# A review of peer-observation in higher education **Leonardo Uieda** -- Department of Earth, Ocean and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, UK :::{admonition} Key points :class: seealso * When done right, peer-observation of teaching can be a valuable tool to promote **discussion and collegiality** as well as **disseminate good pedagogic practices**. * There seems to be consensus in the literature that peer-observation should **not be used for evaluation** of staff (e.g., for promotion, probation, tenure). * **Blended models** of peer-observation seem to work best. * Care must be taken to ensure that the process does not become stale, repetitive, or seen as a chore and time-sink. * Focusing on the **self-development of the observer** (as opposed to the judgement of the observed) can be a tool for dispelling feelings of anxiety and hesitation towards the practice. ::: ## Introduction **Peer-observation of teaching** is a practice in which one or more staff observe the teaching of another and provide feedback for reflection and discussion. The practice of peer-observation can vary both in format and in overall goals {cite:p}`Cosh1998`. However, it is still widely used as a form of professional development for teaching staff both within and, more recently, across different higher education institutions {cite:p}`OKeeffe2021`. There are a large number of studies looking into different models of peer-observation, the effectiveness of their implementation strategies in various contexts, and the challenges faced during implementation (see {cite:t}`Fletcher2018` for an overview). While enlightening, this abundance can make it challenging for individuals who desire to adopt peer-observation within their institutions to figure out which model to use and how to best conduct the practice. This review is my attempt to synthesise some of the best practices found in the teaching and learning literature around peer-observation in a higher education setting. I will offer an overview of the most common models, the evidence in favour or against them, and the key recommendations distilled from them. My hope is that this investigation will inform the current practice of peer-observation within the {term}`PGCAP` program and the recent adoption within the School of Environmental Sciences of the University of Liverpool, UK. ## The purposes of peer observation The purpose of the peer-observation exercise is subjective and there doesn't appear to be a consensus in the literature. As pointed out by {cite:t}`Cosh1998`, "There is, however, some confusion or uncertainty over whether the purpose of this is development or accountability, and consequently over the role of the observer." Nonetheless, {cite:t}`HammersleyFletcher2004` identified three broadly defined purposes of peer-observation among practitioners: :::{glossary} Accountability Evaluation of the teacher. Personal reflection Observation elicits reflection on the pedagogical practices by both observer and observed. Dissemination of best practice Observers learn and share best-practices observed with peers. ::: The emphasis placed on each of these different purposes varies with the particular model of peer-observation being used. There is also debate on whether reflection is done effectively in practice, or is even achieved at all, depending on circumstances {cite:p}`HammersleyFletcher2005`. The one thing that is recurrent in the literature is that a peer-observation should **not** be done solely for {term}`accountability` purposes {cite:p}`Cosh1998,Fletcher2018,HammersleyFletcher2004,HammersleyFletcher2005`. Doing so undermines team building, leads to disengagement of staff, and can prompt defensive behaviour towards critique. ## Models of peer observation Most recent studies tend to focus on one of three models of peer-observation {cite:p}`Gosling2002`: {term}`evaluation`, {term}`developmental`, and {term}`collaborative`. However, {cite:t}`Cosh1998` proposed the {term}`reflective` model as an alternative which has characteristics often reflecting the conclusions of studies into the other three models, even when not named specifically (e.g., {cite:t}`HammersleyFletcher2004,Yiend2012,Fletcher2018`). :::{glossary} Evaluation Administrative or other senior staff observe with the goal to monitor teaching quality and pass judgement on the teaching of the observed (i.e., purely for {term}`accountability`). Developmental An educational expert is the observer and focuses on providing critical feedback on the teaching practice instead of the module content directly. The expert also facilitates reflective practice of the observed and serves as a model for effective feedback. Collaborative A peer (teaching staff) serves as the observer. Generally regarded as more collegial where peers observe and focus on formative feedback to improve teaching. Peers can be from within or without the subject matter being taught. Reflective Like the collaborative model, a peer serves as the observer. However, the focus is shifted from the observed to the observer, who is instead performing a reflective analysis of their own teaching in light of the observation. ::: The evidence seems to be in favour of using a combination of the {term}`developmental` and {term}`collaborative` models (e.g. {cite:t}`Atkinson2010` and {cite:t}`Yiend2012`). Some of the reasons **against a solely peer-to-peer observation** include: * "Many staff are ill-equipped, without further training, to evaluate and provide feedback on the effectiveness of others’ teaching" -- {cite:p}`Gosling2009`. * Reflective practice is difficult and is a skill that needs to be taught and demonstrated in order to be used effectively {cite:p}`Aronson2010`. * Peers are often reluctant to provide even constructive criticism and tend to focus solely on the good aspects of a colleague's teaching {cite:p}`Shortland2010`. This is likely exacerbated by power imbalance between the observer and observed and office politics. In these instances, a first observation is performed by an educational expert and then followed by a peer-observation. {cite:t}`Yiend2012` found that the amount of critical feedback and reflective practice of the observed increased when they were first exposed to an expert educator. {cite:t}`Lygo-Baker2007` also concludes that the participation of a developmental observer is important for facilitating reflective practice. Furthermore, an expert educator can help provide the necessary scaffolding for academic staff to discuss pedagogical practice {cite:p}`Thomson2015`. ## Challenges Implementation of a blended developmental-collaborative model are not without challenges, not least of which is the negative perception of the practice from staff: :::{epigraph} The common perceptions encountered, and which required consultation, included: 1. Effective peer review is too time consuming and involves knowledge and skills we as a faculty do not have. 1. Personal or professional rivalries will contaminate the process and create deep divisions or recourse to legal remedies. 1. Peer review violates the norms of privacy and egalitarianism in teaching. -- {cite:t}`Fletcher2018` ::: Possible solutions to combat these negative perceptions include: * Allowing staff to opt-in to both observing and being observed {cite:p}`Fletcher2018`. This can help lower tensions between teaching staff and administration. * Reports must be confidential between the observer and observed. Peers will only discuss difficult issues when they know that the conversations will not be shared, and thus negatively impact their career progression {cite:p}`Hicks1999,Brinko1993`. Additionally, it would be useful to highlight the many benefits of observation for the **observer** that have been reported: * A {term}`collaborative` approach contributes to the cohesion of the institution and provides a starting point for cross-disciplinary discussion {cite:p}`Whipp2017`. * Observers are better able to reflect on their own practice {cite:p}`Sullivan2012`. * Learning new strategies and styles which can be adopted in their teaching {cite:p}`Hendry2012`. * When peers are from the same discipline, discern differences in the content delivered by the observed and their own {cite:p}`Tenenberg2014`. :::{admonition} Proposal :class: tip To me, all of these are strong arguments in favour of a **different blended model**: 1. First a {term}`developmental` observation with the purpose of modelling good reflective practice and feedback. 1. Followed by a {term}`reflective` observation with the previous observed now serving as observer and focusing on their self-development from the observation. ::: ## Practical implementation Most studies that I have found use slight variations of the following implementation {cite:p}`HammersleyFletcher2004`: 1. Peers are identified and paired for observation (sometimes trios are used). 1. A pre-observation meeting is held where the peers establish particular areas of focus, expectations, and logistics. 1. A post-observation meeting is held where the observers provide feedback and the observed reflects on the feedback. Areas for improvement, concerns, and examples of good practice are usually identified as well. {cite:t}`Cosh1998` identified the following principles for successful practice of peer-observation: * **Minimal workload:** "the procedure should be formalized in some way to ensure that it does not die through inertia and the pressures of workload" -- {cite:t}`Cosh1998` * **Agency:** Participants should be given agency over who should be observed, methods, focus, etc. * **Feedback is key:** Proper feedback must be provided after the observation through **short** forms with as little structure and box-ticking as possible. It is also important that the process is dynamic and observations are rotated frequently to avoid the process becoming repetitive {cite:p}`HammersleyFletcher2004`. Under my proposed blended {term}`developmental`-{term}`reflective` model: * The first developmental observation would serve as training in critical feedback and reflective practice for the observed, with good practice modelled by the expert educator. * The developmental component needs not happen with as much frequency as the peer-to-peer reflective component. Perhaps only once every few academic years. * The feedback form would follow the suggestion of {cite:t}`Cosh1998` and include: lessons learned from observing, further action planned for the observer, topics that may be of broader interest. The feedback form is **confidential** and only the examples of good-practice are shared more widely. * Peers are self-assigned with facilitation from the parties running the exercise. * Peer-to-peer observation should be done both within the same discipline and across disciplines. There is evidence that "disciplinary focus [...] sometimes hinders deep reflection about teaching practices" {cite:p}`Torres2017`. Having some cross-disciplinary pairings can help shift the focus away from the content and towards the pedagogy and student learning {cite:p}`OKeeffe2021`. This {term}`developmental`-{term}`reflective` blended approach can be particularly useful when less experience staff are assigned as observers of more experienced educators who have undergone the peer-observation process in the past {cite:p}`HammersleyFletcher2004`. ## Peer-observation at the University of Liverpool The following section is a reflection on how the implementations of peer-observation within the School of Environmental Sciences and the {term}`PGCAP` program relate to the content laid out above. ### School of Environmental Sciences As of 2022, the School of Environmental Sciences started the establishment of a peer-observation program with the goal of improving pedagogy and disseminating examples of good practice across the many disciplines covered by the School. The program is based on the {term}`collaborative` model, with academic staff serving as both observers and observed. The feedback form is focused on highlighting good practice of the observed and pin-pointing any issues that may have arisen. The training that is offered to staff involves relay of information about the process, what to observe, how to conduct the pre- and post-observation discussions, etc. However, there is no hands-on practice or demonstration of how to conduct the observation and reflective practice effectively by an expert. ### PGCAP The first module of the PGCAP (ADEV700 in my case), includes two peer-observation exercises as summative assessments (see [my reflections on these observations](observations)). Both are carried out in a mix of the {term}`evaluation` and {term}`collaborative` model, with the observer being an academic peer but simultaneously having a large focus on the evaluation of the quality of teaching as well as areas of improvement and examples of good practice. Staff participating in the module as students are only observed and do not carry out observations themselves (though the option of being an observer for another student was given). The training received during the module relays information about the format, how to conduct reflective practice, and details of how to carry out the pre- and post-observation discussions. Like the School of Environmental Sciences, there is also no hands-on training or demonstration of good practice by an expert observer. ## Recommendations In light of the literature review carried out above, I would like to make recommendations for those implementing peer-observation: :::{admonition} General :class: note * **Do not use for peer-observation for evaluation** of staff (e.g., for promotion, probation, tenure). There seems to be consensus in the literature about this point. * **Blended models** of peer-observation seem to work best. It is common for the {term}`developmental` and {term}`collaborative` models to be combined. I would argue in favour of using the {term}`reflective` model instead of the {term}`collaborative`. * Focus on the **self-development of the observer** (as opposed to the judgement of the observed) to decrease anxiety and hesitation towards the practice, as well as negative effects associated with power imbalance and politics between peers. ::: The following are specific recommendations that I believe could improve the practices currently implemented in parts of the University of Liverpool. **My goal with these is to offer critical feedback and areas of improvement** informed by the current literature on peer-observation. :::{admonition} School of Environmental Sciences :class: note * Continue with the emphasis on self-development instead of evaluation. * Shift the focus towards the development of the observer, which will also serve as an on-boarding tool for new teaching staff. * Encourage peer-to-peer observation across the School disciplines to foster collegiality and avoid focusing solely on the content of the module. * Include as part of the training at least one observation by an expert educator with experience in reflective practice. ::: :::{admonition} PGCAP :class: note * Continue allowing participants to self-assign peers for the observations. * Strongly encourage or require being an observer for another participant. * Include as part of the training at least one observation by an expert educator with experience in reflective practice. * Include the observation by the participant of one experienced educator in the participants own domain, ideally someone who has been through the PGCAP program. * Remove aspects of the observation form that are related purely to the judgement of the quality of teaching practice by the observer. Replace them with more open-ended areas of improvement (when conducted by an expert educator) or reflections on self-improvement (when conducted by the participant). ::: ## Bibliography ```{bibliography} :filter: cited and (docname in docnames) ```