – suggested by 6 respondents
6. Making use of observations – suggested by 5 respondents:
“Cross-faculty observations”
“Multiple observations and genuine confidential debriefing”
“Award for demonstrably good practice”
“Celebrate and reward it” [it = good teaching?]
7. “Run short courses for researchers and HPLs who can’t commit to year-long
courses”
8. “Small group/action learning set to reflect on classroom practice and discuss”
9. “Have better induction for staff including teaching observation and feedback”
10. “Offer shadowing opportunities for new staff to find their feet”
“Get experienced teachers to work with new teachers – have more shared teaching
– encourage classroom observation”
Finally a positive view of peer observation (though negative about good practice) and
then a negative view:
11. [positive] “I am completely skeptical about ‘good practice’ as a concept. What
works well for one teacher in a given class at a certain time is often (normally?)
inappropriate for a different teacher at a different time with a different group of
students. Peer partners, selected at random and rotated each year, can provide
feedback on what worked and what didn’t work in a particular class. Open forum
meetings of colleagues can usefully discuss approaches and outcomes – leaving
professionals to decide when and how to change their practice.”
11. [negative] “I believe that you are either a good teacher or you’re not – it’s genetic,
innate. Lots of people know the theory of good teaching but at the end of the day a lot of
the performance etc boils down to personality and charisma.”
41
APPENDIX 6
Staff comments for question 14: How to prepare observers?
Comments have been grouped by subject and are then listed in order of popularity:
1. Training sessions of some sort
“Short course funded by SDU (Staff Development Unit) run by PLTHE team”
(Programme for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education”
“Training session on what new observers should be looking for and experienced
observers to offer good practice”*
“Offer courses but time may make these difficult to attend”
“Time allowance for attending courses”
“By preparatory courses for teaching and learning eg PGCHE”
“Regular workshops and guidance”
“Training workshops to work on standardization of comments/assessment”
“Short compulsory workshops, working with trained observers for the first year”*
“Brief role preparation and value of observation session that is easily accessible. Good
refreshments to encourage attendance and change venues to ensure staff in all buildings
able to attend”
“Provide clear pointers as to how the form should be filled in.”
“Provide training on how to give feedback”
“Ideally training for everyone, done by PLTHE people or their trainees”
“Study day to discuss purpose and paperwork for new and potential observers”
“Half day session to update annually”
“Brief training session and good proforma”
“Training on how to observe, clarity of purpose, how to give feedback”
“Outline what’s involved, why, how to prepare, better form for feedback”
“Workshops initially department-based”
“Take part in Learning and Teaching events about observation”
“Trained to assess specific criteria”
“Training on how to observe”
“Training course to include practical example of observation”
“One day workshop on the art of giving feedback”
“Helping observers have the confidence to observe; discuss what observee wants to gain
from the observation; half day department workshop?”
2. Clear guidelines on paper
“Provide well-structured proforma and clear instructions”
“Web-based information/training package”
“Handouts”
“A handbook”
“Use a consistent checklist from one year to the next” – 4 comments
“Ensure proformas are easy to follow”
“Make the form faculty specific and launch it at an awayday”
“Guidelines on the role of the observer and the purpose of the observation”
“Briefing documentation give criteria on good practice”
42
“Clear form/criteria with rules of exercise clearly stated. Most important for feedback to
be honest, constructive”
“Explain purpose of observation and philosophy of feedback”
“Clear guidelines”
3. Use of recordings of classroom teaching:
“Use video recordings of teaching to discuss – can then be done in a non-threatening
environment”
“Provide exemplars of good practice in a range of teaching methods and for a range of
learning styles”
“Pre-observation guidance, discussion of videos”
2. Pairing experience and inexperienced staff:
“Pair experienced and inexperienced staff”
“Observers need to be experienced, trusted by observers, probably need educational
background beyond PGCHE if to give examples of best practice and underpinning
theories”
“Have a system of mentorship: experienced to inexperienced lecturers”
see * in comments in 1 above supporting this idea
3. “Develop a culture for them [observers?] to grow in to”
4. “Remove the administrative burden on academics; prioritise teaching as
more important than assessment; promote at operational level open forum
discussions”
5. “Through practice – the more observers observe, the more they will become
critical observers”
6. The 4 comments suggesting experts/professionals not peers are needed:
“Use specialists as well as experienced teachers”
“Use professionals or train them”
“Observers need to be experienced individuals or undergo training”
“Observers should be educational experts – peer reviews are generally useless as
peers don’t necessarily know how to teach or be objective”
7. The 4 negative comments suggesting it is NOT necessary to train observers:
“An experienced academic should be able to observe using a checklist”
“Most observers seem sufficiently prepared – they are employed as professional
lecturers”
“Don’t bother. A good teacher knows what to look for in a good teacher”
“Most people who are teacher trained would be competent at this. Perhaps some
guidelines”
43
APPENDIX 7
COMMENTS ON PEER OBSERVATION PRACTICES IN PARTNER
INSTITUTIONS IN THE UK AND OVERSEAS
LSBU has 22 UK partner institutions providing approximately 630 students and 23
overseas partner institutions providing approximately 220 students in the academic
year 2005/2006, with more in the pipeline. In order to acknowledge the importance of
sharing good practice with our partner institutions, I offer two snapshot comments of
peer observation practices, one in the UK and one in China.
In the UK, Westminster Kingsway College in London has developed a peer
observation scheme which staff are aware of and find acceptable.
In China, I collected staff comments on their peer observation schemes in two partner
institutions: Beijing Institute of Technology (BIT) in Beijing and Harbin Star College
(HSC) of Harbin Normal University in Harbin.
In BIT two colleagues teaching on and managing the direct entry students to BAAF2
and MScIB made the following comments in conversations in March 2006.
Random observation of existing staff by the staff development unit is usual. This is
done without warning and without feedback to the person observed, often to check
timekeeping, sometimes to check the teaching. Poor timekeeping, that is arriving late
for class, may result in fines.
New staff are subject to compulsory attendance at staff development meetings. They
have to deposit a sum of 3000 yuan at the start of the course, to be returned at the end
if all sessions have been attended. There is a 200 yuan deduction for each session not
attended. This system has been introduced relatively recently.
One colleague volunteered the following views. He learnt to teach by watching others
but was not taught how to teach. He considers himself naturally communicative and
interested in engaging with an audience.
In HSC two senior colleagues, both masters graduates from LSBU, provided the
following information in conversations in March 2006. One is currently a manager,
and the other a manager and teacher. There is a strong and multi-layered system of
teaching observation at HSC. It is compulsory and all teachers are observed.
There are different levels of observation. The teaching affairs unit (equivalent to our
Staff Development and Learning and Teaching Enhancement Units) has four staff out
of eight responsible for observing teachers. They may do this randomly and without
prior warning or they may contact the teacher in advance.
44
The line manager (equivalent to our Head of Department) will observe his or her
staff. The feedback form is judgemental as it requires a grading of A, B, C or D for
each of eight categories. These categories, loosely translated, are:
 Teaching preparation
 Teaching organization
 Attitude to teaching
 Content accuracy
 Teaching methodology
 Encouragement
 Class discipline
 Feedback
Peer observation is also standard. Teachers at the same level from the same subject
area are expected to observe each other. It is well publicized to all staff which
teachers are most popular with the students, from the student evaluations
All teachers are observed several times a year, junior teachers maybe three or four
times, senior teachers maybe once or twice.
In terms of effectiveness, it’s accepted as part of the system. The more senior
manager’s view is that it is helpful in reviewing teachers’ performance in the
classroom and does encourage good or effective teaching.
In conclusion, it is important to note that there is evidence of peer observation of
teaching schemes in partner institutions in the UK and overseas. The snapshot
comments offered here show how different approaches can be, from China, which is
punitive (fines, random managerial observations and a judgemental system) to
Westminster Kingsway which is evaluative at best.
45