Peer Support Project.
Innovations Day
Keele University
3 July 2009
Presenters: Kim Sargeant and Pauline Walsh
Project Team: Julie Green, Cath Hill, Kim Sargeant, Pauline Walsh
Background.
• The School of Nursing and Midwifery academic peer
support strategy has been developed in the wider context
of support for the scholarship of learning and teaching.
• The strategy incorporates Keele University guidelines
regarding peer observation of teaching (POT) and aims to
facilitate achievement of the School’s learning and teaching
plan.
Aims of support model.
• To meet the requirements for professional registration and
maintenance of a professional portfolio.
• To foster support to staff implementing innovative and
dynamic learning and teaching strategies including interprofessional and case based learning.
• To encourage staff to implement shared learning strategies
within programmes.
• To enable staff to reflect on and develop their role in
supporting students as a personal tutor and clinical
placement link tutor.
Peer Support Model,
2008
Reflective
Activity
Teaching
observation
Peer group
discussions
Participants (n=43)
• 25 staff participated in the questionnaire giving a response
rate of 58%
• Of those who responded 32% were male and 68% were
female
• 48% of respondents had worked in Higher Education for
more than 10 years and only 8% for less than 2 years
• Only 4% of respondents (1 staff member) had not yet
completed a formal higher education teaching qualification
Peer Support Activities contribute to improving
the quality of the student experience
• Positive response to the Peer Support project - 64% stated
that the peer support activities contributed to the quality of
the student experience.
• Cosh (1998) argues that the judgements of others do not
develop or improve people’s performance, a point refuted
by this sample group
Peer support activities positively enhance my
personal professional development
• Donnelly (2007) suggests that peer activities develop staff
confidence in their approach to teaching and develop good
practice.
• 68% of respondents identified that the activities had had a
positive effect on their development.
Feedback from peer support activity should be
used within the appraisal system
Feedback from peer support activity should be used
within the appraisal system
48%
20%
20%
12%
0%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
I have benefited from observing others teach
I have benefited from observing others teach
40%
36%
20%
4%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
0%
Strongly
Disagree
I have benefited from my teaching being
observed
I have benefited from my teaching being observed
36%
36%
24%
4%
0%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
I was adequately prepared to undertake the role
of observer
I was adequately prepared to undertake the role of
observer
32%
36%
28%
4%
Strongly Agree
0%
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
The main focus of Reflective Activity was
• Reflective practice is a professional body requirement of all
nurses and midwives, as part of their ongoing professional
development (NMC, 2006).
• Donnelly (2007) suggests that reflective practice can be a
key process in the professional learning of academic staff
and can prevent teaching from becoming routine and
mundane.
• 82% of staff stated that their main area of reflection was
around their teaching in the classroom.
I felt able to disclose issues that concerned me
during the peer group meetings
• Landmark et al (2004) highlight the importance of
feeling able to share situations within the safety of
the group to develop awareness and insight
• 76% of respondents identified that they felt
comfortable disclosing their concerns during
meetings in their peer groups
The Next Step
• Initial findings support the model and as such its
continuance will be recommended
• Documentation will be amended to ensure clarity for all
staff
• Staff training will take place relating to peer support and
observation
• Celebration of good practice
• Feedback from groups will be used to identify areas for
school staff development next year
Further information
• Kim Sargeant
k.e.sargeant@nur.keele.ac.uk
• Pauline Walsh
p.n.walsh@nur.keele.ac.uk
• Julie Green
j.green@nur.keele.ac.uk
• Cath Hill
c.a.hill@nur.keele.ac.uk
References
• Bell, M. (2002) “Peer Observation of Teaching in Australia”.
www.itsn.ac.uk/genericcentre
• Berk, R.A., Naumann, P.L., Appling, S.E. (2004) “Beyond Student Ratings: Peer
Observation of Classroom and Clinical Teaching”. International Journal of
Nursing Education Scholarship. 1(1):1-26
• Cosh, J. (1998) “Peer observation in higher education- A reflective approach”.
Innovations in Education and Training International. 35(2):171-176
• Cosser, M. (1998) “Towards the design of a system of peer review of teaching for
the advancement of the individual within the university”. Higher Education. 35:
143 – 162
References
• Costello, J., Pateman, B., Pursey, H., Longshaw, K. (2001 )”Peer review of
classroom teaching: an interim report”. Nurse Education Today. 21:444-454
• Courneya, C., Pratt, D., Collins, J. (2008) “Through what perspective do we judge
the teaching of peers?” Teaching and Teacher Education. 24:69-79
• Davys, D., Jones, V. (2008) “Peer observation: A tool for continuing professional
development”. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation”. 14(11):
489-493
• Donnelly R. (2007) “Perceived Impact of Peer Observation of Teaching in Higher
Education”. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education. 19(2):117-129
References
• Hammersley-Fletcher, L., Orsmond, P. (2004) “Evaluating
our peers: is peer observation a meaningful process?”.
Studies in Higher Education. 29(4):489-503
• Landmark, B., Wahl, A., Bøhler, A. (2004) “Group
supervision to support competency development in
palliative care in Norway. International Journal of
Palliative Nursing. 10(11): 542-548
• Nursing and Midwifery Council (2006) “The PREP
Handbook”. London. NMC