Peer Observation of Teaching
Feedback collected from the
Peer Observation of Teaching Colloquium
27 March 2015
May 2015
Dominic McGrath, Sue Monsen
Institute for Teaching and Learning Innovation
itali.uq.edu.au | [email protected]
Contents
Executive Summary
3
Introduction: Peer Observation of Teaching Colloquium
4
Discussion Questions
4
Question 1 responses: Benefits
5
Question 2 responses: Barriers and Concerns
6
Question 3 responses: Models and Strategies
7
Question 4 responses: Support
8
Appendices
10
2
Executive Summary
On Friday 27 March 2015, 41 academic staff with leadership positions representing all UQ
Facilities gathered to discuss Peer Observation of Teaching at UQ. Small, mixed-faculty
groups considered four key questions and recorded their responses. The main themes have
been drawn from these responses and are documented in this report.
The high level feedback from the Colloquium was:

Support for the value of peer observation to enhance teaching and learning;

Endorsement for ITaLI to lead the establishment a peer observation program for UQ;

Concern about the focus of peer observation particularly tension between
developmental and formal review processes; and

Due consideration of the time required to manage and support peer observation.
Key questions
1. How could peer observation benefit staff within your unit?
2. What barriers/concerns do we need to overcome to implement broad & effective
peer observation?
3. What peer observation models/strategies would work best for your unit?
4. What support do you need to implement an effective peer observation program?
This paper reports the main themes of the discussions but does not attempt to resolve tensions
or reconcile contradictory responses.
The piloting and evaluating Peer Observation of Teaching for UQ was endorsed. The pilot
(April and June 2015) will occur in four Schools with volunteer teachers and observers. The
evaluation (June and October 2015) will consider the process and tools of peer observation.
The anticipated products of this evaluation are:

Resources to support peer observation activities including case studies, templates and
guides;

Targeted workshops to support peer observation;

A network of observers and support for teachers and observers;

Recommendations for changes to UQ policies and procedures; and

Recommendations for information system changes to enable appropriate reporting
of participation in peer observation of teaching.
3
Introduction: Peer Observation of Teaching Colloquium
On Friday 27 March 2015, 41 academic staff representing all UQ Facilities gathered to discuss
Peer Observation of Teaching at UQ (this included six Associate Deans (Academic), as well
as Heads of Schools and Teaching & Learning Chairs; please see Appendix 1 for full list of
participants).
Hosted by Professor Doune Macdonald (Pro-Vice Chancellor [Teaching and Learning]), this
colloquium began with brief presentations from speakers (see Table 1) about their use of
peer observation models to enhance teaching, and support applications for promotion and
teaching awards.
Small group discussions were facilitated by an ITaLI staff member at mixed-faculty groups
and participants considered four key questions (see Discussion Questions section below).
Responses were noted on ‘butchers’ paper’ and displayed around the room.
This report provides a summary of the responses recorded at the Peer Observation
Colloquium on Friday 27 March 2015.
Table 1
Guest Speakers
 Prof Peter Adams
Deputy President, Academic Board
 Assoc Prof Julie Duck
Associate Dean (Academic), Humanities and Social Sciences
 Dr John Harrison
Deputy Director Teaching & Learning, Communication & Arts
 Assoc Prof Neil Cottrell
Acting Head of School, Pharmacy
Additional comments
 Ms Rhonda Surman
Manager, Continuing Appointments & Promotions
Discussion Questions
Four questions were posed:
1. How could peer observation benefit staff within your unit?
2. What barriers/concerns do we need to overcome to implement broad & effective
peer observation?
3. What peer observation models/strategies would work best for your unit?
4. What support do you need to implement an effective peer observation program?
4
1. Benefits
How could peer observation benefit staff within your unit?
Generally, ‘improving teaching practice’ was a thematic response to this question.
Additionally, six main topics emerged.
a. Culture of collegiality
Peer observation can stimulate collegial conversations about teaching. This may lead
to a more open and ‘sharing’ spirit as well as an increased focus and appreciation for
teaching, and the creation of cohesive teaching teams.
b. Improved student experience
Student learning opportunities may be increased as a result of informed and improved
teaching practice.
c. Curriculum & pedagogical coherence
Peer observation may lead to a shared understanding of curriculum goals and
outcomes, and subsequent aligned teaching strategies. This may support and assist
accreditation processes.
d. Multiple sources of data to support career development and recognition
In addition to SECaTs, written feedback from peer observation can provide another
source of data to support annual performance appraisal and application for
promotion and awards.
e. Provides a developmental narrative
While different peer observation models can serve different purposes at different
career stages, a supportive process with constructive suggestions about teaching can
inspire confidence and improvement of teaching practices. This may lead to
enhanced learning outcomes and student engagement.
f.
Two-way learning process for teacher and observer
Peer observation may be particularly helpful for new teaching staff.
It may also be beneficial for the observer as they may learn from what others are
doing; consider new ways of thinking about teaching and subject matter; and
generally refresh their own practice in the process of reflecting on others’ practices.
5
2. Barriers and concerns
What barriers/concerns do we need to overcome to implement broad & effective peer
observation?
A number of other concerns were raised.
a. Developmental vs formal review process
General consensus was that an optional and supportive peer observation process
should be implemented. Words such as “reluctance”, “avoidance”, “punitive” and
“retribution” were used to describe the concerns of some groups in relation to highstakes, formal peer observation that could be utilised in HR processes.
There was also concern related to teachers focusing their efforts on the ‘criteria’ of
the peer observation at the expense of the other aspects of teaching [described as
the “NAPLAN effect” by group 4].
A number of participants recalled the time when student-completed course and
teaching evaluations were undertaken voluntarily and purely used developmentally.
They noted that these evaluations have now become institutionalised, mandated
and high-stakes. The main concern was that, despite all intents and purposes, “TEVALcreep” [group 6] may occur to the initially voluntary and developmental peer
observation.
b. Time and workload
There was some concern that peer observation processes would be time intensive
and that this time will not be accounted for in workload calculations. Additionally,
some groups were concerned that the ‘good’ teachers will be the ones who will
shoulder the load as observers and become overwhelmed (“burns them out” [group
8]).
c. Rigorous and valid process
In order for peer observation to be respected at UQ, groups identified the following
issues:



Selection of observers
Training for observers
Matching observers and teachers
d. Diversity of UQ
A ‘one size fits all’ peer observation model was identified as problematic for an
institution as diverse as UQ.
For the sustainability of peer observation, multiple groups suggested that the ‘culture’
of peer observation would need to be developed in Schools/Faculties.
6
e. Program acceptance
This feedback noted that UQ is a research-focused institution and does not highly
value teaching. Consequently, it was suggested that investing in peer observation is
a waste of time and resources.
3. Models and strategies
What peer observation models / strategies would work best for your unit?
A wide range of ideas were suggested. There was broad agreement that a simple and
credible process be adopted; one that is largely standardised but still allows for some
flexibility at the School level.
A broad summary of ideas are below.
a. Purpose: Developmental or formal review?
Clearly defining the purpose of the UQ Peer Observation was noted as important.
Once clarified, peer observation processes can be aligned to the agreed purpose
and appropriate resources can be developed (see section 4a Support: Training and
resources).
Following the “Developmental versus formal review process” concern (section 2a), it
was suggested that two separate observation models be considered:
(i)
A developmental process for teachers interested in informal professional
development; and
(ii)
A formal review process to provide evidence for HR processes such as
promotion and confirmation of continuing appointment.
b. Teacher participation: Compulsory or voluntary?
There was debate regarding the nature of involvement in peer observation (that is,
should observation be mandatory or optional for teaching staff?).
Some groups suggested that peer observation could be required with a “trigger point”
(that is, low SECaT scores) but should never be used punitively. Similarly, peer
observation feedback could be mandated for promotion.
It was also noted that peer observation should be an inclusive scheme in that all UQ
teaching staff should have the opportunity to be observed, and to select their
observer.
c. Information: Confidential or accessible? In what form? Stored where?
There was consideration about who has access to the feedback following peer
observation. Comments ranged from “completely confidential” [group 2] and “no
formal record kept” [group 1] to it remaining the teacher’s preference as to who sees
what information.
7
Importantly, groups requested clear guidance on where peer observation evidence
will be stored and how it will be used. For example, clarification was requested
regarding whether peer observation feedback would be reported to Heads of School,
and whether the entire process was faculty or school-based.
Group feedback suggested that this evidence should not be reduced to a single
number but provide a rich source of information.
Finally, maintaining meta-data regarding staff involvement in the peer observation
program was considered good practice by one group.
d. Observers: Insiders or outsiders? Experts?
There was discussion related to the merits of ‘insider’ versus ‘outsider’ observers (that
is, observers from or beyond the school or cognate group). Some groups also raised
the idea of utilising ‘expert’ peer observers.
4. Support
What support do you need to implement an effective peer observation program?
Five main themes became evident from the ‘support’ question.
a. Training and resources
There was a unanimous declaration for the development of a suite of Peer
Observation resources that are simple and suitable for range of contexts. Suggestions
included observation forms and templates, as well as case studies, exemplars and
examples.
Additionally, a workshop should be delivered to support and train staff in peer
observation processes. The workshop should focus on (i) techniques for observation
and (ii) how to give feedback.
It was evident that resources should be available on the internet. It was not clear if the
workshop should be delivered face-to-face or web-based, or a combination of both.
b. Post-observation support
The need to follow-up after an observation was noted. This included remediation for
those in need of expert support, as well as the desire for a teaching network or
community of practice.
c. Workload recognition
There was very strong support for recognising peer observation in UQ workload
formulas.
d. Appraisal and promotion
In relation to peer observation, there was tension about appraisal and promotion
processes between groups. Whilst some groups supported the formal inclusion of peer
8
observation evidence in annual reviews and promotion applications, others were
strongly against it.
e. Budget
Money for schools to resource peer observation was discussed. This included the
budget implications if everyone was eligible to be observed. Additionally, the question
of resources for post-observation support was raised.
9
APPENDIX 1
Participants
Business, Economics and Law
Philip Bodman
Fiona Rohde
KK Tang
Engineering, Architecture and Information Technologies
Greg Birkett
Liza O'Moore
Chris Landorf
Peter Sutton
Jose Torero Cullen
Health and Behavioural Sciences
Jacqui Bond
Neil Cottrell
Mark Nielsen
Christine Brown Wilson
Carlie Driscoll
Sarah Roberts-Thomson
Peter Cabot
Louise McCuaig
Humanities and Social Sciences
Andrew Bonnell
Roberto Esposto
Frank Mols
Gloria Dall'Alba
John Harrison
Annie Ross
Julie Duck
Kerryn McCluskey
Judith Seaboyer
Medicine and Biomedical Sciences
Charles Gilks
Allyson Mutch
Geoffrey Marks
Marc Ruitenberg
Mieke van Driel
Science
Peter Adams
Louise Kuchel
Susan Rowland
Kim Bryceson (via Skype)
Luke Leung (via Skype)
Kevin Welsh
Joseph Grotowski
Barbara Maenhaut
John Wright
Other units
Stephan Riek
Graduate School
Rhonda Surman
Continuing Appointments and Promotions
Andrew Bonnell
National Tertiary Educators Union
10