1 / 14

Higher Education Academy Conference 2010 : PEER OBSERVATION OF TEACHING

Higher Education Academy Conference 2010 : PEER OBSERVATION OF TEACHING. Project Team Dr Martyn Chamberlain, Ms Meriel D’Artrey and Ms Deborah-Ann Rowe. Research Background……. As part of their ongoing professional development all academic teaching staff at the University of Chester are

fatima-dean
Download Presentation

Higher Education Academy Conference 2010 : PEER OBSERVATION OF TEACHING

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Higher Education Academy Conference 2010:PEER OBSERVATION OF TEACHING Project Team Dr Martyn Chamberlain, Ms Meriel D’Artrey and Ms Deborah-Ann Rowe

  2. Research Background…….. As part of their ongoing professional development all academic teaching staff at the University of Chester are expected to have one of their teaching sessions observed annually by a colleague acting as a peer mentor. The research sought to analyse the conduct of the peer observation process in order to identify areas of developmental need as well as good practice, innovation and excellence. Mixed Method Project Uses Questionnaire and Focus Groups. Sample: Staff with at least 1 year’s employment

  3. Sampling Matters • 403 Individuals in sample, as sent a questionnaire • 85 questionnaires returned • 84 questionnaire used for analysis * One questionnaire was excluded from analysis as it arrived after the March 30, 2010 deadline for submission. • Sample size: 21% • BUT Focus Group response very positive

  4. Setting the Scene……. • Respondents had equal experience of being observed and observing colleagues • The main reason why a teaching session was observed was for Annual Observation purposes (but sessions were also observed for other purposes…) • Didactic lectures most frequent type of session observed by a peer

  5. Addressing the core issues…… Is Peer Observation of Teaching Really a Departmental Annual Requirement? Missing10.7% NO 22.6% YES 66.7%

  6. Did you use the Peer Observation of Teaching Instrument?

  7. The positive impact of POT on teaching practice and CPD activity • “the discussion afterwards, it was actually very beneficial, very positive to identify what I needed to do differently” • “if it’s used in the right way gives the support to a new person starting out, for existing staff to change practice and it gives, however frequently you have it, an opportunity to look at things and different ways of doing it and to help,” • “…it encourages the reflective practitioner I think above all because if you know someone is going to come and watch you, whether you respect or don’t respect them, you’re going to reflect about your own practice…” • “My experience of it has always been supportive and has not been threatening”

  8. However, some respondents were not quite so positive…. “It’s about lip-service, compliance, having to do, what gets measured gets done, cynicism…” Respondents also felt the POT process lacks a clear purpose… “I think for Chester the main weakness as far as I’m concerned is that it doesn’t know what it is. Well, what is its purpose? What does the University see as its purpose?” “Clearly unless they include comments at a holistic level, the University-wide level, clear key weakness is a lack of understanding of what is its purpose.”

  9. A decoupled process …… • “But if there is a genuine problem with that member of staff, maybe there is something that could be a consequence of what they’re doing, or it may be a behaviour that they are experiencing that they don’t know how to handle and they don’t know where to ask for help. There isn’t really anywhere to go with it” • “There is learning and teaching enhancement network isn’t there that has just recently been established but I’m not sure of how well faculties are keying into them at all…” • “I’d like to see it linked in with the staff development interview process. So that when you are running the staff development interview, you actually have some facts to actually support that discussion which is a little bit lacking.”

  10. In Summary…… • P.O.T is not as much of a departmental requirement as perhaps would be expected and the associated supporting documentation (which is available online) is similarly not used as much as perhaps would be expected. • Teaching Staff are roughly evenly split over if P.O.T identifies areas for CPD in relation to T.L.A. • More Teaching Staff reported that the outcomes of P.O.T were not discussed at their annual Staff Development Interview with their HOD than those who reported that they were. • More Teaching Staff reported that they were not offered formal CPD opportunities during their Staff Development Interview than those who reported that they were. • The POT process is arguably ‘decoupled’ from professional practice as a result of its lack of integration within the SDI and an apparent lack of resources for if a CPD issue is identified….

More Related