1. Peer Observation of Teaching and Beyond Matti Lappalainen Kristine Mason O'Connor University of TurkuUniversity of Gloucestershire Finland UK matlap@utu.fikmoconnor@glos.ac.uk http://users.utu.fi/matlap/POT_Lappalainen_Mason.pdf ICED Conference, 23rd-25th July 2012, Bangkok, Thailand

2. Session in brief Introducing Peer Observation of Teaching (POT) Beyond POT: Peer review Discussion: Towards more intensive collaboration in teaching and learning?

3. Teaching in higher education = mostly work in isolation … especially when compared to research

4. However: POT 3 models (Gosling 2002) 1. evaluation model is for assessment of performance (eg. for promotion). It´s normally done by senior staff. 2. developmental model is to demonstrate competency and improve teaching competencies. It´s for development and done by educational developers or expert teachers. 3. peer review model is to engage teachers in discussion about teaching and give an opportunity to self and mutual reflection. It´s done by teachers themselves.

5. Reasons for peer observation as a mean of educational development?

6. The phases of POT 1.Pre-observation – Guidelines, training, instructions… 2.Observation 3.After observation – Discussion with a peer – Report – Portfolio – …

7. Examples: even in a small country (Finland) a large variation ”inspection of teaching” by invitation (Engineering in Aalto University, FI) Pairing teachers by EdDev Unit (Abo Academi Univ, FI) Observing videos (Aalto University, FI) As a part of professional training programme (University of Turku, FI)

8. Teachers like… but don´t use An example after professional training programme: “POT worked as a tool for educational development”: badly 1 2 3 4 5 well Average 4.3 However, very often POT has remained for a single experiment

9. Beyond peer review? Addresses ‘non-visible’ aspects e.g. context; planning intentions and goals Is not performance-based Can be undertaken in pairs or teams of learning communities Expands beyond face to face teaching Removes observer bias Involves constructive scholarly inquiry and reflection

10. Addresses Teaching Problems Bass (1999) compares our different attitudes to research problems and teaching problems. Whereas research problems are a ‘good thing’ that academics are only too happy to discuss and debate with colleagues, often ‘teaching problems’ have been seen as implying a fault or deficiency in the teacher. Bass, R. (1999) Bass, R. (1999) The Scholarship of Teaching: what's the problem? Inventio, 1(1), pp.1-9.

11. UK Examples (SEDA Paper 124) 1.Review of Professional Practice (Gloucestershire) 2.Peer Review of learning Teaching and Assessment (Sheffield Hallam) 3.Peer Review of Teaching and Assessment (Cumbria) 4.Peer Review of Learning and Teaching (Cardiff) 5.Peer Supported Review (Ulster) 6.Peer learning (Worcester) (the publication http://www.seda.ac.uk/ )http://www.seda.ac.uk/

12. Towards collaboration in teaching and learning Conclusions and Questions Peer Observation and Peer Review are not mutually exclusive. Peer observation may be incorporated into peer review Your experiences and examples, eg.: – Mandatory or voluntary? … How can we further develop collaboration in teaching and learning, for example, involving students?

13. References (more in conference publication) Bass, R. (1999). The Scholarship of Teaching: what's the problem? Inventio, 1(1), pp.1-9. Gosling, D. (2002). Models of Peer Observation of Teaching. Report. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/resourc e_database/id200_Models_of_Peer_Observation_of _Teachinghttp://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/resourc e_database/id200_Models_of_Peer_Observation_of _Teaching (read 14th June 2012) Thank You!