Peer development as an alternative to peer observation: a tool to enhance professional development

Abstract

Many Higher Education institutions worldwide require that all academic staff undergo a peer observation of teaching each academic year. Within one department in a university in the South of England, questions have arisen about the value and purpose of the traditional "peer observation" process, and as a result a new voluntary system of "peer development" has been introduced. This paper explains the rationale underpinning the new peer development process, and explores its worth and value to those who have participated in it as a mechanism for professional development. Reflections on the process are considered, along with what can be done to improve the new system.

Online peer observation: its value in teacher professional development, support and well-being

“…In contrast, Bennett and Barp (2008, p. 560) note that: 'it is when practised from a purely developmental perspective, independently of quality-assurance processes, that teaching staff engage most enthusiastically and genuinely with peer observation'. Research post-2001 is therefore more pertinent to us, particularly Gosling (2002), Donnelly (2007), Swinglehurst et al (2008), Byrne et al (2010) and Shortland (2010). However, our project differs from those in campus-based universities in that our participants did not know all of their peer observation colleagues beforehand.…”

“…We recognised, however, that this needs to be balanced with sustained contact, building trust and collaboration by establishing communities of practice over an academic year, which may continue independently afterwards. Trust and cooperation are widely highlighted as important in peer observation (Byrne et al, 2010;Gosling, 2002;Schuck et al, 2008;Shortland, 2010). Donnelly (2007, p. 117) also points out that the climate of peer observation should be 'encouraging of open debate, and supportive of risk-taking'.…”

“…Gosling (2002, p. 5) offers three models of peer observation: evaluation, development and peer review. Byrne et al (2010) add the PD model, which extends into observation of student support. Our project, focusing purely on teaching sessions, aligns best with Gosling's original peer review model and we adopted a non-judgemental climate, as favoured by both Donnelly (2007) and Byrne et al (2010).…”

“…Byrne et al (2010) add the PD model, which extends into observation of student support. Our project, focusing purely on teaching sessions, aligns best with Gosling's original peer review model and we adopted a non-judgemental climate, as favoured by both Donnelly (2007) and Byrne et al (2010). In line with Donnelly -and building on Gosling's aim to replace the idea of 'giver and receiver' or 'top-down model' -we aimed for 'a dialogue model in which both parties are regarded as equal and mutual beneficiaries of the process' and an ethos that was 'formative, developmental, collaborative, reflective and enabling of a personal exploration of practice ' (2007, p. 122 For groups to avoid becoming introspective, self-satisfied, and, by implication, uncritically accepting of habitual practice, Byrne et al (2010, p. 226) suggest that they should be flexible and fluid.…”

“…Peer development (PD) can be instrumental in developing such communities, as Byrne, Brown, and Challen (2010) since it relies on dialogue and emphasises collaboration. They also suggest, in accordance with Peel (2005), that one-off observations are of little value in engendering communities, and that participants require active participation within a cohesive group to be fully engaged.…”