Masters Dissertation

Student Name: Darren Gash
Student ID: 07058076
Programme of Study: MA Education (Management in Education)
Module Code: EDPP39N
Module Name: The MA Education Dissertation
Date of Submission: 18th January 2010

A Critical Analysis of the Challenges in Establishing and
Maintaining Peer Observation of Teaching Schemes From the
Perspectives of Managers in Higher Education

Word count: 16,439

This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Arts in the subject of Education (Management in
Education) at London Metropolitan University.

Darren Gash. Student ID: 07058076. MA Education: EDPP39N Assignment

Abstract

Darren Gash: A Critical Analysis of the Challenges in Establishing and
Maintaining Peer Observation of Teaching Schemes From the Perspectives of
Managers in Higher Education

This dissertation analyses and reflects on the management and leadership
challenges in establishing and maintaining Peer Observation of Teaching
(POT) schemes from the perspectives of managers in higher education
responsible for their implementation. With reference to the literature it
identifies and discusses the potential management and leadership problems
managers may need to consider with respect to POT. Interviews with five
managers were conducted in order to identify and gain insight into the issues
they encountered in running POT schemes and how they went about
managing these issues within their particular context. The managers were
also invited to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of POT as a basis for
teachers to develop their practice. The research found that a common
problem for managers was teacher resistance and reluctance to take part in
POT. Reasons for this included lack of self-confidence, suspicion of
managers’ intentions behind POT schemes, anxiety about the outcomes of
observation being linked to tenure and negative conceptions of observation as
a tool for management to exercise power over teachers. The research
concludes that teachers are more likely to engage positively in POT schemes
that are developmental and based in a culture of openness and trust. The
importance of communicating aims and principles in a clear and unambiguous
way and the need to ensure teachers are adequately trained for participation
is also highlighted. The need for strong leadership and continual advocacy for
POT is emphasised, particularly when the day-to-day management of
schemes is devolved to teachers. Finally, the assimilation of POT into
teaching practice is recommended as a way of gaining teacher acceptance
and ensuring its benefits as a model for continuing professional development
are obtained.

2


Table of Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................... 5

Context and Rationale.................................................................................. 5

Structure of the Dissertation......................................................................... 8

Literature Review........................................................................................... 9

Defining POT ............................................................................................... 9

Perceived Benefits of POT........................................................................... 9

Models of POT ........................................................................................... 11

Compliance vs. Commitment to Peer Observation .................................... 12

Trust as a Prerequisite for Successful Peer Observation........................... 14

Resistance to POT as a Consequence of Mistrust..................................... 15

Resistance to the Notion of Observation.................................................... 16

Managing and Leading Staff within Academic Cultures ............................. 17

Defining Academic Management and Leadership...................................... 19

Evaluating the Success of a POT Scheme ................................................ 20

Concluding the Literature Review .............................................................. 21

Methodology ................................................................................................ 22

Introduction: How Methodology Changed According to Circumstances..... 22

The Rationale for Interviews ...................................................................... 23

Choosing the Participants .......................................................................... 25

Gaining Consent ........................................................................................ 25

Scheduling the Interviews .......................................................................... 26

Conducting the Interviews.......................................................................... 26

Transcribing the Interviews ........................................................................ 27

Analysing the Interviews ............................................................................ 29

3


Analysis........................................................................................................ 31

Introducing the Characters......................................................................... 31

On Teacher Resistance and Reluctance to Participate in POT.................. 34

On the Need for Trust ................................................................................ 35

On the Need for Advocacy ......................................................................... 36

On the Need for Training............................................................................ 39

On the Relationship Between Observer and Observee.............................. 40

On the Need to Provide Time and Space for POT ..................................... 40

On the Need to Embed POT into Teaching Practice.................................. 43

On the Notion of Observation..................................................................... 44

On Managing Peer Observation................................................................. 46

Conclusion ................................................................................................... 49

Summary of the Analysis ........................................................................... 49

Limitations of the Research........................................................................ 50

Areas for Further Research........................................................................ 51

Additional Reflections................................................................................. 53

Final Thoughts ........................................................................................... 55

Appendices .................................................................................................. 57

Appendix One: Email Template Used To Request Interviews.................... 57

Appendix Two: Screenshot of Mind Mapping Application Used to Create the
Interview Schedule..................................................................................... 59

Appendix Three: Screenshot of Mind Mapping Application Used for the
Interview Analysis ...................................................................................... 60

Bibliography................................................................................................. 61

4


Introduction

“Perhaps the key to establishing an ethos in which staff can talk
about teaching is leadership” (Gosling, 2005, p.49).

“[Peer Observation of Teaching] will happen only if leaders expect
it, invite it, and provide hospitable space for the conversation to
occur" (Palmer, 1998, as cited in Gosling, 2005, p.49).

This dissertation aims to identify and discuss the management and leadership
challenges faced by managers in Higher Education who are responsible for
establishing and maintaining Peer Observation of Teaching (POT) schemes,
as well as examining the concept of POT from the perspectives of managers.
Primary data is gathered from semi-structured Interviews with academic
managers with responsibility for POT as well as my own brief experience of
establishing a POT scheme. Secondary data for the project is drawn mainly
from the literature relating to POT with some reference to theories on
academic management and leadership.

Context and Rationale
My original intention for this dissertation was to carry out an action research
project focussing on the management and leadership challenges I would
personally encounter in setting up a POT scheme at the educational institution
where I worked. I completed the initial problem identification and
reconnaissance phase of the action research, in which a need for professional
development opportunities for staff was identified and a POT scheme was
proposed as a means of addressing this issue. Having gained a positive
response from my team of lecturers about the scheme I submitted a proposal
to my manager, who approved a budget for a pilot scheme.

In advance of implementing the scheme I interviewed an academic manager
with experience of managing POT in order to gain insight into the potential

5


management and leadership issues I would face in running the scheme. I then
arranged a meeting with my lecturers with the aims of establishing the
methodology and ground rules of the scheme, determining the logistics of
carrying out the observations and planning the observation schedule. Before
the meeting took place however, I resigned my position and the POT scheme
was subsequently aborted. I am now working at another educational
institution with a remit to manage and develop their learning technology
provision. Following consultations with my supervisor I decided to retain the
original focus on the management and leadership challenges of POT and
complete the research via a change of methodology. Rather than investigating
my own practice through action research I would complete the dissertation by
investigating the practice of other managers with responsibility for and
experience of POT by conducting interviews with them.

Although there is a wealth of literature about POT, empirical data is mainly
drawn from the experiences of teachers participating in the scheme rather
than those managing them. At the same time, there is much in the literature
that has implications for how schemes are managed, as is emphasised by the
quotations from Gosling (2005) at the beginning of this dissertation. Gosling’s
more recent publication (2009) further highlights specific areas that managers
with responsibility for POT need to consider. This dissertation therefore aims
to contribute to the debate by focusing on POT from the perspectives of those
who manage them. The lines of enquiry I wish to pursue in relation to this
topic are organised below into themes:

The role of the academic manager
• What is the role of the academic manager in establishing a POT
scheme?
• How do managers themselves define this role?
• Is there a correlation between management style and model of POT
scheme established?

Facilitating lecturer participation

• How is participation facilitated?

6


• What is the manager’s function in this?
• How do managers deal with the concerns of staff who, for example,
may be suspicious of the motivations behind the scheme?

Managing the scheme
• What management and leadership challenges can arise during the
course of the scheme?
• How can they be addressed?
• How could such issues be avoided in future?
• How are conflicts between participants arising from peer observation
managed?

Maintaining the scheme
• How do managers build on the success of a scheme and ensure its
continued development? What is the manager’s role in embedding the
scheme in the institution?
• How does the manager’s role change over time?

Managing the aims and outcomes of the scheme
• How is the success of such schemes defined and assessed?
• Is there a correlation between the way in which schemes are managed
and their perceived success?
• How do managers ensure best practice is highlighted and
disseminated, taking into account the need to maintain confidentiality of
proceedings?
• How is quality assured?

Despite the change in my professional responsibilities, the topic of research
remains relevant for me personally as a manager in education. Although I was
unable to see the original research through to completion I have gained
substantial knowledge and insight into POT, and although I do not currently
have any direct responsibility for or engagement with POT in my position as
head of learning technology, I am planning to investigate how POT can be
used in the context of online virtual classrooms. As such I hope to transfer the

7


knowledge and understanding gained from this project to what is a relatively
new and emerging area of research.

I also believe that wider lessons can be learned about academic management
and leadership via the case studies I will be investigating with a view to
transferring these lessons to my current context, in particular with regards to
managing the continuing professional development of my staff. In this respect,
I hope that I can still apply the knowledge and understanding gained from this
research to improving my own practice, in keeping with the original action
research aim.

Structure of the Dissertation
The remainder of the dissertation is divided into four sections; the literature
review, methodology, analysis and conclusion.
• The literature review draws from literature related to peer observation,
to which I have linked a number of management and leadership issues
relevant to this research. It uses as its basis the literature review
submitted for the dissertation proposal (Gash, 2009), extending as well
as modifying my original arguments in the light of further research I
undertook since submitting the proposal in February 2009.
• The section on methodology describes and evaluates my approaches
to planning, conducting, transcribing and analysing the five interviews I
conducted with managers of POT schemes. Ethical considerations are
addressed throughout the section according to context, rather than
listed in a separate section.
• The analysis section interweaves the conversations held with the five
interviewees around common themes that were discussed, focusing on
the problems they faced, their approaches to resolving these problems,
and their views on POT as a concept.
• The conclusion summarises the knowledge and understanding gained
through conducting this research, discusses its limitations, identifies
potential avenues for further research and offers a personal reflection
of what I have learned from undertaking this project.

8


Literature Review

Defining POT
Peer observation of teaching can be defined as “the formal process by which
the good practice of staff and faculty members engaged in learning and
teaching activities is identified, disseminated, and developed” (Donnelly,
2007, p.117) and is seen as a means to "enhance teaching quality through
reflective practice, thereby aiding professional development" (Shortland,
2004, p.220).

Simply put, POT involves teachers observing each other’s classroom practice,
with a view to reflecting on and learning from observations made. Possible
solutions to problems and instances of best practice based on observations
and subsequent discussions can then be documented and shared for the
benefit of other teaching staff within the institution as well the wider scholarly
community. Thus the validity of POT derives from its combination of
collaborative consultation with feedback (Hendry & Dean, 2002, p.76).

Perceived Benefits of POT
There are numerous perceived benefits of POT schemes documented. Martin
and Double (1998), for example, highlight the positive effects on confidence
and collegiality between peers. Bell (2001) concurs with Martin and Double,
adding the improvements in teaching noted by those who took part. Gosling
(2005) documents five case studies that show positive results, including a
case study at the University of Salford which records 86% of participants
rating their experience as observers between ‘valuable’ and ‘extremely
valuable’. There is also evidence that such schemes are beneficial for those
delivering education via virtual e-learning environments (Bennett, 2008).

On one level, POT can result in the sharing of techniques for improved
curriculum delivery in the classroom. At its most effective it can lead to deeper
critical reflection of one’s practice whereby participants “create meaning
through exposing their own values” (Lygo-Baker, 2007, p.104). A case in point

9


is the scheme established at Liverpool University where participants were
reported to have embraced the scheme and used it to openly explore
personal theories of teaching (Smith, 2004).

For staff involved in teaching, POT schemes are a tried and tested method for
lecturers to assist each other in their development and are a key feature of
Higher Education Institutes (Bennett, 2008; Shortland, no date). They are
considered useful devices for self-assessment and improvement of teaching
skills (Donnelly, 2007, p.119). Gosling (2005, p.5) reminds us that the ultimate
beneficiaries are the students, whilst at the same time serving to refresh the
teacher’s interest in teaching (which itself can be seen as beneficial to
student’s motivation and readiness to learn).

It is, however, worth noting that not all participants will necessarily reap the
benefits. Bell (2001), for example, cites improvements to teaching practice,
developing confidence and collegiality as potential benefits of a teacher
development scheme, although some participants criticised it as time
consuming, expensive, and of little benefit. As will be discussed later, the
recognition of such benefits cannot always be taken for granted and may even
be obscured by teacher negativity towards the implementation of such
schemes.

Furthermore, despite the benefits of POT as a method of continual
professional development, there is some criticism of it as a concept. To begin
with, there is the fact that the focus on observing teachers in the classroom is
too narrow in scope. As Cohen states, (2003, no page number) “The very idea
that 50 minutes in the classroom represents the full spectrum of teaching
excellence is out of sync with current understanding of the ways in which
people learn”, a view reinforced by Cosh, who argues that “by focusing on
what is observable, POT tends to divert attention from all the other activities
involved in teaching and learning which are not about the lecturer’s
performance” (1998, as cited in Gosling, 2009, p.7). Gosling (2009)

10


emphasises the need to break out of the limitations of the standard approach
to peer observation of teaching without abandoning it altogether.

Models of POT
POT involves people of equal standing (in this case teachers) observing each
other’s practice. In essence the observer does nothing more than make notes
of what they observe and communicates these observations back to the
observee for them to reflect on, as opposed to making judgements
themselves about what they observe. However, as is evident from the varying
models and implementations of peer observation, the use of the terms ‘peer’
and ‘observation’ are often misnomers since those doing the observing are
not necessarily peers and may well have a remit beyond simple observation.

Broadly speaking, POT schemes are either judgmental or developmental in
conception (Hopkins, 1993, as cited in Peel, 2005, p.492). Gosling (2005)
suggests three models, one of which is judgmental (Evaluation model) with
the other two developmental in nature (Developmental and Collaborative
model). The Evaluation model aims to elicit summative judgments on teaching
quality for managerial purposes such as performance related pay evaluation
or external Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) auditing. The Developmental
model involves the mentoring of one teacher by one who is more experienced
and is used, for example, on teacher training programmes.

The Collaborative model shares the formative approach of the Developmental
model, however it is concerned with “creating and sustaining conversations
about teaching … which open problems in teaching to public debate and
discussion" (Gosling, 2005, p.13) as opposed to improving the capabilities of
the individual teacher. Here, POT is less concerned with improving technique
and more concerned with the personal values and philosophies that underpin
teaching practice. The model is based on Wenger’s notion of a community of
practice (1999), in which groups of peers with shared aims and values co-
construct knowledge and understanding of what they do; an idea that is
conceptually related to Luckmann and Berger’s notion of reality as a social
construct (1991).

11


It is worth noting that although schemes may be designed with one particular
model in mind, in reality the implementation of schemes can end up a hybrid
of models, as shall be explored in the analysis section of this paper.

Power relationships and locus of control are also important dimensions of
peer observation that provide an alternative or complementary theoretical
framework. McMahon (2007) proposes a simple dichotomy of ‘Type A’ –
control by observee, and ‘Type B’ - control by others. Sako’s Four Camp
model (1998, as cited in Shortland, no date, p.31) conceptualises the various
POT schemes according to the extent to which the participants themselves
are consulted in the process of establishing and defining them (direct
consultation; consultation via unions; a combination of direct and union
mediated consultation; no consultation). As will be seen, issues of power have
a significant impact on staff engagement with such schemes.

Compliance vs. Commitment to Peer Observation

"Real change in attitude and teaching behaviour is likely to occur
not when imposed from outside, but when academics are actively
involved in systematically reviewing their own practice" (Zuber-
Skerritt, 1992, p.78).

The level of teacher involvement in both the design and implementation of a
POT scheme can have an effect on their willingness to participate in and reap
the benefits of participation. According to Ramsden (1998, p.209) schemes
imposed from above and devised by those not directly involved in the scheme
rely on teacher compliance, whereas schemes devised by the people who will
implement and experience it rely on teacher commitment. With the former,
staff will only participate if they have to, whereas with the latter staff will
participate because they want to. Schutz and Latif (2006) show the benefits of
including faculty in the design of the scheme that led to buy-in and
acceptance by the faculty in the creation, implementation, and process of peer
review.

12


Lack of ownership may result in teachers being suspicious of the motives
behind the scheme - a possible illustration of this is the fact that some staff
interpreted a scheme implemented at Cardiff University “in ways … quite
contrary to the intentions of the scheme’s designers” (Gosling, 2009, p.13),
implying that staff may not have had sufficient involvement in the scheme’s
design, although the issue may have been one of communication. As Trujillo,
et al state, the success of a peer-assessment process depends on faculty
‘‘buy-in’’ (2009).

Evidence shows that for POT schemes to be successful in their aim of
improving the practice of those who take part, the participants themselves
must be committed to the scheme, want to take part, be ready to learn, and
have ownership of and trust in both the process and those observing them.
Adults are not inclined to engage in learning of which they cannot see the
meaning (Illeris, 2007, p.208). In contrast with children, they are more self-
directed in their learning, intrinsically motivated and learn what they want to
learn when they want (Knowles et al, 2005). Wade and Hammik (1999, as
cited in Shortland, 2004, p.221) emphasise that "a self-diagnosed need for
learning provides greater motivation to learn than an externally diagnosed
requirement".

With this in mind, POT schemes based on models such as Gosling’s
Evaluation Model and McMahon’s Type-B, which imply the external imposition
of both the observer and agenda for observation, are problematic. Such
schemes may be regarded as coercive and lead to staff alienation, resistance
and suspicion of ulterior motives. As a consequence, staff may become
defensive in a way not conducive to the discussions that forms the basis for
learning and improvement (Allen 2002, as cited in Gosling, 2005, p.15).

Compliance rather than commitment can result in staff taking part for the sake
of taking part. Schemes that seek to measure competence for summative
purposes, for example, can lead to 'playing the game' or 'performing' in a way
that allows the teacher to obtain recognition for 'competence' (Peel, 2005,

13


p.493). Mento and Giampetro-Meyer (2000) make the point that performance
appraisals can also result in demotivation, citing Bower (1991) who asserts
that, “when people are judged and evaluated on their performance, they often
have a very human tendency to ’shut down’, and they may develop a rigid
cloak of defensiveness” (2000, p.1). In this respect the outcome of peer
observation is the inverse of its intended aim of providing a framework for
teachers to reflect on their practice, to learn and to develop themselves
professionally.

Conversely, schemes such as the one reported by Donnelly (2007) appear
successful because those involved are willing participants. Having said that,
their willingness to participate does not necessarily result in depth of learning.
For some participants, a deeper approach may be seen as alien, as reported
by Cooper (2004, p.63) whereby discussions were perceived as "too drawn
out, open-ended or 'touchy feely', when what they prefer is to be given
definitive facts and knowledge about teaching to take away and apply in as
short a time frame as possible".

Trust as a Prerequisite for Successful Peer Observation
For staff to ‘open up’ rather than ‘shut down’, a culture of openness based on
trust is a prerequisite. Without trust, teachers are less likely to be open about
perceived deficiencies where ’having a problem‘ is at the heart of the
investigative process … “asking a colleague about a problem in his or her
research is an invitation; asking about a problem in one’s teaching would
probably seem like an accusation” (Gosling, 2009, p.18). As Frowe states;

"Just as the development of creativity and self-expression in
children requires an atmosphere of trust and security, so is the
same true for teachers. Central to this is the possession of a
degree of personal autonomy that allows the teacher, like the pupil,
to achieve a level of ownership of their work that is essential for
any sense of satisfaction and growth. This, in a large part, comes
through being trusted as a professional to use their own judgement
in the exercise of discretionary powers" (2005, p.52).

14


Thus the requirement for staff to make their own judgements, rather than for
others to pass judgement on them, is also emphasised.

According to Munsen (1998) the avoidance of judgmental statements on the
part of the observer results in the building of trust between the two teachers.
Resistance to peer observation can however still emerge even within such a
trusting relationship. Mento and Giampetro-Meyer (2000) noted that in spite of
the established trust between observer and observee anxiety about taking
part could still manifest itself, in this case due to the infrequency of POT
sessions taking place, the implication being that POT sessions should be
more frequent for staff to get used to the process.

Either way, opening up to deep reflection requires teachers to take risks, and
they are more likely to take risks if they have trust in the motives of those they
are opening up to. As Gidden states, “Risk and trust intertwine, trust normally
serving to reduce or minimise the dangers to which particular types of activity
are subject” (1991, p.35). In this respect, trust can be seen as the bedrock for
the supportive environment, psychological safety and openness to new ideas
that are the key elements of developing effective learning organisations
(Garvin et al, 2008).

Resistance to POT as a Consequence of Mistrust
Clearly, without trust, teachers will not show willingness and commitment to
POT. They may distrust the motivations behind the scheme despite the good
intentions of those whose job it is to manage and implement them. Gosling
(2009) provides a number of examples of this; staff at Cumbria University
were not against POT per se but associated it with “bureaucracy and
managerialism” (p.34). Staff perceptions of POT at Worcester and
Gloucestershire University were strongly influenced by its association with the
QAA subject review and institutional audit (p.53). This problem is highlighted
by Adshead’s observation that peer observation was designed to meet the
twin aims of teacher development and quality assurance, and that the views
of participants on a scheme designed for General Practitioner teachers
suggest these two aims may conflict (2006, p.68). Gosling also refers to

15


resistance to schemes that allegedly seek to formalise what staff claim they
already do on an informal basis, i.e. reflect on their practice; “why do we need
a scheme and the bureaucracy that comes with it?” they are reported to ask
(p.5).

Teacher resistance to what they perceive as a culture of managerialism -
management as an end in itself rather than a means (Evans & Gold, 1998,
p.24) - is a reaction against the threat to their autonomy and an encroachment
on the sanctity of their classroom. Bush (2003) states that “teachers still hold
power (of implementation) in the classroom, a situation that can result in
tension between teachers and their managers, since the latter’s’ "dominance
of hierarchy is compromised by expertises possessed by professional staff"
(p.58). Hence POT schemes that are considered as being imposed rather
than negotiated and involve those outside the teachers’ community of practice
- such as ‘bureaucrats’ - judging their performance can be seen as
threatening the teachers’ power domain.

Adshead (2006, p.68) suggests that resistance may in fact be due to “a
fundamental fear of scrutiny and criticism”. This is clearly an important issue
to address since for POT to be truly developmental participants need to be
self-critical and open to change (Lygo-Baker and Hatzipanagos, 2007). As
Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond state, “beliefs and assumptions need to
be questioned in order to drive learning forward" (2005, p.214).

Resistance to the Notion of Observation
Fear of scrutiny, the association of POT schemes with managerialism and
government agencies such as the QAA are indications that the term
‘observation’ itself may be problematic. As was discussed previously, the
designated ‘peer observer’ may be a peer and observer in the true sense of
the word, or they may be in a position of seniority or from an outside agency
passing judgement on what they observe. As has been seen, despite the best
efforts of universities to implement schemes that are purely ‘peer observation’
some teachers have still been reluctant to recognise their legitimacy.

16


One solution to this problem is the recent trend towards naming the schemes
in a way that emphasises the collaborative, supportive and developmental
ethos of peer observation, such as peer coaching, peer mentoring and peer
exchange (Gosling, 2009). More controversially perhaps, some universities
have opted for the term ‘peer review’, implying that the observer rather than
observee is responsible for the judging of performance. Although Gosling
doesn’t define the term he does infer that its use may be controversial and
that those responsible for devising and implementing schemes should
carefully consider its adoption, posing the question; “is it right to use the word
‘review’ which might be thought to carry connotations of judgement?” (p.8).

Managing and Leading Staff within Academic Cultures
McCaffery (2004, p.32) defines culture as "a combination of values, structure
and power which has implications for every aspect of an organisation's
operation, its external relationships and, ultimately, the realisation of its
institutional mission", making the point that the organisation is the culture
rather than an entity that has a culture, and that cultures are dynamic rather
than static in nature.

Teaching staff in higher education have traditionally organised themselves
according to a collegiate culture. The essence of a collegiate culture is the flat
hierarchical structure and lack of imposition in decision-making. Collegiate
cultures:

"Assume that organisations determine policy and make decisions
through a process of discussion leading to consensus. Power is
shared amongst some or all members of the organisation who are
thought to have a shared understanding about the aims of the
institution" (Bush, 2003, p.64).

Collegiate ways of organising teachers are not without their problems
however, and can lead to lack of action and change; “if staff are hostile and
apathetic, rather than enthusiastic and engaged, collegiate approach does not
work” (p.81).

17


Engagement follows motivation. Motivation can be either extrinsic or intrinsic
and as Mullins asserts, managers have more influence on the latter rather
than the former. His argument is that extrinsic motivation is related to “tangible
rewards such as salary and fringe benefits, security promotion, contract of
service, the work environment and conditions of service” - rewards that are
determined by the organisation rather than the individual managers -
whereas intrinsic motivation is related to “psychological' rewards such as the
opportunity to use one's ability, a sense of challenge and achievement,
receiving appreciation, positive recognition and being treated in a caring and
considerate manner” . These are “psychological rewards” which can be
influenced by the actions and behaviours of individual managers (Mullins,
2007, p.251).

Leadership, therefore, has a significant impact on teacher engagement in
POT. Managers, by their words and actions, can advocate the benefits of
POT and have an influence on the motivation of teachers to participate.
Palmer (1998, as Cited in Gosling, 2005, p.49) emphasises the importance of
leadership in fostering and maintaining POT schemes; “perhaps the key to
establishing an ethos in which staff can talk about teaching is leadership …
[POT] will happen only if leaders expect it, invite it, and provide hospitable
space for the conversation to occur". With this in mind, the responsibilities of
managers include ensuring the process of POT is completed thoroughly and
professionally (Gosling, 2005, p.27) as well as implementing “a clear structure
with agreed purposes, procedures, and outcomes involving suitable
preparation, follow through, and rules of confidentiality" (Donnelly, 2007,
p.127). As my own research demonstrates later on in this dissertation,
tensions can arise between the various stakeholders in the scheme such as
senior management and teachers on the ground when there is lack of clarity
in a schemes aims and principles.

Evidence of the importance of leadership is further exemplified by the success
of a scheme initiated at Ulster University: “greater engagement has occurred
in areas where there has been either enthusiastic senior leadership for the

18


initiative or a group of staff who have worked together to undertake a review”
(Gosling, 2009, p.52). Having said that, Garvin et al (2008) remind us that
leadership alone is insufficient and that, in order to create a wider culture of
learning, more explicit and targeted interventions may be required.

Defining Academic Management and Leadership
Although there is overlap between the two concepts in so far as leader and
manager are often the same person, leadership can be seen as defining and
declaring the vision that initiates the change (the transformation), whereas
management is charged with the process of implementing the change (the
transaction). Thus the manager’s role can be seen as solving the problem that
the leader creates (Gash, 2008).

Forms of management and leadership in academic environments tend to be
primarily people, rather than task, focused. Pedlar (2006, p.23) emphasises
the importance of a manager’s continuing sensitivity to events being not only
open to 'hard’ information such as facts and figures, but also 'soft' information
such as the feelings of other people, the latter being of particular concern for
some teachers wary of participating in POT as was touched upon earlier.
Sergiovanni (2001, p.4) emphasises the importance of symbolic and cultural
leadership within an academic setting. Symbolic leadership can be seen as
leading by example, an attribute also highlighted by Thompson (2004), which
can serve to embed the desired attitude in the academic culture. As
McCaffery (2004, p.39) puts it, “our actions demonstrate to others what we
really value”.

Thus, in order to successfully manage a POT scheme it can be argued that all
four attributes of academic leadership as identified by Ramsden (1998, p.134)
are required, namely the ability to enable, inspire, motivate and direct. With
reference to the latter attribute, whether one should adopt a more hands-on or
hands-off approach to managing POT may depend on the type of scheme
being implemented. For example, those focused on evaluating the teacher’s
performance may require a more hands-on approach than those focussing on

19


collaborative reflection, where the aim is for teachers to manage their own
participation.

Evaluating the Success of a POT Scheme
A key problem for the continued development of POT schemes is how to
quantify success (assuming quantification is either possible or desirable). For
schemes to continue after their initial pilot period, senior management may
expect to see tangible benefits if they are to continue to provide funding and
support. Participants themselves may also wish to see measurable outcomes
before they continue putting additional time and energy into participating in
the scheme. This is highlighted in a comment made by a teacher on a scheme
described by Lygo-Baker; “I will never know if the implementation of these
suggestions will result in an improvement in my teaching" (2007, p100).

The confidentiality of POT schemes may hide information that warrants as
evidence of success, and can also restrict the sharing of knowledge
throughout the peer group. Shortland, for example, reports that good practice
was not shared formally outside the observation triads that formed the basis
of the scheme at the University in question (2004, p.227). The continued
support of such schemes can, however, depend on the intrinsic value held by
the organisations that underwrite it and the staff who participate in it, rather
than being linked to any tangible outcomes. Here, success is a function of the
number of people taking part, as in the case of the scheme described by
McMahon (2007, p.506) where there was a simple requirement for
documentation confirming that observations had taken place.

Other schemes, such as the one described by Martin and Double (1998),
require written comments as well as formal notification of the session taking
place to be passed onto the person responsible for monitoring the scheme,
however these are kept brief. Whilst this approach can ease the concerns of
teachers who are wary about their weakness becoming public, ideally POT
should benefit not only individual participants but also develop a knowledge
base from which lessons about the group’s practice can be learned and
publicised for the benefit of the wider community. As Pring states in his

20


critique of Elliot’s definition of action research (1991), “it is not enough ... to
claim that practice has improved. It is necessary for there to be knowledge of
why it improved " (2004, p.139). A resulting question for managers is how to
leverage knowledge and insight gained through POT whilst maintaining the
need for confidentiality.

Concluding the Literature Review
This literature review has examined the theory and practice of POT,
highlighting a number of problems managers of POT schemes may be
required to deal with. In order to explore these further I derived primary data
from interviews with five academic managers responsible for POT schemes.
The following chapter describes and evaluates the methodology employed in
acquiring and analysing this data.

21


Methodology

Introduction: How Methodology Changed According to Circumstances
As discussed in the introduction, my original intention was to conduct an
action research project focussing on the challenges I would face in
establishing and maintaining a POT scheme at the institute where I worked, a
project that was shelved following my resignation. Consequently I was faced
with the decision of either starting another project or building on the research I
had done to date. Ideally I would have chosen another action research project
relevant to my new workplace as it was important for me that the research
would investigate a problem related to my own practice, however for
pragmatic reasons – essentially issues of time and the need for ‘closure’ with
respect to my MA studies - I decided on the latter option.

The stepping-stone between the original research and what followed was the
first interview with the academic manager I had arranged as a way of gaining
first hand insight into the realities of managing POT from someone with
experience. The interview proved to be enlightening and served as a useful
illustration of the problems of managing peer observation. The idea of using
this as a basis for more interviews followed by a critical analysis of the data
gathered was a logical alternative to the initial action research project. In this
respect, the aim of conducting further interviews was to broaden and deepen
my current understanding of peer observation, weighted as it was towards
theoretical knowledge and secondary data. This imbalance would be
redressed by the actions and experiences of others rather than my own, as
was originally planned.

Despite the changes in methodology, a constant throughout this research has
been its positioning within the qualitative research paradigm and the notion
that knowledge is both socially constructed and situated. In this respect
knowledge is interpreted and context dependant – it is relative and subjective
to those constructing it and a particular time and place, rather than absolute
and universal. Although knowledge can be generalised in the sense that

22


things (be they objects, people, concepts) can be quantified, their meaning is
localised and individual to the person(s) perceiving it.

The Rationale for Interviews
If we accept the preceding argument, the relationship between perceiver and
perceived in terms of the influences people can have on each other’s
perceptions is dynamic and never a one-way street. Influence can be seen as
a function of distance and in the context of interviews the distance between
the researcher and the ‘subject of research’ is minimal; . as As such there is
strong potential for either party to influence proceedings and so the
researcher has to be conscious of this and their effect on the knowledge being
produced. To this end, I would concur with Alvesson and Skoldberg’s
assertion that the “positivistic conception of research, according to which the
object is uninfluenced by the researcher [and vice versa] is untenable" (1999,
p. 40) and empathise with Kvale’s description of the research interview as "an
interpersonal situation, a conversation between two partners about a theme of
mutual interest (where) knowledge is created "inter" the points of view of the
interviewer and the interviewee" (2009, p.123). As Rubin and Rubin state,
interviewees are "treated as partners rather than objects of research" (1995,
p.10).

Although interviews may enable the "objects of research" to speak for
themselves (Pring, 2004, p.39), the extent to which their voice is truly heard
depends on the format of interview. At their extremes, interviews are either
closed or open according to what the interviewee is allowed to say. Within
these two extremes is the semi-structured interview that theoretically balances
the interviewer’s freedom to direct proceedings and the interviewee’s freedom
to take the interview beyond the pre-defined framework defined by the
interviewer.

When deciding on a suitable approach for this research I did not consider
using closed interviews since a) it is a positivist method that aims to quantify
opinion and is thus - as has already been argued - limited in terms of
producing the type of knowledge I was pursuing; b) it is based on the false

23


premise that the same question will mean the same thing to different
respondents (Pring, 2004; Hollway, 2000) and c) because – as discussed
earlier – it sees the construction of knowledge as a one-way street. As Rubin
and Rubin explain; "because the researcher prewords the questionnaire, the
interview is intellectually dominated by the perceptions of the researcher,
rather than the understanding of the interviewees" (1995, p.34).

Open interviews allow the interviewee to speak freely, thus the data that
emerges can be seen as less biased since they have chosen what to say
uninfluenced by the researcher. Having said that, they are perhaps more
suited to longitudinal research such as ethnographic studies where the
researcher has the time to assimilate the culture being researched and
conduct sufficient interviews for patterns and nuances of that culture to
emerge. The semi-structured approach to interviewing I adopted is suitable for
what is a relatively small-scale research project. Although interviews were
structured around a schedule derived from themes discussed in the literature
review and my own, albeit limited, experience of peer observation, I did not
stick rigidly to the same set of questions during interview. Rather, I let the
direction of the interviews proceed according to the interviewees’ responses
as well as picking up on insight gained from each interview to re-shape the
line of questioning at subsequent interviews. In this way, I gained some of the
advantages of open interviews.

Although the notion of semi-structured implies a happy medium between
closed and open, my experience is that the locus of control changes
dynamically between the two extremes as influence over the direction of the
ensuing dialogue swaps between the two parties, often as a result of making
snap decisions as to whether I should stay within the remit of the schedule
(for the sake of consistency between interviews) or go with the flow. As Kvale
states, interviews are “an art (involving) intuition, creativity, improvisation and
breaking the rules” (2009, p86); as with anything else, the ability to get the
most out of them comes with practice and experience.

24


Choosing the Participants
According to Rubin and Rubin there are three criteria of interviewee credibility:
1) knowledge of the cultural arena or situation or experience being studied, 2)
willingness to talk and 3) representative of a range of points of view (1995,
p.66). Although the first two criteria can easily be confirmed prior to interviews
taking place the third is problematic as this can and should only be verified
afterwards. Attempting to do this in advance would rely on assumptions about
an interviewee that is the antithesis of keeping an open mind.

My goal was to conduct four more interviews, giving me a total of five
including the one already completed. I initially contacted three managers I
knew in some professional capacity, who all agreed to take part. In addition, I
contacted six academics who had published articles about peer observation,
three of whom I had met at a conference and two of whom had been referred
to me by one of the three managers. Three of the academics replied
indicating that they would have been happy to assist but did not have the
requisite management responsibility. One of the three referred me to a
manager in the same institute where they worked who subsequently agreed to
take part, giving me the four participants I was looking for. As it turned out the
interviews did produce an interesting range of views and perspectives, so in
this respect it met Rubin and Rubin’s third criteria.

Gaining Consent
Formal consent should be given by all those taking part in research, based on
the principle that participants have a right to freedom and self-determination
(Cohen, et al, 2007, p.53) and should not feel obliged, or coerced, into taking
part against his or her will (Robson, 1993, p.33, as cited in Cohen et al, 2007,
p.63). With this in mind, and to ensure a record of their consent was kept in
writing I emailed all potential participants and asked them to respond by
email. I was also careful to explain the aims and rationale for the research in
the email including its original plan as an action research project, bearing in
mind that interviewees should fully understand what they are consenting to.
As Drever states, an interview is “a formal encounter, with a specific purpose,

25


and both parties are aware of this” (2003, p.4, my emphasis). A copy of the
email template can be found in appendix one.

Scheduling the Interviews
On receipt of email confirmation I arranged to interview the managers at their
own offices. All interviews were one hour in length and took place during the
months of October and November 2009. I asked all participants in advance if
they would give me consent to record the conversations for the purposes of
transcription. All parties agreed to this and the ensuing interviews were
recorded using an iPodtm with an ExtremeMac Micromemotm microphone
adaptor. Bearing in mind that any recordings should not only be made with
consent but also kept confidential, I have ensured that all recordings and
associated transcripts are securely stored at my home.

Conducting the Interviews
I set the agenda for each interview by explaining the purpose of the research
and the interviews. I then passed control over to the interviewee by inviting
them to talk about their particular POT scheme, asking them to “tell me about
the scheme you run, its aims, values, history, etc.”, thus giving them the
opportunity to focus on areas they considered of particular importance. My
aim was, as Rubin and Rubin put it, to ask questions that "tap the
interviewee's experience" (1995, p.10), by allowing stories of personal
significance to the interviewees to freely emerge. In this respect I took a
narrative approach to interviewing, where the researcher acts as the 'good
listener' (Hollway, 2000, p.31) and the interviewee is a storyteller rather than a
respondent, thereby opening up the agenda to development and change.
Such an approach to initiating the interview is also concurrent with the advice
to open with unthreatening questions in the interest of developing rapport
(Hollway, 2000, p. 30).

I then picked out details of each individual story, the themes, issues, concerns
and so on that emerged from the narrative, and elicited further details by
using probing questions based on questions and themes from within my

26


schedule. On occasions when the narrative dried up, I would refer to the
schedule and ask a question that would prompt exploration of another theme.

With reference to Rubin and Rubin’s statement that, "as you learn how the
interviewees understand their world, you may want to modify what it is you are
studying or rethink the pattern of questioning” 1995, p.44), the stories and
themes that emerged during each interview influenced my line of questioning
in subsequent ones. Thus the knowledge being constructed and the
understanding and insight I acquired was the result of an asynchronous
interaction of several minds with myself acting as a conduit between them. Or,
as Berger and Luckmann put it, “an ongoing correspondence between my
meanings and their meanings in this world” (1991, p.37)

At the end of each interview I thanked the participants for their time. I was
also careful to stick to the agreed time limit of one hour, considering
Johnson’s statement that “the interviewer who, once in, stays in until he is
thrown out, is working in the style of investigative journalism rather than social
research” (1984, as cited in Bell, 2004, p.141).

The interview schedule was constructed using a mind mapping application
called Freemindtm. A copy is available in appendix two for reference.

Transcribing the Interviews
Rather than making notes and writing down any thoughts immediately after
each interview, I decided to do this a few days later when I began the process
of transcription. Although it can be useful to record one’s reflections
immediately I believed that the gap in time would allow me to clear my mind
and distance myself sufficiently for the purpose of analysing the interviews, a
process I began as I transcribed them. I consider myself to have a ‘hearing
mind’, that is to say I remember sounds more vividly than visuals. I also find
that sounds are not only able to trigger the recall of events in depth and detail
but also the feelings I had at the time. Through the process of transcribing I
was therefore able to re-live the interview. Throughout the process of
transcription I could therefore relive the interview and pick up on new themes,

27


interpretations and misunderstandings that were overlooked during the
session. There were also the inevitable moments of frustration as I picked up
on such elements retrospectively and wished I had asked a question I hadn’t
thought of at the time.

Kvale states that "transcripts are impoverished, decontextualised renderings
of live interview conversations" (2009, p.178). The removal from context is
taken another step further via the necessary selection of quotes used to
support the researcher’s argument. This maybe so, however this can be said
of any knowledge that is - with reference to Wenger’s terminology - a
reification of what emerged through participation (1999) and presented for the
benefit of those not at the original scene. Such is the nature of knowledge
transfer, fine as long as the reader is aware of the filtering process and
acknowledges that the author’s interpretation is only one of many. From a
personal perspective, my main issue with transcribing is that it is an extremely
slow, laborious and painstaking process (a teacher of mine told me to allow
four hours for each hour of interview – the reality for me was at the very least
double this ratio), albeit a worthwhile one, for reasons just discussed.

Although I transcribed the conversations word for word some of the quotations
used in the analysis/discussion have been edited, bearing in mind Rubin and
Rubin’s advice that, "to improve the grammar, complete the thought, or
eliminate dialect can make the text far more readable. But doing so might
distort what the person said and impute to him or her too much of your own
interpretation" (Rubin and Rubin, 1995, p.272). Thus I have been careful to
make either minor modifications so as to retain the style of the speaker or to
paraphrase. Either way, there is an ethical obligation to ensure the transcribed
text is loyal to the interviewee's original oral statements (Kvale, 2009, p.63)

Unfortunately, my recording device malfunctioned during one of the interviews
and no recording was made. Although I managed to recall some of the key
themes and points made during the interview (the one instance where through
necessity I did make notes as soon as possible after the interview), the

28


richness, intricacy and nuances of the conversation were lost for good. For
this reason I have focused mainly on the other four interviews that were
successfully recorded and transcribed for the analysis and discussion section
of this dissertation.

Analysing the Interviews
Ideally, as Hollway states, "researchers, not being therapists, will be careful
not to interpret at the time of the information being provided by interviewees.
Their interpretive work comes later, is separate from the participant and has a
different audience” (2000, p.78). Although this makes sense with respect to
the interviewer keeping a critical distance and an open mind during the
interview and not influencing the direction of the discussion, such a stance is
difficult to maintain in practice and may be counter-productive to picking up on
and exploring potential areas of interest. Hollway acknowledges this, adding
that although "interpretation is ... an activity associated with data analysis as
opposed to data production … this distinction breaks down in the necessary
exchanges of understanding taking place in the interview". Thus the process
of analysis and the need for reflexivity is a continuous one, starting from the
moment the interviewee’s initial response and continuing on through the
transcription, analysis of the transcription and writing the argument.

Broadly speaking, my approach to analysing the transcripts was
ethnomethodological, which involves “the interpretation of meaning, functions,
and consequences of human actions and institutional practices, and how
these are implicated in local, and perhaps also wider, contexts."
(Hammersley, 2007, p.3). In order to achieve this goal I went through several
stages. The first stage was during the actual transcription, where I
commented on and highlighted specific words and phrases that grabbed my
attention and which I would then use as the basis for a more systematic
analysis after completing the transcriptions.

In retrospect, stage two’s method was similar to Grbich’s thematic analysis
approach to phenomenological research (2007, p.89), which itself involves
two stages. Stage 1 is the “ideographic mode” (the gathering of closely

29


connected ideas, words and concepts) that involves amongst other things
creating a “research key” of categories and subcategories that provide the
hooks to which the themes and experiences noted in the transcripts can be
attached. Stage 2 is the “nomothetic mode” (the search for abstract
principles), whereby subnarratives and interpretive themes are drawn
together, using concept maps to place the themes into related fields
“indicating interconnections around the phenomenon being researched”. In
this respect, I was not only looking to categorise the data within the theoretical
framework already established through the literature review and the interview
schedule (i.e. a deductive mode), but also to juxtapose individual snippets of
data so that other theories would emerge (i.e. an inductive mode). I used
Freemindtm to facilitate the analysis and a screenshot is included in appendix
three for reference.

On the whole, my method of analysis could be described as “bricolage”
(Kvale, 2009, p.233), in that

"many analyses of interviews are conducted without following any
specific analytical technique ... (some) rest on a general reading of
the interview texts with theoretically informed interpretations … the
bricolage interpreter adapts mixed technical discourses, moving
freely between different analytic techniques and concepts".

30


Analysis

The following chapter offers a critical analysis of the interviews. For the sake
of anonymity pseudonyms are used when referring to interviewees, although
the names reflect their true gender. Institutions where participants work will
also remain anonymous. Participants will also have the right to view and
challenge the accuracy and fairness of data and interpretations of data drawn
from the interviews. Assuming these conditions are met, I will retain the right
to publish the research (Pring, 2005, p.151; Hopkins, 1985, as cited in Cohen
et al, 2007, p.70).

Introducing the Characters
The participants are presented in the order in which they were interviewed.
Martin, the first one, is the academic manager I interviewed during the time I
was initiating the POT scheme.

Martin
At the time of the interview Martin was principle lecturer and course leader at
a London based university. His main challenge that emerged during the
interview was the reluctance of staff to participate in the POT scheme he was
implementing, with some teachers suspicious that participation was to be
enforced by management and linked to performance. The actual scheme as
described by Martin is comparable to Gosling’s collaborative model (2005) as
described in the literature review. Although the published aims and principles
were explicit in highlighting the collegiate ethos of the scheme, i.e. it would not
be linked to performance, all discussions would remain confidential and
teachers would have control over the agenda for observation, participation in
the scheme remained limited. As Martin puts it, the scheme “fell by the
wayside … not because of lack of commitment and principles, but insufficient
time to carry it out - it was not recognised on people’s timetables”. Martin’s
story thus emphasises the challenges faced by managers in not only dealing
with teachers’ suspicion of motives of the scheme but also in providing the
time and space for POT to take place.

31


Joanne
Joanne is Dean of Learning and Teaching at a London based university. She
has overall responsibility for the university’s peer observation scheme and has
a team of staff who organise its implementation on the ground. Her main
challenge that emerged from the interview was managing tensions between
unions and senior management as a consequence of conflicting views about
the intended aims of the scheme and how it should be implemented. As she
herself describes the situation:

“I realised was that after I started, what university management had
thought had been agreed and what the unions had thought had
been agreed was different, and that was part of the problem, that
my boss was asking me to implement a scheme which was actually
different to the one the union believed to have been agreed”.

Although she wishes to make improvements to the scheme, negotiating
agreement between both parties is problematic. Her strategy is to “bide her
time” until the situation is more conducive to negotiation. Joanne’s story
emphasises the limits within which managers can operate and influence
change.

Susan
Susan is an academic and programme leader at the same university as
Martin. When she joined the university she took on the job of redesigning the
existing POT scheme with the aim of increasing participation, embedding a
culture of collaboration and sharing of best practice. Her main challenge that
emerged during the interview was how to engage staff unwilling to commit to
the scheme. Some experienced teachers did not consider it necessary to
take part, since they considered that there was “nothing wrong with their
teaching”; others gave the scheme low priority, as they were more interested
in their research activities. Participation did increase, and Susan cited the
widening of the scheme beyond observation of teaching in the classroom to
include the review of online learning and teaching as a factor in this success.

32


Craig
Craig is head of learning and teaching at a London based college offering
professional qualifications as well as undergraduate and postgraduate
degrees. His main challenge that emerged during the interview was the
development and implementation of a POT scheme with a view to “develop
the collegiate” and “improve consistency across programmes”. Craig was
given comparably free reign to design the scheme as he saw fit, taking into
account the projected growth of students and subsequent increase staff
numbers during the next year as well as the need to individual staff
development into the schemes design. To this end his key strategy has been
to implement a scheme comparable to Gosling’s collaborative model (2005)
that focuses on team building and acclimatising teachers to peer observation,
with a view of modifying the scheme later to focus on developing individual
teacher performance.

Philip
Philip is the head of learning and teaching at a college affiliated to the one
where Craig is based. The college offers professional qualifications, with
some students sponsored by commercial organisations. He has a dedicated
team of staff who carry out all observations and review the teacher’s
performance using coaching methods. In this respect the POT model is
comparable to Gosling’s developmental model (2005).

As a private sector organisation there is pressure to compete effectively with
other institutions offering similar programmes. The performance of teachers in
the classroom is considered a key factor in maintaining their reputation and
competitive edge, to the extent that existing and prospective clients are
allowed into the classroom to observe teachers. From this perspective the
model is more akin to Gosling’s evaluative model (2005).

Although teachers have industry experience relevant to the subject matter
being taught the majority do not have previous teaching experience. To this
end the main challenge that emerged during the interview was the need to
ensure staff received adequate teacher training in a relatively short space of

33


time and to prepare them for observation by clients. The use of classroom
observation was seen as an important element in this regard, and since the
existing scheme was considered to be inadequate Philip was given a remit by
his manager to make changes to the scheme as he saw fit.

On Teacher Resistance and Reluctance to Participate in POT
As was discussed in the literature review, resistance or reluctance to take part
in peer observation can surface for a variety of reasons. Even when
participation in a scheme is compulsory, without the necessary buy-in
teachers may still manifest other forms of non-participation, for example by
pushing it lower down in their priority and arguing that they do not have time
to take part. Alternatively they may comply without engaging in the spirit of the
scheme and thus gain no real benefit. I was therefore interested in exploring
the particular challenges faced by the interviewees in their capacity as
managers and their approach to dealing with problems they had encountered
in relation to teacher resistance and reluctance.

The main issue facing Martin is one echoed across the literature, namely
teacher suspicion about the motives of the scheme and its imposition by
management. Resistance to the scheme was reinforced by what Martin
referred to as “powerful members of staff”, a turn of phrase that echoed
Joanne’s reference to the “unusually powerful” union branch she had to deal
with who had “a capacity to block management decisions”. Susan faced
resistance from staff who were either more interested in their research or felt
they had nothing to gain from taking part, since they considered themselves
as highly experienced.

Susan’s inclusion of online learning and teaching into the scheme was
designed to engage staff concerned about being observed in the classroom
as well as widening the scope beyond the narrow remit of classroom teaching.
Despite her good intentions some teachers who considered themselves
“technophobes” were fearful about exposing their inadequacies in a virtual
learning environment and putting their jobs at risk. Newer members of staff

34


were more keen to take part, a phenomena also reported by Craig who
additionally noted that staff could be as concerned about observing as being
observed as they were not comfortable about being in a position of judgement
over their peers. Philip had to deal with the lack of self-confidence staff had as
a result of problems with the scheme he had inherited; “I felt that having these
tutors having that in the back of their minds was preventing them from
developing”.

On the Need for Trust
As has been argued, if POT is to be successful in its aim of enabling teachers
to reflect on, learn from and develop their practice, a culture of trust and
openness is necessary before teachers are willing to expose their perceived
weaknesses without fear of reprisal. As Joanne states, such an environment
is important for student as well as staff learning: “I really believe that you have
to feel fairly safe to learn. Because you don’t take risks, you act defensively,
and that kind of shuts down learning. For all of us, students and teachers …
they have to believe the institution cares about them and their students”.

Aims and principles need to be clearly defined and communicated for
teachers to have confidence and trust in a scheme’s intentions. Any confusion
or disagreements between parties can cause mistrust and suspicion, resulting
in resistance to participation. Craig commented that peer observation was:

“Not a particularly easy thing to manage … because they’re so …
muddied, and they’re used for so many different things … but once
you get it clear, most staff will opt in. If the person leading it doesn’t
necessarily have a clear idea about why we’re doing it or why it’s
structured the way it is, I think you get a lot of resistance that’s
simply just about, ‘I want to know what it’s being used for’”.

A prime illustration of this confusion is Joanne’s description of the conflicting
views between unions and senior management about the scheme she was
responsible for:

35


”The university management believed we were implementing a
managerial teaching observation scheme that was driven by a
concern about performance and an ability to intervene if teaching
was not adequate ... and the unions thought we had a
developmental, anonymous peer observation teaching scheme that
could only be turned into performance monitoring if performance
issues had already been formally made about a member of staff”.

Whether this discrepancy was a result of lack of clarity in the official
documentation is a moot point, however Joanne’s comment that the
documentation served as “an example of how not to do a scheme” could be
indicative of either a problem of clarity or the guidelines being too open to
interpretation. However, as Martin’s experience shows, making a clear and
unambiguous statement that the scheme was essentially collegiate in design
and would not be used as a management tool is not by itself sufficient to gain
the commitment of staff. Philip also had the challenge of persuading his
teachers that the performance based system he inherited had changed to a
more developmental one: “what we continually work hard on is to create the
feeling that we’re there to help them”.

On the Need for Advocacy
Although teachers may want to participate, participation may be low down in
their priorities; therefore managers need to consider additional ways of
gaining and maintaining staff interest. The resistance to Martin’s scheme for
example was exacerbated by competing problems affecting the university at
the time: “you’ve got to contextualise this - there has been a lot going on here
lately. Something like peer observation is not really big on the agenda”.
Teachers will not pro-actively seek out the documentation themselves and
read about the benefits of peer observation. As the quotes I cited in my
introduction section imply, leadership is required to promote the benefits and
raise the profile of the scheme above competing priorities.

36


Managers need to continually be vocal about the benefits of POT in order to
demonstrate its importance and maintain the commitment of teachers - it is
not enough to simply initiate the scheme and expect it to happen, as Craig
states: “what I do think [POT] needs is constant advocacy. And that advocacy
role of leadership is very important”. Constant advocacy is also an imperative
for gaining the support of senior management as well as teachers, as was
recognised by Martin who made certain that POT was a standing item on the
learning and teaching committee, “which was useful in driving it through”. For
Craig, advocacy for the scheme was also about advocating the students’
interests, the indirect beneficiaries of peer observation:

“Within a lot of competing priorities, people will prioritise things
which have more impact on them, than necessarily impact on
students, certainly the way I view my role about peer observation is
very much as advocating it, because the student doesn’t have a
voice in order to make it happen”.

Joanne’s view further emphasises the need for the improvement of student
learning to be the focus and therefore the overriding concern of POT:

“I think the culture we have had in higher education, in that
‘everything in my teaching is private and nobody has a right to look
at it’ is not helpful, I think it’s wrong. I think it should all be up for
looking at. I think our responsibility to the student is much greater
than our responsibility to a professional’s work not to be
scrutinised.”

One way of demonstrating advocacy and thus communicating the value of the
scheme is to lead by example. Martin cited the low number of staff from the
education and teaching subject department taking part in the scheme as a
reason for others not getting involved. It was important for this particular
faculty to be seen to be participating since it was assumed they would, by
implication of their subject expertise, be comfortable with the idea of POT;

37


non-participation thus sent a message to others that POT was perhaps not so
important. Philip’s strategy was to ensure all teachers at all levels were
observed, in particular the team of staff responsible for conducting the
observations:

“What I’ve tried to do is to establish a culture that everybody is
observed at whatever level. So we will try and observe programme
leaders who are teaching; we will observe all tutors at all levels,
including the training team.”

To genuinely advocate something one has to have belief in it. Belief in
something occurs when ones values are reflected in what is being advocated,
which creates a sense of ownership. Ownership of the scheme is therefore as
important for the manager as for the teachers participating in it. To achieve
these ends, one needs the freedom to embed ones values in the design of a
new scheme or the modification of an existing one. Philip’s manager
recognised the problems with the scheme he inherited and gave him the
freedom to change it as he saw fit:

“In that sense it gave me the independence to reflect my [view that]
a highly geared and structured coaching system will have a better
chance of producing optimum performance in something like this,
where performance is so important, than any other sort of helping
structure in that sense. I’m a strong advocate of the benefits of
coaching”.

Such freedom is not always available however. Joanna’s experience led her
to adopt a different strategy:

“Although I would like to work on a scheme that was better and
gave people more, at the minute it wouldn’t be worth my energy
introducing that because there are so many blocks to the system. I
could put all this energy in and it wouldn’t result in a better scheme.

38


So I’m just going to bide my time until the time is right, and then I’ll
put the energy in – at the minute I’ll just keep it ticking over.”

On the Need for Training
As well as a commitment to participate, teachers need to be prepared to
participate effectively. As is evident from the literature and the experience of
the interviewees, problems can be avoided through adequate training as well
as effective communication making this an important issue for managers to
address. Training however requires time and resources that may not always
be available. The reality is that training can be limited to a single workshop or
reduced to a set of written guidelines for staff to follow.

The value of training was emphasised by Craig; “we were very careful to have
a long-term training programme about observation”. His approach was to
encourage teachers to “simply talk about what they observe, rather than what
they think that means”, thus ensuring observers did not stray into evaluation
territory. Training was also a key element for Philip’s scheme, who has a
dedicated team of staff trained as coaches to carry out the observations.

An interesting problem emerged in Philip’s case in relation to training. On the
one hand he stressed the need for highly skilled observers to ensure
consistency of observation and quality of outcome: “I think it’s incredibly
important that people who do observe are skilled and trained in the process”.
On the other hand he had to manage the fact that potential clients, who may
not have any formal training or experience in peer observation, could come
into the classroom and make judgements about the quality of teaching and
learning based on what they saw. The issue here is that they may focus
purely on the teacher’s performance rather than focus on the student learning
going on in the classroom, an issue with POT schemes based on Gosling’s
evaluative model (2005) as was discussed in the literature review. Philip
conceded that:

“It is a dilemma, but it’s one we’ve worked very hard at. We’ve tried
to give the observers a clear remit of what they’re looking for – and

39


make the staff aware of what we’re looking for as well from day one
of their training. And that is a proper student centred exercise that’s
not like a virtuoso performance”, adding that in his experience, “the
visits were very good in that sense because they were always
concentrating particularly on the learning aspects of it”.

On the Relationship Between Observer and Observee
There are arguments in the literature for and against the observer sharing the
observee’s subject knowledge. Two of the interviewees thought that peer
observation functioned more effectively when this was not the case. Joanne
voiced a “very strong opinion” that having both parties from the same
discipline would be “a great disadvantage”, arguing that the benefit comes by
having:

“Someone outside, who looks at the teaching process from the
point of view of the way the students are responding to the teacher,
rather than the way the subject is being presented (by the teacher),
or the understanding of the tutor of the subject. Without that you
look really differently at the anthropological situation of the
classroom”.

Craig also highlighted the tendency for the observation to become overtly
teacher rather than student centred:

“If (they are) in the same discipline, often it gets skewed into
subject expertise … and teaching that sort of discipline, which is
very useful but it does place more onus on having a certain type of
experience”.

On the Need to Provide Time and Space for POT
The goal of encouraging teachers to reflect on their own practice in a way that
will lead to improved teaching and student learning is a long term one. To this
end teachers need the time and space to develop their practice, be it through

40


POT or any other scholarly activity. Allocating time and space, for example by
ensuring POT is embedded into the teaching schedule, is also a way for
managers to demonstrate their support for the scheme by raising its priority.

At the same time, if managers take on responsibility for making space in the
timetable, rather than teachers being left to organising the sessions
themselves, it can be argued that there is then an expectation that teachers
must take part. For Martin, this presented a dilemma in light of the ethos of
the scheme he was implementing:

“I think that it will help if people are given hours for it in their
timetable. This could be slightly dangerous as then management
can say, ‘hey – you have to do this as it is on your timetable’.
Maybe that’s getting away from what we agreed i.e. it wasn’t
mandatory, however you can’t have it both ways, i.e. if its on your
timetable you’ve been given the space to do it”.

Craig highlighted his concern that the provision of extra time in the timetable
specifically for POT brought undue attention to itself, thereby amplifying its
problems. Consequently, POT was divorced rather than integrated into the
practice of teaching;

“I think extra time sometimes exacerbates the problems, because
it’s seen as a bigger deal since you’re getting extra time to do this
process. Where time is a factor, so they (teachers) are saying, ‘I’m
not doing it because I don’t have enough time’, that is often not the
key reason why they’re not doing it, because most people who
want to do it will fit it in to the calendar. I feel I have made a
mistake previously in managing these schemes in giving people
time to do it. I think it blows it out of proportion and creates more
problems than it solves most of the time.”

41


Although teachers who want to participate may well be more motivated to find
the time there is often an additional cost factor to consider, in particular for
teachers who are paid by the hour, as was the case at my previous
workplace. For this reason I procured a budget from senior management to
cover payments for two observation cycles per year, including time allocated
for pre and post observation discussions. Such a budget is not always
forthcoming, particularly when there are much larger numbers of staff involved
(my scheme was relatively small scale, involving only eight teachers). Part
time, hourly paid teachers often have other professional commitments related
to the subject they teach. This can make it harder for them to schedule POT
sessions, not only due to incongruity between the timetables of their separate
practices, but also the timetables of other teachers who they wish to observe
or who may wish to observe them.

Interestingly, at Joanne’s university the fact that a substantial number of
teachers were part-time and paid by the hour had an adverse impact on
overall staff participation. To begin with, many of these were employed below
the minimum number of hours above which teachers were required to
participate in POT; secondly, the incentive of paid hours to take part was not
available to them. Hence the pool of teachers available to act as observers
was limited mainly to salaried staff, who were required to carry out other extra
curricular duties hourly paid staff were not expected, or paid, to do. As she
explains:

“We’ve had a lot of people on casual contracts ... freelancing paid
hourly … and it’s been very difficult to implement logistically
because relative to the number of students we teach, there are
very few staff on salaries, so people don’t really have the flexibility
to do teaching observation. Those staff are very busy because they
have to run all the meetings, do all the exam boards, see all the
students, you know, it’s a very small core and ... logistically it’s
actually pretty hard for them to free up enough time to go and see
someone else’s teaching and give them feedback.”

42


On the Need to Embed POT into Teaching Practice
If POT is to be embedded into teaching practice it must be carried out with
sufficient frequency for teachers to get accustomed to it as part of what they
do, rather than as an added extra. In Philip’s case, for example, although
there is only a requirement that a teacher is observed at least once per year,
new staff are observed twice during the first three months of their teaching,
which is also designed to prepare them for the additional observations of
external clients. As he explains:

“A lot of people think it’s actually very positive to be observed by
one of us because they get used to the process. And it’s less
daunting when they get a third party … a majority of teachers will
say ‘I’m not really aware that you’re there’ after a while, and that’s
great.”

Craig ensures his staff take part in POT at least three times per year: “my
personal feeling is that once they get used to it’s usefulness, it’s easier to
bring them on that journey so I think that starting off with the team building is a
strategy for getting there.”

If POT is to be embedded into everyday teaching practice, it must merge
seamlessly with other elements of what teachers do, bearing in mind that
teaching practice extends beyond formal practices such as classroom
teaching (and POT) and includes informal practices such as the conversations
teachers have about what they do.

An issue relevant to this argument that surfaced during the interviews was the
trend in recent years to remove staffrooms from institutional premises. The
interviewees commented on the importance of staffrooms as an informal
space where teachers could discuss and debate educational issues that
affected them, share ideas and support each other. From Joanne’s

43


perspective, the “facilitated reflection” that was one of the aims of POT was
“what I find most useful, but that is the staffroom conversation”, noting that:

“I think it’s really short sighted to take staffrooms away. You need
staffrooms. You need to be in a community of practice; it’s one of
the things I’d completely priorities in terms of space. I don’t think it’s
a luxury, I don’t think it’s about you socialising or your comfort, I
think it’s absolutely prerequisite for people acting as professionals.”

Craig concurred in his statement that: “I do absolutely agree that the loss of
staff social spaces has had a huge impact on the usefulness of peer
observation of teaching … providing other reflective opportunities is very
important to the success of a peer observation scheme.”

As has been noted in the literature review, a key element of POT is the
reflection that takes place on a community level, in particular within the
collaborative model of POT favoured by teachers in universities. If it is
accepted that in some cases knowledge and insight gained from POT is not
formally documented for wider dissemination, then the importance of
staffrooms as an environment to share knowledge can be seen.

On the Notion of Observation
The university where Martin and Susan work reflects the trend away from
peer observation of teaching towards a wider remit of peer review of teaching
and learning, as exemplified by the case studies described by Gosling (2009).
Both of their departments now operate a peer review scheme where staff can,
for example, review online learning materials as well as traditional classroom
activities. Martin and Susan concurred that staff seemed more willing to
participate in a scheme that did not focus purely on classroom activities.
Joanne argued that:

“I actually think the student experience is something much bigger,
much more complex, much less tangible than being in the
classroom and seeing what the teacher does.”

44


Craig made the point that:

“We’re far too focused on the teaching. Peer observation of
teaching is exactly that - it’s not peer observation of the classroom,
the learning, or anything else. I think that that is its great failing, in
that we haven’t made it student centred in the slightest.”

Interestingly, there were conflicting views about the appropriateness of either
‘observation’ or ‘review’ as a basis for such schemes, supporting Gosling’s
inference that careful consideration of the terminology and its implications is
required. Martin acknowledged that a factor in teacher resistance to
participating in his scheme was their association of ‘observation’ with previous
experiences at the sharp end of an INSET (In Service Education and Training)
inspection.

Joanne’s negative reaction is similarly indicative of the term’s connotations
with being looked down upon by inspectors walking uninvited into the
classroom to pass summative judgement on teacher performance. With
reference to the “bloke in a suit and clipboard”, she described observation as
“a horrible word!”, thus alluding to the disparity of power between observer
and observed as opposed to the observee being in control of proceedings.

Martin saw the advantage of review as opposed to observation in terms of its
usefulness: “review is a much more active word than observation". In this
respect, the decision to adopt a review as opposed to an observation scheme
can be seen as a positive one, rather than simply a reaction to observation’s
negative connotations.

Craig took the opposite view in his assertion that:

“For me (review) sounds a lot harder and slightly less useful,
because what we ultimately want from a teacher is good reflective

45


practice. If we do that for them they’re never going to get to do the
reflective practice”.

In a peer review scenario, therefore, the learning becomes observer rather
than observee centred, where the latter is a passive rather than an active
learner since the onus of review, a higher-level task than observation, falls on
the former. As Craig continues, “It’s taking them (the observee) around that
reflective cycle, rather than providing them with observations to reflect upon.
It’s doing it for them”. For Craig, observation had positive connotations as a
research method employed for the benefit of staff development, as opposed
to a negative term conjuring up images of those in power watching over
teachers.

Either way, the name of a scheme can be seen to symbolise its aims, the
organisation’s values and culture, and the relationship between staff and
management, with consequences for the level of staff engagement or
resistance. As such, changing the name of the scheme is a legitimate strategy
towards engaging teachers into participating.

On Managing Peer Observation
The adoption or imposition of a particular model of POT can reflect the
personal, professional and organisational values of their managers and the
academic cultures within which they operate. Managers whose style is top
down, coercive and results driven may be inclined to adopt or be more
comfortable with a scheme modelled along the lines of McMahon’s type-B
(2007), for example. For those like myself who prefer a bottom up, collegiate
style, a type-A approach would appear more suitable.

With this in mind, my original intention before resigning from my previous job
was to introduce a scheme based on Gosling’s Collaborative model of peer
observation (2005). The scheme was to be entirely voluntary, and all who took
part would have a say in its development and running. My strategy was to
take a hands-off approach to managing the scheme - teachers would decide
themselves when and under what circumstances to conduct POT sessions,

46

Masters Dissertation

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (16)

Destacado

Destacado (7)

Similar a Masters Dissertation

Similar a Masters Dissertation (20)

Masters Dissertation