Teaching evaluation
My teaching is regularly evaluated through course evaluations, specific student feedback, and own evaluations. As part of a course in teaching in higher education, I participated in peer observation of teaching. Below you can read my reflections on this experience.
Peer observation of teaching – report of POT conducted as part of the course UNIPED-100 Universitetspedagogisk Basiskompetanse 2020/2021
Introduction
Peer observation of teaching (POT) is a tool for development of teaching by observing a colleague’s teaching and having a colleague observing own teaching, reflecting over the other person’s and own teaching, and providing and receiving feedback (e.g. Hendry & Oliver, 2012; Midthassel, 2003). Martin & Double (1998) consider POT to be a peer-reflection approach that requires equal contribution from each party and that does not lead to an assessment. This corresponds to the collaborative model in Gosling (2014) categorisation of peer review of teaching, which reduces the assessment (summative) aspect of the peer review and instead focuses on the formative aspect (see also Thomas et al., 2014). The Norwegian “kollegaveiledning” seems more in line with this approach, as it translates into “peer mentoring” or “supervision” rather than “peer review” or “observation”. However, the English literature focusses more on the latter, and I will use POT in the following as a collective name for the process of “kollegaveiledning”.
Martin & Double (1998) list six general aims of peer observation: 1) To extend and enhance an understanding of personal approaches to curriculum delivery; 2) to develop and refine curriculum planning skills in collaboration with a colleague; 3) to enhance and extend teaching techniques and styles of presentation through collaborative practice; 4) to engage in and refine interpersonal skills through the exchange of insights relating to the review of a specific teaching performance; 5) to identify areas of subject understanding and teaching activity which have particular merit or are in need of further development; 6) to develop personal skills of evaluation and self- appraisal. They suggest that collaboration with a partner where both sides contribute equally should promote free exchange of views and enable a level of self-awareness that is otherwise unattainable. However, as Midthassel (2003) state, partners might not always be truly equal, impacting the setting of the POT: In a symmetric setting, both partners are being observed and are observing, and both have similar status as teachers. When one of the partners is more experienced and the other a novice, however, an asymmetric setting is created.
In any case, benefits can occur for both partners regardless of their status as “experts”. POT is a two-way process. Firstly, being observed provides a tangible outcome by getting feedback on own teaching. However, indirect effects might occur as well, such as more thorough preparation for class since it is being observed, greater care in lesson design informed by theory, and greater awareness during the lesson. While these indirect effects can impact the POT process, they regardless should ultimately lead to better teaching. Secondly, observing provides a learning opportunity by watching another teacher’s approach to teaching, classroom management, structuring, etc. Obvious outcome is of course the feedback to the other teacher, but at the same time, reflection over own teaching and classroom experiences occurs. Tenenberg (2016) discusses how observing somebody else teach leads to learning about own teaching by “double seeing”: watching another teacher’s methods and rewatching one’s own teaching under the light of the observed teaching, and thus assessing the effectiveness of the own methods. Hendry & Oliver (2012) show that the effect of observing a colleague teach is at least equally beneficial as receiving feedback on own teaching.
Often it is assumed that POT should involve partners from the same faculty, making sure that the observer has at least some understanding of the subject taught in the lesson (e.g. Boyer, 1990). However, Boyer (1990) also suggest that any problems arising from cross-disciplinary POT can be overcome through frequent interaction between disciplines through discussions, debates or other exchanges. Hanson (1993) confirm in their study that POT by non-specialists of a subject can produce insightful and reliable feedback as the focus is on the teaching, not on the mastery of the subject.
Peer observation as part of the UNIPED-100 course
As part of the coursework, peer observation in teacher pairs at UiT was done. For me, it proved difficult to find partners in the same department or faculty (Department of Arctic and Marine Biology at the Faculty of Biology, Fisheries and Economics), but an opportunity arose to work together with a colleague from the Department of Psychology at the Faculty of Health Sciences. We did not know each other before and were not familiar with each other’s courses and course topics. In the peer observation exercise conducted here, aspects related to curriculum planning and delivery were not considered (e.g. Martin & Double, 1998). Instead, focus was put on personal teaching techniques and skills as displayed in the classroom in interaction with the students. Both partners specified beforehand particular areas they wished feedback on, and the observation focused on these and did not try to cover “all” aspects of good teaching (Ramsden, 2003).
All POT took place during spring term 2021. Prior to the observation, the person observed filled in the form provided by UNIPED-100 and share it with the observer by email. After the observed class, we met either on Zoom or in person to discuss the observations and provide feedback. The observer then filled in their part of the form and shared it again by email.
Being observed
I am course responsible for BIO-2516 Ocean Climate, which provides an introduction to physical oceanography and is geared towards second- and third-year BSc students in biology. The topic is often perceived as challenging as many students lack background in physics and maths. In addition, I usually have a very diverse student group with a high percentage of exchange students. The course is predominantly lecture based but includes several lab sessions, seminars and a fieldwork component. I developed the course in 2014/2015 and have given it since, with slightly modifications from year to year. This year, the situation around the COVID-19 pandemic provided some extra challenges.
1. observation round: lab session, 28.01.2021
The main goal with the lab sessions in this course is to provide an opportunity to “see” some of the theoretical concepts from the course, and to discuss and apply knowledge from the lecture in a more informal setting. The observation took place during the very first lab session of the course, which this year also coincided with the first face-to-face meeting between myself and the students. As a result, the first part of the lab session was used for a brief introductory round followed by an introduction to the lab sessions in general (i.e. aims of the lab session and their setting in respect to the learning outcomes of the course), the lab report and its evaluation, the scientific method, and this specific lab session. This was followed by three experiments of which the first and the last were conducted by the students in pairs, and the second was a demonstration experiment. My role during the session varied from course leader and instructor at the beginning, to facilitator during the student-conducted experiments, and demonstrator and discussion leader during the second experiment. My main wishes for feedback were related to student involvement (did I manage to engage them? did they get the outcome of the session that I had planned?) and to misconceptions (did I manage to catch and correct misconceptions – probably difficult to assess for a person from a completely different discipline).
The feedback I received was positive: Aims for the lab sessions were communicated clearly. The students were engaged and active, in particular during the experiments. They seemed to discuss the material in depth, and hopefully I managed to catch misconceptions during my interactions with the pairs. In preparation for this year’s lab sessions, I had made some changes to the setup around the lab reports, namely introduce peer-review of the lab reports. This changed the structure of the introduction slightly and made the slides more wordy – something that was immediately picked up by my colleague. She pointed out several text-heavy slides and missing connectivity between the part about the scientific method and the rest, putting the finger right into the weakest point of my introduction. She also observed the varying level of participation by the students in the plenum after the group experiments and pointed out that a couple of students remained very quiet whereas most students engaged actively. I need to revise my approach to how I ask questions or try and provoke answers or feedback from the students when interacting with the entire group.
2. observation round: lecture, 03.02.2021
The second observation took place during the second in-person lecture of the course. Due to the size of the student group and the capacity of the auditorium, half of the students were allowed to be present in the auditorium whereas the other half was supposed to follow via Mediasite. In order to provide at least some sort of opportunity to ask questions or engage remotely, I set up a Zoom session. However, I could not see the Zoom chat when projecting the lecture slides. The lecture itself consisted of a review of a quiz the students had been asked to complete prior to the lecture, the last part of the seawater module on ice in the ocean, and depending on how much time was left, the start of the next module on dynamics in atmosphere and ocean. Admittedly, ice and dynamics are my favourite parts of the course, so being observed during these lectures was more enjoyable than it would have been during some topics that I personally find less engaging. Again, I specifically asked for feedback around my classroom management and the soliciting of student participation.
The feedback was largely positive, confirming my impression that I mostly managed to engage the students. My colleague pointed out that the quiz seemed to make the students more passive, something I also experienced. Reflecting on this, I think that this is due to this year’s slightly weird mix of remote and in-person teaching: Usually, I do the quizzes in class, presenting and discussing question by question in a low-tech clicker style (with cardboard cards instead of electronic clickers). This year, because of time and logistical constraints, the students answered all questions before class, and we then went through the entire quiz in class. This reduced the discussions between students and thus student engagement. If such a mix of remote and in person lectures take place again, the quizzes and the feedback to the quizzes need to be restructured to either be completely student-driven or be reserved more time for pair/group discussion during the lecture. Otherwise, my attempt to get everybody involved, including the quiet students, by making the lecture material relatable through little stories or connecting them with experiences the students shared, seemed to have worked well. A point raised by my colleague I was not fully aware of was my use of figures on slides, where sometimes, I would not properly relate back my verbal discussions to what I show in the figures, making them little useful to the students. This is something I observed others do, but do not always realise when I fall into this trap myself.
Being the observer
My colleague is course responsible for a course in psychology. The course follows on from a corresponding course during the previous autumn term and is mandatory for second-year students in “Psykologi profesjonsstudium”. My colleague inherited the course design and the setup of the workshops from the previous year’s lecturers. In general, the course consists of lectures, seminars, workshops and internships, and the students attend corresponding courses throughout their entire study.
1. observation round: Workshop (Zoom), 20.01.2021
This workshop was supposed to prepare the students for the upcoming internship where they would follow and observe a psychologist in their place of work within the health system. The first part of the workshop consisted therefore of a brief introduction of the different workplaces within that system, and expectation to what the students were supposed to achieve and deliver. Afterwards, the students had to work in groups with two tasks they had been given beforehand to prepare. My colleague asked for feedback on clarity of presentation in general and of the aims of the session in particular.
My colleague was very clear in delivering the introduction and structuring the session. Goals and connection to previous session and the upcoming internship were clear, and students seemed to know what was expected of them. In some parts, the Powerpoint presentation seemed to drag on a little and some of the material could have been shortened. The part that seemed least clearly presented were the expectation around the assignment and the assessment of the internship. Expectations were a bit vague and fuzzy, and this led to a number of questions from the students. In the discussions with my colleague after the session, it became clear that this was a part of the course she was not very sure about either, in part because she hadn’t experienced this internship as assessor yet and had inherited the assignment structure and setup from previous teachers. It was interesting to observe challenges in the teaching in order to provide feedback, and at the same time realise and reflect over how I struggle with the similar problems in my teaching.
2. observation round: Workshop (in person), 17.02.2021
The second workshop I observed took place at UiT. As before, my colleague gave an introduction to the topic which then was followed by group work on tasks they had been giving the week before to prepare. This included a role play, and a discussion around creating a good working relationship between the psychologist and the patient. As before my colleague asked for feedback on the clarity of her presentation, but also on her facilitation of the group work.
This session was very interesting to observe as the topic (how to meet a patient, and how to create a good atmosphere for a test or therapy session) was very much transferable to teacher-student interactions. My colleague was very clear in her presentation of the workshop aims, the tasks, and the expectations. Observing her interacting with the students, as well as the actual discussions around the topic certainly made me reflect more on how to meet and engage students, how to guide them towards the learning outcomes we want them to achieve and not get side-tracked by other aspects they are more drawn to. Group management and involvement of silent or shy students is a continuous challenge. Similarly, facilitating a good, useful and fruitful plenum discussion after group work is a skill that truly need practicing and honing. Observing my colleague and her approach and techniques certainly made me reflect more over different strategies and benefits for the students.
Discussion & conclusion
To observe a colleague in the classroom was a useful and interesting exercise which contributed to my reflection over my own teaching by making me aware of some recurring patterns that I previously neglected. Our experience observing somebody completely outside our discipline confirmed Hanson (1993)’s findings that peer observation by non-specialists of a subject can be just as effective; I would even argue that it has clear advantages that we were not distracted by subject-related issues and could solely focus on teaching techniques and skills.
A clear take-away for my practice in the classroom (and on Zoom) is that I need to reflect on and revise my approach to student engagement in class. The Norwegian phrase that one has to have “is i magen” when it comes to asking questions in class and waiting for answers is certainly a skill that I need to hone further. However, there are strategies to overcome the silence, for example group work with subsequent reporting by group, or calling out students. Some of these strategies clash with my own feelings and convictions around “forcing” students to speak up that make me avoid calling randomly on students. I feel uncomfortable forcing those that by their personality are very quiet or extremely shy to have to speak up in front of class, but this is based on anecdotal evidence, i.e. my own experience with my students. I have to reflect on this approach by going through literature on what is known about the effect of being called out in class, and modify my student engagement accordingly.
Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond (2005) and Thomas et al. (2014) name several confounding factors that hinder effective POT. In particular, they mention lack of awareness about what constitutes reflective practice, and uncertainty of what should be reviewed. Both can be addressed by providing clear guidelines and prior training. The POT exercise in the UNIPED-100 course could have benefitted from more of an introduction to the theory behind POT/peer review of teaching before we were given the assignment. Also, given the inherent risk of anxiety and feeling of vulnerability in the observed teacher, more focus on how to provide constructive feedback, and how to address (unconscious) bias in observation and feedback would have been useful.
In general, I think we dealt with confounding issues (anxiety, feeling of vulnerability, resistance to change) well by approaching this task as a useful tool to receive feedback and to develop as teacher. POT certainly helps to break out of the often perceived loneliness as teacher, and it is a good exercise to remind ourselves what it is like to receive feedback before we impose feedback on our students.
References
Boyer, E. L. (1990): Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
Gosling, D. (2014): Collaborative Peer-Supported Review of Teaching. In: Sachs J., Parsell M. (eds) Peer Review of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. Professional Learning and Development in Schools and Higher Education, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht, doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7639-5_2.
Hammersley‐Fletcher, L. & Orsmond, P. (2005): Reflecting on reflective practices within peer observation, Studies in Higher Education, 30:2, 213-224, doi:10.1080/03075070500043358.
Hanson, J. (1993): Observing classroom teaching in higher education: A case study. Quality Assurance in Education, 1, 26–30, doi:10.1108/09684889310046176.
Hendry, G. D. & Oliver, G. R. (2012): Seeing is Believing: The Benefits of Peer Observation, Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 9(1), 2012.
Martin, G. A. & M Double, J. M. (1998): Developing Higher Education Teaching Skills Through Peer Observation and Collaborative Reflection, Innovations in Education and Training International, 35:2, 161-170, doi:10.1080/1355800980350210.
Midthassel, U.V. (2003): Kollegaveiledning – er det verd å bruke tid på? Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 93(3-4), pp. 168-174.
Ramsden, P. (2003): Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London & New York Routledge Falmer.
Tenenberg, J. (2016) Learning through observing peers in practice, Studies in Higher Education, 41:4, 756-773, doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.950954.
Thomas, S., Chie, Q. T., Abraham, M., Raj, S. J., Beh, L.-S. (2014): A qualitative review of literature on peer review of teaching in higher education: An application of the SWOT framework. Review of Educational Research, 84(1), p. 112-159, doi:10.3102/0034654313499617.