A review of peer-observation in higher education¶

Leonardo Uieda – Department of Earth, Ocean and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, UK

Key points

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 [Cosh, 1998]. 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 [O'Keeffe et al., 2021].

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 Fletcher [2018] 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 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 Cosh [1998], “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, Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond [2004] identified three broadly defined purposes of peer-observation among practitioners:

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 [Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond, 2005].

The one thing that is recurrent in the literature is that a peer-observation should not be done solely for accountability purposes [Cosh, 1998, Fletcher, 2018, Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond, 2004, Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond, 2005]. 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 [Gosling, 2002]: evaluation, developmental, and collaborative. However, Cosh [1998] proposed the 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., Fletcher [2018], Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond [2004], Yiend et al. [2012]).

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 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 developmental and collaborative models (e.g. Atkinson and Bolt [2010] and Yiend et al. [2012]). 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” – [Gosling, 2009].
Reflective practice is difficult and is a skill that needs to be taught and demonstrated in order to be used effectively [Aronson, 2010].
Peers are often reluctant to provide even constructive criticism and tend to focus solely on the good aspects of a colleague’s teaching [Shortland, 2010]. 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. Yiend et al. [2012] found that the amount of critical feedback and reflective practice of the observed increased when they were first exposed to an expert educator. Lygo-Baker and Hatzipanagos [2007] 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 [Thomson, 2015].

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:

The common perceptions encountered, and which required consultation, included:

Effective peer review is too time consuming and involves knowledge and skills we as a faculty do not have.

Personal or professional rivalries will contaminate the process and create deep divisions or recourse to legal remedies.

Peer review violates the norms of privacy and egalitarianism in teaching.

—Fletcher [2018]

Possible solutions to combat these negative perceptions include:

Allowing staff to opt-in to both observing and being observed [Fletcher, 2018]. 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 [Brinko, 1993, Hicks, 1999].

Additionally, it would be useful to highlight the many benefits of observation for the observer that have been reported:

A collaborative approach contributes to the cohesion of the institution and provides a starting point for cross-disciplinary discussion [Whipp and Pengelley, 2017].
Observers are better able to reflect on their own practice [Sullivan et al., 2012].
Learning new strategies and styles which can be adopted in their teaching [Hendry and and Gary R. Oliver and, 2012].
When peers are from the same discipline, discern differences in the content delivered by the observed and their own [Tenenberg, 2014].

Proposal

To me, all of these are strong arguments in favour of a different blended model:

First a developmental observation with the purpose of modelling good reflective practice and feedback.
Followed by a 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 [Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond, 2004]:

Peers are identified and paired for observation (sometimes trios are used).
A pre-observation meeting is held where the peers establish particular areas of focus, expectations, and logistics.
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.

Cosh [1998] 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” – Cosh [1998]
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 [Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond, 2004].

Under my proposed blended developmental-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 Cosh [1998] 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” [Torres et al., 2017]. Having some cross-disciplinary pairings can help shift the focus away from the content and towards the pedagogy and student learning [O'Keeffe et al., 2021].

This developmental-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 [Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond, 2004].

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 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 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). Both are carried out in a mix of the evaluation and 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:

General

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 developmental and collaborative models to be combined. I would argue in favour of using the reflective model instead of the 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.

School of Environmental Sciences

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.

PGCAP

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¶

Aro10: Louise Aronson. Twelve tips for teaching reflection at all levels of medical education. Medical Teacher, 33(3):200–205, September 2010. doi:10.3109/0142159x.2010.507714.
AB10: Douglas J Atkinson and Susan J Bolt. Using teaching observations to reflect upon and improve teaching practice in higher education. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, pages 1–19, 2010.
Bri93: Kathleen T. Brinko. The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(5):574–593, September 1993. doi:10.1080/00221546.1993.11778449.
Cos98(1,2,3,4,5,6,7): Jill Cosh. Peer observation in higher education – a reflective approach. Innovations in Education and Training International, 35(2):171–176, May 1998. doi:10.1080/1355800980350211.
Fle18(1,2,3,4,5): Jeffrey A Fletcher. Peer observation of teaching: a practical tool in higher education. The Journal of Faculty Development, 32(1):51–64, 2018. URL: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/magna/jfd/2018/00000032/00000001/art00008.
Gos02: David Gosling. Models of peer observation of teaching. LTSN Generic Centre, 2002.
Gos09: David Gosling. A new approach to peer review of teaching. Beyond the peer observation of teaching. SEDA Paper, 124:7–16, 2009.
HFO04(1,2,3,4,5,6): Linda Hammersley-Fletcher and Paul Orsmond. Evaluating our peers: is peer observation a meaningful process? Studies in Higher Education, 29(4):489–503, August 2004. doi:10.1080/0307507042000236380.
HFO05(1,2): Linda Hammersley-Fletcher and Paul Orsmond. Reflecting on reflective practices within peer observation. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2):213–224, April 2005. doi:10.1080/03075070500043358.
HaGROa12: Graham D. Hendry and and Gary R. Oliver and. Seeing is believing: the benefits of peer observation. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 9(1):87–96, January 2012. doi:10.53761/1.9.1.7.
Hic99: Owen Hicks. A conceptual framework for instructional consultation. New directions for teaching and learning, 79:9–18, 1999.
LBH07: Simon Lygo-Baker and Stylianos Hatzipanagos. Beyond peer review: investigating practitioner perceptions of teaching observations undertaken by academic developers. International Journal of Learning, 2007.
OKeeffeCM+21(1,2): Muireann O'Keeffe, Martina Crehan, Morag Munro, Anna Logan, Ann Marie Farrell, Eric Clarke, Michelle Flood, Monica Ward, Tatiana Andreeva, Chris Van Egeraat, Frances Heaney, Declan Curran, and Eric Clinton. Exploring the role of peer observation of teaching in facilitating cross-institutional professional conversations about teaching and learning. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3):266–278, July 2021. doi:10.1080/1360144x.2021.1954524.
Sho10: Sue Shortland. Feedback within peer observation: continuing professional development and unexpected consequences. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(3):295–304, August 2010. doi:10.1080/14703297.2010.498181.
SBNA12: Peter B Sullivan, Alexandra Buckle, Gregg Nicky, and Sarah H Atkinson. Peer observation of teaching as a faculty development tool. BMC Medical Education, May 2012. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-12-26.
Ten14: Josh Tenenberg. Learning through observing peers in practice. Studies in Higher Education, 41(4):756–773, September 2014. doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.950954.
Tho15: Kate Thomson. Informal conversations about teaching and their relationship to a formal development program: learning opportunities for novice and mid-career academics. International Journal for Academic Development, 20(2):137–149, April 2015. doi:10.1080/1360144x.2015.1028066.
TLVM17: Ana Cristina Torres, Amélia Lopes, Jorge M. S. Valente, and Ana Mouraz. What catches the eye in class observation? observers' perspectives in a multidisciplinary peer observation of teaching program. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(7):822–838, March 2017. doi:10.1080/13562517.2017.1301907.
WP17: Peter R. Whipp and Richard Pengelley. Confidence building through peer observation of teaching and peer coaching in university departments. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 6(2):99–115, June 2017. doi:10.1108/ijmce-07-2016-0059.
YWK12(1,2,3): Jenny Yiend, Saranne Weller, and Ian Kinchin. Peer observation of teaching: the interaction between peer review and developmental models of practice. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38(4):465–484, October 2012. doi:10.1080/0309877x.2012.726967.

PGCAP Portfolio

A review of peer-observation in higher education

Contents