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

2

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.


3

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


4

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


5

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


6

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?


7

• 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


8

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.


9

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


10

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)


11

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).


12

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.


13

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,


14

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).


15

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


16

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.


17

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).


18

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


19

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


20

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


21

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.


22

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


23

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


24

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.


25

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,


26

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


27

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,


28

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


29

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


30

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".


31

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.


32

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.


33

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


34

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


35

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:


36

”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.


37

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;


38

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.


39

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


40

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


41

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.”


42

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.”


43

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


44

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.”


45

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


46

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,


47

with a simple remit to report that it had taken place. In effect, I was happy to

leave the teachers to manage the day-to-day running of the scheme

themselves. The scheme was aborted so I am not in a position to judge if this

‘laissez-faire’ approach would have succeeded. However, having reviewed

the literature and interviewed the five managers, evidence would suggest that

decentralised management requires offsetting with a more centralised form of

leadership.

For example, Martin’s management style reflects the collegiate and

collaborative nature of the POT scheme, although he considered his hands-off

approach as a possible factor in its limited success; “maybe I should have

taken a stronger steer, although there is a danger that conflicts with whole

ethos with it”. Here, he highlights a conflict between means and ends. If a

more direct approach to management is employed, will this result in teacher

compliance rather than genuine engagement with the scheme? Such a

strategy could also be interpreted as managerialism, resulting in more

resistance from teachers. Martin also reflected that, “maybe I should have just

kept the profile high in peoples minds … (the scheme) gradually drifted out of

peoples minds; other things just took over really”. Hence Martin’s case

demonstrates the need to balance styles of management and leadership. If

management is decentralised and teachers are left to manage the scheme

themselves, then a more central approach to leadership is required that will

strongly advocate the values and importance of the scheme. Conversely,

without this advocacy, a more centralised management style is required in

order to enforce and maintain teacher participation.

Martin’s hands-off approach reflected the ethos of the scheme he was

managing. Although Joanne stated that she is generally a hands-on manager,

for pragmatic reasons she was very hands-off in her approach to managing

the POT scheme. To manage and influence the scheme in the way she

wanted, she would require cooperation from the teachers’ union, which she

felt was not forthcoming. There was also the issue of senior management’s

expectation of a more performance driven scheme. In reality, teachers


48

appeared to be organising and implementing the scheme according to their

own individual circumstances, as Joanne explains:

“I’m pretty sure (the teachers) do it in their own way… I’m pretty

sure they amend the form, amend the process … but as long as I

don’t know they’re amending it I don’t have to tell the union, and

(so) I’ve basically left it alone”.

In this respect, her hands-off approach as a practical strategy for ensuring

POT takes place in a less than ideal situation:

“Although I would like to work on a scheme that was better that

gave people more, at the minute it wouldn’t be worth my energy

using that because there are so many blocks to the system … the

more I cool it, and the more it’s done by local negotiation, the better

the chance of participation.”

In contrast, Philip’s centralised management style reflected the relative

freedom he had to manage the scheme according to his own wishes, at the

same time indicating a desire to devolve the day to day running of the scheme

to his team of trainers:

“I lead the training team and I try to instil in the team a

determination to perform to the best of their ability. The onus for the

observation process comes from me, so the organisation of it

comes from me, while I’m trying to increasingly encourage more of

the training team to take some of the responsibility from the

operational side.”


49

Conclusion

Summary of the Analysis

This dissertation has identified a number of challenges that academic

managers responsible for establishing and maintaining POT schemes face. A

significant problem is how managers deal with teacher resistance, reluctance

and disinterest in taking part in POT. The reasons teachers manifest such

feelings include their lack of self-confidence, suspicion of the motives behind

the scheme, unpleasant past experiences with POT and anxiety about their

performance being judged in a way that may impact on their professional

status. Teachers may also have a negative concept of observation, regarding

it as something done to them by someone in power, rather than something

done for them by someone who is their equal.

Research shows that teachers are more likely to engage positively in POT

when schemes are focused on formative professional development rather

than summative evaluation and are rooted in a culture based on trust. As has

been argued, trust is fundamental to the confidence teachers have in the

intentions of a scheme and the self-confidence required to expose their

practice to observation and reflection.

Support for POT is also more likely when its aims and principles are clearly

communicated and the guidelines for its implementation are not open to

conflicting interpretations. How the scheme is named is also an important

factor in conveying its ethos and reassuring the concerns of teachers,

although the use of the term peer review as opposed to peer observation may

be problematic as it implies the observer shoulders the main responsibility of

learning rather than the observee.

The importance of managers ensuring teachers are adequately trained for

POT is emphasised, not only as a means to ally concerns about being

observed but also about the responsibility of observing. Adequate training for

the core tasks of observing and reflecting on those observations after the


50

event are more likely to lead to the improvement of practice in the long term,

so the investment in time and resources for training is justifiable in the short

term.

Even when teachers want to be involved there are other obstacles to

participation that require the attention of managers. POT may be regarded as

a low priority activity, which calls for managers to be advocates of the scheme

and keep its profile raised. This necessitates strong leadership, particularly if

teachers are left to manage the day-to-day implementation of schemes

themselves.

Clearly, it takes support and motivation from managers and teachers if POT is

to be successfully maintained in a way that achieves the intended aims,

hence it has been argued that compelling teachers to participate is by itself

insufficient and may be counter productive. Managers need to address

teacher anxieties and concerns otherwise they may simply comply and go

through the motions without benefiting. By enabling teachers to contribute to

the design of the scheme as well as giving them the power to manage the

execution of it themselves, they can acquire a sense of ownership that will

more likely result in their collaboration and continued support.

One method of raising the profile and priority of POT is to allocate specific

hours in the timetable for it. Not only does the strategy demonstrate the

institution’s commitment to the scheme it also counters the argument that it is

difficult to organise and find the time get involved. On the other hand, this may

convey the message that POT is a separate occupation disconnected from

teaching, which is at odds with the need to embed POT into everyday practice

as a long-term strategy. If POT is carried out with sufficient frequency and

regarded as integral to what teachers do they become accustomed, more

confident and more adept at doing it.

Limitations of the Research

Although this dissertation has identified a range of problems for manager of

POT and explored ways in which they may be solved, further research is


51

required to investigate these problems in greater depth and test the viability of

my conclusions. My primary research was limited to five one hour-long

interviews, which raised new questions as well as providing answers to the

ones I asked.

Research is iterative by design and these interviews can be considered as the

initial reconnaissance stage through which some interesting themes

concerning the management of POT have emerged. The research is also

limited in the sense that only a portion of Kolb’s experiential learning cycle

(1984) has been completed. It has gone so far as reflecting on the experience

of managers responsible for establishing and maintaining POT (the reflective

observation stage) and drawn appropriate conclusions (the abstract

conceptualization stage). What is missing is the testing of my interpretations

in practice (the active experimental stage), and I invite managers who read

this dissertation to apply and evaluate them in their own contexts that will

result in new experiences for reflection (the concrete experience stage).

Areas for Further Research

The movement away from peer observation of teaching in the classroom

towards peer observation of teaching and learning in the wider context is

worthy of further study, particularly as there are two conflicting rationales for

this trend. First of all there is the fact that learning is evidently not restricted to

the classroom and secondly that some teachers are more willing to have other

aspects of their practice scrutinised. There is evident tension between the first

reason, which is student centred, and the second which is teacher centred.

Determining the extent to which the shift towards a wider remit of peer

observation in higher education is the result of either the former or the latter

ought to be looked into as it has implications for the notion that POT should

ultimately be about improving student learning.

An avenue to explore in relation to the second reason is why some teachers

are more willing to expose the outcomes of their other teaching and learning

activities to the scrutiny of others, be it the quality of their marking or the

design of an online learning module. Perhaps it is because a) they feel more


52

in control over these aspects than the immediate, spontaneous and chaotic

interactions of the classroom; b) observation by peers happens after rather

than during the act of producing the learning materials, hence only the

mistake rather than the physical act of making the mistake is observed; and c)

criticism of a teacher’s practice is focused on the object the teacher has

produced rather than on themselves as teachers. It is also worth bearing in

mind that teachers can be as anxious about observing as being observed, so

they may be more at ease focusing on learning materials. Unlike observation

of teaching, this can be done without the presence of the teacher who

produced them.

Taking these latter thoughts into consideration, perhaps a solution to teachers

accepting others observing their teaching is for observation to happen after

rather than during class. This can be achieved by recording the session to

camera without an observer being present. Teacher and peer then have the

opportunity to reflect on the session afterwards either individually or

collaboratively. There are problems for managers to consider, for example the

anxiety or distraction that the presence of cameras can cause, and the

narrow, fixed perspective that would be recorded. Nevertheless, the

technology to achieve this is readily available and may be employed with

some discretion, so is worthy of further enquiry.

Much learning now takes place online. Virtual classrooms are used for

synchronous activities such as lectures and seminars and have the capability

to unobtrusively archive an entire session. Not only does this allow students

who missed the class to retrospectively attend it (albeit without participating in

any activities), teachers themselves can replay, relive and reflect on their

performance. Teaching and learning in virtual classrooms is a relatively new

practice that requires teachers to rethink and adapt the strategies and

techniques employed in physical classrooms. To this end, research is

required in order to define a model of POT tailored to improving practice in

this context.


53

Additional Reflections

A critical incident from my own experience illustrates the benefits of

embedding POT into practice. When I decided to set up the POT scheme at

the institute where I worked, it was very important to me that my team of

teachers would be free to opt in if they chose. There was to be no coercion to

take part, or a sense that staff would be made to feel obliged to participate.

As I argued in the literature review, adults are more inclined to be self-directed

and intrinsically motivated about their learning. Whereas motivation is a force

pushing the learner towards the learning outcome, coersion is a force often

met by resistance that pushes the learner in the opposite direction. The

resistance to learning can either be externalised (‘no – I will not take part!’) or

internalised as a mental block to learning. Either way, it is a state of being that

is not conducive to learning, i.e. the readiness to engage with experience and

transform that experience into knowledge (Kolb, 1984). Learning involves

change and, like moving a large boulder, it involves a proportionally high

amount of effort to overcome the inertia. The greater the resistance the harder

it is to move the boulder or initiate the learning.

Resistance to learning can be a consequence of internal as well as external

pressures. This internal pressure may be as a result of a person’s anxiety or

lack of confidence about their abilities even when offset by the

encouragement of others, as was the case with one of my team of teachers

who did not wish to take part. He explained that he lacked confidence in his

teaching abilities and was uncomfortable with the idea of other lecturers

observing him in the classroom. Despite my efforts to reassure him and to

persuade him to at least try it once, he remained reluctant and since I did not

want to overstep the mark and make him feel obliged to participate I accepted

his decision. Had I remained long enough in the job to develop the scheme

successfully, the positive feedback from peers would perhaps have

persuaded him to opt in.


54

The critical incident was the conversation I had with the teacher later on that

made me question my decision to make the scheme voluntary. He said, that if

there had been a requirement to take part he would not only have complied

but felt he would have got used to the idea and have benefited professionally

from taking part. The obligation would in this instance have acted as the

driving force to initiate his learning rather than block it. The incident also

demonstrates that even if adult learners are generally more self-directed and

intrinsically motivated this may be dependant on a person’s experience and

self-confidence.

The question for me then was in retrospect should I have made the POT

scheme mandatory? Would the end goal of a teacher reflecting on and

developing their practice who would otherwise not have done so (bearing in

mind the lack of other professional development initiatives on offer) have

justified the means? On the other hand, by making it compulsory would the

teachers who had otherwise freely opted in be resistant to do so?

Furthermore, would this conflict with my identity as a manager, one who –

with reference to Evans & Gold (1998, p.7) - aims to be consultative and

democratic rather than autocratic and paternalistic?

One answer to this question would be to integrate POT into the teaching

profession rather than present it as an additional activity, compulsory or

otherwise, as was mentioned earlier. Participation in POT could be included in

the teacher’s job description along with responsibilities such as the

preparation and delivery of lectures and the marking of assignments. If the

ultimate aim of POT is to improve teaching practice and therefore enhance

students’ learning, then provided it is implemented and managed effectively it

is justifiably on a par with these other activities that are taken for granted as

part of a teacher’s role. The problem of whether or not to force people to

participate is no longer an issue since by opting to be a teacher they are

opting to deliver lectures, mark assignments and develop their practice

through POT. It is worth noting that POT is already integral to teacher training


55

programmes, therefore assimilating it into the teaching profession is a also a

way of ensuring that the professional development of teaching is continuous.

Another answer to this question may have emerged had I remained long

enough in the job to develop the scheme. If it had proved successful with

those who were actively participating their positive feedback could have

promoted the benefits and persuaded him to opt in. The opinions and actions

of our peers can greatly influence our own, more often perhaps than those

who manage us.

Final Thoughts

Although I have gained much knowledge and insight about POT and its

implications for managers from completing this dissertation, the need to

disengage from the original ‘action’ element of the research has been a

source of frustration. My experience highlights a potential problem with action

research since it is a methodology that demands the researcher remains

attached to context of research for the duration of the project, so if the

attachment is lost the project is compromised. At the time of drafting the

project proposal there was the possibility that I would not remain at my

institution long enough to see it through to conclusion, but it was important for

me personally to relate the research to my current practice as I have done

with all other assignments submitted for the MA Education. Going ahead with

the action research project was therefore a risk I was prepared to take,

although it has been difficult to accept that the outcome would now be centred

on the practice of others rather than my own.

Having said that, what I have found particularly rewarding has been the

opportunity to speak to some very experienced academic managers who were

open to discussing and reflecting on their problems, successes and failures in

their endeavours to manage POT and the continual professional development

of their teachers. As well as the insight they have given, I have also gained

valuable experience in what Kvale aptly calls the art of interviewing, a

complex process combining “intuition, creativity, improvisation and breaking

the rules” (2009, p.86). As I progressed through each interview I became

more confident about ceding control to the interviewee, relied less on the


56

formal structure of my schedule and at the same time remaining focused on

the topic. More importantly, my ability to think on my feet and ask questions in

a way that maintains and deepens the discussion has also developed. This is

a valuable transferable skill, one that has certainly helped me succeed in my

new role as Head of Learning Technology.

In fact, the capacity to ask questions is perhaps the most important aptitude

for learning. If, as Wenger so eloquently puts it, “learning is the engine of

practice” (1999, p.96) then questions are the fuel that powers the engine.


57

Appendices

Appendix One: Email Template Used To Request Interviews

From: Darren Gash

Date: (date of email)

To: (email address of manager)

Subject: MA Dissertation on the leadership and management challenges of establishing and maintaining Peer Observation of Teaching Schemes: Interview request

Dear (name)

I am a student on the MA Education (Management in Education) at London

Metropolitan University and am in the process of doing my dissertation for

submission in January 2010. This began as an action research project

focusing on the management and leadership challenges I would face in

establishing and sustaining a Peer Observation of Teaching (POT) scheme at

the college I was working at. Since completing the project proposal in May this

year, agreeing a budget from management for the scheme and

arranging meetings with staff to agree guidelines I resigned my position as

Head Lecturer, Degree Programmes and am now Head of Learning

Technology at (name of institution where I currently work). I have since

discussed a change of methodology with my supervisor and my intention is

to now build on the knowledge and insight I've so far gained by interviewing

higher education personnel with line management responsibilities for peer

observation, with a view to encouraging them to reflect on the challenges they

faced in establishing and maintaining such schemes. The kinds of issues I

would like to explore include:

1) How managers define their roles in relation POT, how participation is

facilitated and how agreement between participants is negotiated.


58

2) How conflicts between participants arising from peer observation are

managed.

3) How managers facilitate the dissemination of best practice, taking into

account the need to maintain confidentiality of proceedings.

4) The manager’s role in encouraging and facilitating reflection and

questioning of values by those participating in the scheme.

5) How managers ensure the continual development of POT schemes.

Through conducting and critically analysing the interviews I aim to present

recommendations for academic managers responsible for existing and future

POT schemes as well as identify avenues for further research.

As I understand you are, or have been, a manager responsible for POT

schemes, and I was wondering if you would be happy to take part in an

interview for 1 hour to discuss your experience of POT from your perspective

as a manager. I would like to conduct the interview either this month or early

November, and am happy to come to your office at your convenience. Please

feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this further. My work

number is (phone number), and work email is (email address). You can also

contact me on my mobile number, which is (phone number). I am also

available online via Wimba Pronto. My username is (username).

Best wishes

Darren Gash, student id 07058076.


59

Appendix Two: Screenshot of Mind Mapping Application Used to Create the

Interview Schedule


60

Appendix Three: Screenshot of Mind Mapping Application Used for the

Interview Analysis


61

Bibliography

Adshead, L., White, P.T. & Stephenson, A. (2006) 'Introducing Peer

Observation of Teaching to GP Teachers: a Questionnaire Study', Med

Teach, 28 (2), pp.68-73.

Alvesson, M. & Skoldberg, K. (1999) Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for

Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Bell, J. (2004) Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time

Researchers in Education and Social Science (3rd Edition). Maidenhead:

Open University Press.

Bell, M. (2001) 'Supported Reflective Practice: a Programme of Peer

Observation and Feedback for Academic Teaching Development', The

International Journal for Academic Development, 6 (1), pp.29-39.

Bennett, S. & Barp, D. (2008) 'Peer Observation - a Case for Doing it Online',

Teaching in Higher Education, 13 (5), pp.559-570.

Bush, T. (2003) Theories of Educational Leadership and Management.

London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Cohen, J. (2003) 'Documenting Teaching Excellence Within the Peer Review

of Teaching', Journalism and Mass Communication Educator.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007) Research Methods in Education

(sixth Edition). London: Routledge.

Cooper, A. (2004) 'Leading Programmes in Learning and Teaching', (ed.)

Enhancing Staff and Educational Development (Seda Series). London:

Routledge,


62

Cosh, J. (1998) 'Peer Observation in Higher Education - A Reflective

Approach', Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 35 (2), pp.171-

176.

Donnelly, R. (2007) 'Perceived Impact of Peer Observation of Teaching in

Higher Education', International Journal of Teaching, Learning in Higher

Education, 19 (2), pp.117-129.

Drever, E. (2003) Using Semi-structured Interviews in Small-scale Research:

A Teacher's Guide. Glasgow: Scottish Council for Research in Education.

Elliott. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change (Developing Teachers

& Teaching). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Evans, J. & Gold, A. (1998) Reflecting on School Management (Master

Classes in Education). London: Routledge.

Frowe, I. (2005) 'Professional Trust', British Journal of Education Studies, 53 (1), pp.34-53.

Garvin, D.A., Edmondson, A.C. & Gino, F. (2008) 'Is Yours a Learning

Organisation?', Harvard Business Review, 86 (3), pp.109-118.

Gash, D. (2008) Whole School Management Essay [essay]. London

Metropolitan University.

Gash, D. (2009) Research Project Proposal [essay]. London Metropolitan

University.

Giddens, A. (1991) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity

Press.


63

Gosling, D. (2005) Peer Observation of Teaching (SEDA Paper). London:

SEDA.

Gosling, D. & O'Connor, K.M. (2009) Beyond the Peer Observation of

Teaching (SEDA Paper). London: SEDA.

Grbich, D.C. (2007) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction. London: Sage

Publications Ltd.

Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (2007) Ethnography: Principles in Practice

(third edition). London: Routledge.

Hammersley-Fletcher, L. & Orsmond, P. (2005) 'Reflecting on Reflective

Practices Within Peer Observation', Studies in Higher Education, 30 (2), pp.213-224.

Hendry, G.D. & Dean, S.J. (2002) 'Accountability, Evaluation of Teaching and

Expertise in Higher Education', The International Journal for Academic

Development, 7 (1), pp.75-82.

Hollway, W. & Jefferson, P.T. (2000) Doing Qualitative Research Differently:

Free Association, Narrative and the Interview Method. London: Sage

Publications Ltd.

Illeris, K. (2007) How We Learn: Learning and non-learning in school and

beyond. London: Routledge.

Knowles, M.S., Holton III, E.F. & Swanson, R.A. (2005) The Adult Learner.

The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development.

London: Elsevier.

Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of

Learning and Development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.


64

Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. (2009) InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative

Research Interviewing. London: SAGE Publications Inc.

Lewin, K. (1973) Resolving Social Conflicts (Condor Books). London:

Souvenir Press Ltd.

Luckmann, T. & Berger, P.L. (1991) The Social Construction of Reality: A

Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Penguin Social Sciences). London:

Penguin.

Lygo-Baker, S. & Hatzipanagos, S. (2007) 'Beyond Peer Review:

Investigating Practitioner Perceptions of Teaching Observations Undertaken

by Academic Developers', The International Journal of Learning, 14 (8), pp.99-105.

Martin, G.A. & Double, J.M. (1998) 'Developing Higher Education Teaching

Skills Through Peer Observation and Collaborative Reflection', Innovations

in Education & Teaching International, 35 (2), pp.161-170.

McCaffery, P. (2004) The Higher Education Manager's Handbook: Effective

Leadership and Management in Universities and Colleges. Oxon: Routledge

Falmer.

McMahon, T., Barrett, T. & O’Neill, G. (2007) 'Using Observation of Teaching

to Improve Quality: Finding Your Way Through the Muddle of Competing

Conceptions, Confusion of Practice and Mutually Exclusive Intentions',

Teaching in Higher Education, 12 (4), pp.499-511.

Mento, A.J. & Giampetro-Meyer, A. (2000) 'Peer Observation of Teaching as

a True Developmental Opportunity', College Teaching, 48 (1), pp.28-31.

Mullins, L. (2007) Management and Organisational Behaviour 8th Edition.

Harlow: Pearson Education.


65

Munson, & R., B. (1998) 'Peers Observing Peers: The Better Way to Observe

Teachers', Contemporary Education, 69 (2), pp.108-110.

Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. & Boydell, T. (2006) A Manager's Guide to Self

Development. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Professional.

Peel, D. (2005) 'Peer Observation as a Transformatory Tool?', Teaching in

Higher Education, 10 (4), pp.489-504.

Pring, R. (2004) Philosophy of Educational Research. London: Continuum

International Publishing Group Ltd.

Ramsden, P. (1998) Learning to Lead in Higher Education. London:

Routledge.

Rubin, D.H.J. & Rubin, D.I.S. (1995) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of

Hearing Data. London: Sage Publications, Inc.

Schutz, K., PhD & Latif, D., PhD (2006) 'The Planning and Implementation of

a Faculty Peer Review Teaching Project', American Journal of

Pharmaceutical Education, 70 (2), pp.1-6.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (2001) Leadership (What's in It for Schools). London:

Routledge Falmer.

Shortland, S. (2004) 'Peer Observation: a Tool for Staff Development or

Compliance?', Journal of Further, Higher Education, 28 (2), pp.219-228.

Shortland, S. (no date) 'Participation, Justice and Trust within Developmental

Peer Observation Teaching: a Model and Research Agenda', International

Journal of Management Education, 6 (1), pp.27-37 [Online]. Available at:

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/bmaf/documents/publications/IJME/Vol61

/Shortland_Peerobs.pdf (Accessed: 12th May 2009).


66

Smith, H.J. (2004) 'The Impact on Staff Development Programmes and

Activities', (ed.) Enhancing Staff and Educational Development (Seda Series).

London: Routledge.

Thompson, S. (2004) 'Leading an Educational Unit', (ed.) Enhancing Staff and

Educational Development (Seda Series). London: Routledge.

Trujillo, J.M., DiVall, M.V., Barr, J., Gonyeau, M., Amburgh, J.A.V., Matthews,

S.J. & Qualters, D. (2009) 'Development of a Peer Teaching-Assessment

Program and a Peer Observation and Evaluation Tool', American Journal of

Pharmaceutical Education, 72 (6), pp.1-9.

Wenger, E. (1999) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity

(Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992) Action Research in Higher Education: Examples and

Reflections. London: Kogan Page.

masters dissertation

Documents

weaknesses of pot

pot schemesthat

models of pot

ma education management

perceived benefits of

academic management

successful peer observation

potential management