University of Bristol

Discussion Paper Peer Observation in Departments of Education Arlene Gilpin, Manager, ESCalate

The Mentor Model

Observation of teaching is a well established part of our work in departments of Education, and in departments of Continuing Education which provide courses of professional development for teachers. However, the context of the observation is nearly always that of an expert mentoring a novice, or at least a less experienced and knowledgeable practitioner. Normally, there will also be an assessment focus. A fairly typical model will provide tutors/mentors with a checklist for the observation (and usually students will also have a copy of this) covering categories such as planning and preparation, lesson start, interactions, pupils' learning, lesson end, and, notably, development targets.

Current practice in initial training now strives to create the conditions during the observation that promote self-awareness, reflection and ownership by the students.

One example of guidance for PGCE observation has this to say to the student teacher:

The observer will negotiate a focus for the observation, and you will receive oral and written feedback. .......Feedback is best conducted shortly after the lesson, but it must be recognized that school life conspires to make this difficult to achieve at times. The following principles have worked well in our partnership schools:

  • Finding a calm, private environment;
  • Starting the discussion with open-ended questions, such as "How do you feel the lesson went?"
  • Looking at the objectives and trying to highlight what went well;
  • Using evidence from the observation notes to help to structure the discussion;
  • Focusing on facts rather than opinions;
  • Discussing alternative strategies: "Next time I would...";
  • Setting realistic targets for development and improvement. (University of Bristol PGCE Handbook for Modern Languages)

This model resonates with the best practice reported in David Gosling's paper and presentation, and found in the web links we have provided. (http://www.escalate.ac.uk/briefing/ ) The focus is on improvement of teaching and learning, and for initial training the model is responsive and appropriate.

I would like to argue, however, that this model is insufficient for peer observation between experienced educators of educators, for a number of important reasons.

First, the perceived relationship between the observer and the observed has to be one of expert collegially talking with expert, not expert with novice. Consequently, a model based on offering guidance, however well conceived, is unlikely to be helpful. We must nevertheless remember that the expert-novice mentoring model is extremely well established, and unless a strategically different model is adopted then it is all too easy for us to slip into a mentor model, with possible negative memories, and perhaps blocks, which this may potentiate.

Second, most available peer observation in the mentor mode focuses on the procedures of teaching and learning adopted during single lessons or sessions. Teacher educators are likely to have a well developed repertoire of techniques and procedures, which they use at the level of unconscious competence. What peer observation needs to enable is reflection on the underlying rationale, and to make tacit knowledge and skills available for scholarly discussion about shared concerns. This notion fits well with the widely accepted models of reflective practice which most of us espouse.

Third, for us, teaching and learning is the subject as well as the practice. We are therefore essentially concerned with the whole raison d'être of education and learning and teaching. Therefore, a peer observation model has to capture this philosophical level of our practice, and not simply focus on instances of procedure.

The Scholarly Dialogue Model

A model for peer observation in Education and Continuing Education needs to enable us to

  • Consider the wider framework of our approaches to learning and teaching;
  • Observe our own practice ~ collect data and reflect on it ~ as well as engage in dialogues with colleagues about it;
  • Engage in scholarly dialogue about our approach with peers perceived to be equals, based on the evidence of data and reflection;
  • Observe each other in order to explore more deeply reflections on the underlying reasons for our approaches to learning and teaching adults;
  • Examine both shared and contested rationales in depth, and in ways non-threatening to self esteem.
  • Shake off the novice/expert, right/wrong, strength/weaknesses dualisms;
  • Fit the processes into the normal rhythms and demands of our work as easily as the mentoring model does in initial teacher education, fulfilling a purpose and not merely fulfilling some bureaucratic demands;
  • Change the culture of peer discussion about teaching and learning to one where critical discussion is an established part of our practice.

Brockbank and McGill (1998) offer a model of reflective dialogue which has influenced the development of the model I present here. Their model has four stages:

  1. Personal reflection
  2. IReflective dialogue with another colleague: telling the story
  3. Reflective dialogue with another colleague: being part of the story
  4. Reflective dialogue with other colleagues: enabling the development of reflection

They have two stages before peer observation takes place, I and II. In the first, the tutor reflects alone on the lecture/tutorial etc., and considers why and how things worked. They point out that individual reflection can lead to self deception: we may think we are acting because of one reason, when in fact there is another factor which we cannot or do not wish to recognize. Therefore the second pre-observation phase allows us to share an account with another colleague, who can help us to probe more deeply into why we did or did not do whatever. The stage of peer observation is more or less similar to that outlined in Gosling's paper, except that a third colleague joins the discussions to help the peers examine the processes of their discussion. In their final stage, groups work together with a facilitator to further explore the issues uncovered in the various observation cycles.

Their approach is very useful. Chapter 7 contains a wealth of useful advice, for example on questioning techniques that encourage reflective dialogue. The use of observers of the discussions enables meta awareness of how the observer and the observed are interacting, and this certainly has the potential to deepen the dialogue between peers. Nevertheless, although their model was an inspiration, straight adoption was not for us for two reasons. The starting point of the discussions is a teaching and learning session, and the modus operandi does not seem to fit seamlessly into our busy lives: we needed a model which can be integrated into our normal practice with a minimum of fuss and expenditure of increasingly precious time.

Their model can be adapted, however, and lead to a version of peer observation which fulfills the criteria we set out above, and which also fits in with the normal rhythms of our work.

During subject teams' annual review of units & programmes (this is where we started)

1) As part of the annual review we exchanged a written account of our teaching, which contained the following: an outline of a typical session; the rationale for this, explaining our general approach to teaching and learning; what kinds of adjustments we consider we need to make to suit the learning styles of students, time constraints etc.

2) We discussed these outlines as a group, seeking clarification where needed, drawing out the similarities and differences outlined. We amplified where more detail was needed to help others understand what we meant. We took into account reports of student preferences drawn from feedback, and research into student learning with which we are familiar

3) This discussion fed into a wide consideration of the methodological approach we appear to have adopted as a team in our subject area: how it relates to models of learning and teaching espoused by our students in their work with their students; what kind of model does our approach appear to offer them; do we take full account of their cultural and contextual backgrounds, and so on. This stage can lead to further exploration. For example, we now have fairly large numbers of Confucian Heritage students and so we took the opportunity to explore the growing research literature on the culture and learning styles of such students. . e.g Biggs and Kember. During teaching and learning programmes

4) The observed tutor can write an account of how the episode to be observed fits into the wider philosophy previously discussed, and highlight issues for personal reflection. This short account can form part of the pre-observation discussion with the colleague who will be the observer.

5) Observation would then be followed by the continuation of this earlier discussion, drawing in evidence from what had been observed. If the tutor being observed had been interested in receiving comment on a particular aspect of the session, this could also be considered within the wider framework already established.

6) The organization of peer observation could take any of the recommended forms, but one which has worked well for us in the past is 'round robin' observation where one observes another but not reciprocally, but with all later engaging in critical discussions of how the observed phenomena (selected by the persons observed) are informed by, and inform, the rationale we earlier discussed.

7) One such group can then join with another to explore the issues arising from the whole sequence to date, and further share critical discussion of the underlying rationale of teaching and learning within the subject area.

The scholarly dialogue model has a number of strengths. It provides at the outset written accounts of rationales underlying teaching to be the focus of discussion, thus providing a degree of objectivity to early dialogues, ameliorating the potential threats associated with self disclosure.

The exchange of the written accounts leads to a discussion of underlying rationale as a starting point, rather than engaging immediately with procedures and techniques.

The observation, when it takes place, is therefore contextualized in a wider consideration of principles and thus promotes a dialogue between equal peers, neatly removing the expert - novice and other dualisms noted above.

The process is integrated into other aspects of normal practice rather than being an 'add on' required by officialdom. We have to review our programmes, consider student feedback, reflect on our own units as and after we teach them: the scholarly dialogue model fits in well with these routine elements of our practice.

Development is shared between members of the teaching team. Individuals benefit from the interactions, but the team as a whole grows in critical understanding of the processes we employ in our work.

The processes of scholarly dialogue need not be confined to individual teaching teams. Cross-team and then whole department dialogue of key issues can be encouraged as part of the normal committee system. Committees can easily have a space in which discussion of such important substantive issues have a place. In turn, the adoption of a whole department approach would identify staff development needs in much more fine-grained ways than those deriving from the mentoring model confined to instances of teaching, and in fact has staff development built into it.

In situations where we are working with already experienced teachers on courses of professional development there is room to build in student input loops to the scholarly dialogue model we present here. Brockbank & McGill (chapter 8) suggest a way in which students can be encouraged to engage in dialogues to encourage critical reflection on learning, roughly parallel to their model for staff dialogue. If both students and their tutors are engaged in scholarly reflection, then they could meet from time to time and explore together issues to do with teaching and learning which have arisen out of the processes. This would provide two-way feedback much more powerful than the normal questionnaire and focus group mechanisms.

Finally, it should be noted emphatically that the scholarly dialogue model is not more time-consuming than the mentor model, and fits in better with the ordinary routines of our work, while taking an extraordinary look at why we do what we do.

22 December 2000