Developing students’ teaching through peer observation and feedback

Rees, Eliot L; Davies, Benjamin; Eastwood, Michael John

doi:10.1007/s40037-015-0213-9

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent review identified peer teaching programmes, teaching workshops and community outreach programmes as the three leading initiatives for developing students' teaching skills (Marton, et al, 2015). Peer observation of peer teaching may also be valuable for ongoing development of teaching skills (Rees, et al, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does peer teaching compare to faculty teaching? A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does peer teaching compare to faculty teaching? A systematic review and meta-analysis Abstract PurposeIn undergraduate medical education, peer-teaching has become an established and common method to enhance student learning. Evidence suggests peer-teaching provides learning benefits for both learners and tutors.We aimed to describe the outcomes for medical students taught by peers through systematic review and meta-analysis of existing literature. MethodsSeven databases were searched through 21 terms and their Boolean combinations. Studies reporting knowledge or skills outcomes of students taught by peers compared to those taught by faculty or qualified clinicians were included.Extracted data on students' knowledge and skills outcomes were synthesised through a random effects model meta-analysis. Results Peer Teaching versus Faculty Teaching v6.0 2The search yielded 2,292 studies. 553 duplicates and 1,611 irrelevant articles were removed during title-screening. The abstracts of 128 papers were screened against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Ten studies have been included in the review.Meta-analyses showed no significant difference in peer-teaching compared to faculty teaching for knowledge or skills outcomes, standardised mean differences were 0.07 (95% CI: -0.07, 0.21) and 0.11 (95% CI: -0.07, 1.29) respectively. ConclusionStudents taught by peers do not have significantly different outcomes to those taught by faculty. As the process of teaching helps to develop both tutor knowledge and teaching skills, peer-teaching should be supported.Peer Teaching versus Faculty Teaching v6.0

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does peer teaching compare to faculty teaching? A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consistent with the findings of Eraut et al [12], we were confronted with some misinterpretations of the intended feedback - especially for “Presentation”, e.g., one lecturer misunderstood some items as an estimation of his own personal behavior. To minimize these misapprehensions, many authors describe pre-observation meetings [22, 23, 38, 39]. Even if we decided not to hold these meetings because of the reasons described above, we will proceed with the evaluations of the lectures in this lecture series—future lecturers will be informed about the ongoing evaluation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of written standardized feedback on the structure and quality of surgical lectures: A prospective cohort study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLectures remain an important teaching method to present and structure knowledge to many students concurrently. Adequate measures are necessary to maintain the quality of the lectures. The aim of this study was to determine the impact on the lecture quality using written structured feedback and to compare the ratings of surgical lectures between students and surgical peers.MethodsProspective analysis of two consecutive surgical lecture series for undergraduate students at Goethe-University Medical School was performed before and after evaluation of the lecturers via independent written feedback from trained undergraduate students and surgeons. The 22-item feedback instrument covered three areas of performance: content, visualization, and delivery. Additional suggestions for improvement were provided from both students and surgical peers who anonymously attended the lectures. The lecturers, experienced surgeons, as well as the student and peer raters were blinded in terms of the aim and content of the study. Their response to the feedback was collected using a web-based 13-item questionnaire.The Kendall’s-W coefficient was computed to calculate inter-rater reliability (IRR). Differences between ratings before and after feedback were analyzed using Student’s t-test for dependent samples. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov-test was used for independent samples.ResultsA total of 22 lectures from a possible 32 given by 13 lecturers were included and analyzed by at least three surgeons and two students. There were significant improvements in overall score as well as in the details of 9 of the 13 items were found. The average inter-rater reliability was 0.71. There were no differences in the ratings as a function of the rater’s level of expertise (peers vs. students).We found that 13/23 lecturers (56.5%) answered the questionnaire, and 92% strongly agreed that the written feedback was useful. 76.9% of the lecturers revised their lecture based on the written feedback requiring on average 112.5 min (range from 20 to 300 min).ConclusionsOverall, this study indicates that structured written feedback provided by trained peers and students that is subsequently discussed by the lecturers concerned is a highly effective and efficient method to improve aspects of lecturing. We anticipate that structured written feedback by trained students that is discussed by the lecturers concerned will improve lecturing.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0806-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…The post-observation stage is concerned with the provision of an honest and constructive report from the observing teacher to the active teacher. Rees et al (2015) stated that the observing teacher is expected to trigger the goals for personal development in the observed teacher (i.e. Tutor).…”

Section: Theory Of Peer Observation Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

South African Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge: Reflections From Short Learning Intervention Programme (Slip)

Jita

Ige

2019

PEC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This qualitative research reports the results of a short learning intervention programme conducted by South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) Chair in Science and Mathematics Education to enhance the mathematical knowledge of teachers in some South African schools. The short learning programme comprised the fostering of teachers’ mathematical knowledge and the formation of lesson study groups to apply the knowledge gained from the intervention programme in different schools in the country. The sample comprised 53 male and 72 female Mathematics teachers who were nominated from several school districts in the country. The participants were trained using Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching (MKT) which included the topics of probability/ratio and proportion (grades 1-9). The MKT consisted of these sets of expertise: Common Content Knowledge (CCK), Specialised Content Knowledge (SCK), Knowledge of Contents and Students (KCS), and Knowledge of Content and Teaching (KCT). The lesson study groups applied the knowledge acquired from the short learning intervention programme to engage in group activities, lesson studies, and to report the major challenges in doing the lesson studies. This model research comprised three stages: the first stage involved active participation in the workshops that took place at the University of the Free State; the teachers that attended the training workshops implemented the knowledge gained in the respective schools in their districts in the second stage; and the third stage involved the compilation and submission of a Portfolio of Evidence (PoE) by the teachers that participated in the training workshops. Keywords: mathematical knowledge, short learning intervention programme, South African teachers.

show abstract

Developing students’ teaching through peer observation and feedback

Cited by 15 publications

References 12 publications

How does peer teaching compare to faculty teaching? A systematic review and meta-analysis

How does peer teaching compare to faculty teaching? A systematic review and meta-analysis

The effect of written standardized feedback on the structure and quality of surgical lectures: A prospective cohort study

South African Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge: Reflections From Short Learning Intervention Programme (Slip)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About