Peer Support for Teaching

1. Peer Support for Teaching 18th March 2011

2. Peer Support for Teaching 2011 • PST originated through a review of the University’s 2001 Peer Observation of Teaching Policy Positive Feedback Negative Feedback • Can improve teaching • Can identify good practice • Induction for new staff • Responding to student feedback • Can satisfy ‘quality’ expectations • Interesting in itself • ‘Hoop jumping’ exercise • Problems with pairings • ‘One size fits all’ approach • Burdensome • Uneven implementation • Is simply not effective

3. Peer Support for Teaching 2011 • PST 2011 is about: • Quality improvement (not quality assurance monitoring) • An holistic view of learning and teaching • Evidence-based and scholarly enhancement • Collegiality in the support and development of practice • Flexibility for departments in application • PST is core to the University’s pursuit of high quality and continuously improving educational provision • PST should be a means of enabling, and tangibly demonstrating commitment to, real improvement

4. Identifying the focus for PST • Pro-active exploration of pre-identified question / issue / problem / challenge • Could be: • Justifiable basis / reason for what area is chosen • There is no one ‘size’ to what can/cannot be explored Department-wide requiring a common approach • Department-wide not requiring a common approach Department- targeted for specific individual / group Independently identified by staff

5. Organising PST Groups • All staff engaged with front-line teaching should be engaged with PST (to an appropriate extent) • Groups may be: • The means by which the focus is decided upon may influence how groups are put together • Note: PST need not be ‘reciprocal’ in the same way that Peer Observation might have been Pre-existing ‘Engineered’ Self-selected Random

6. Allocating PST Cycle Timescales Departmentally determined Group determined • The timescale for PST cycles may be: • Most cycles will be completed within a single year but not necessarily all • Timescales should be realistic: allowing sufficient time for the issue to be considered but not so much that momentum will be lost • Groups should differentiate between primary outcomes and secondary outcomes

7. Undertaking the PST Cycle • The PST process should be productive and scholarly (evidence based) • PST groups should normally be expected to meet formally at least twice but potentially more than this • As appropriate, support staff both departmentally- and centrally-based, can be approached to contribute to PST groups • In each PST group someone should take responsibility for overall co-ordination

8. Reporting 1: PST Groups to Department • PST groups should report to the department annually in a format and to a deadline agreed internally • Departments should balance the benefits of group confidentiality in promoting openness with the need to ensure PST is being engaged with • Minimally reports should detail who is involved in the PST group, the issue being considered, the activities undertaken, the status of the PST cycle and what findings could be disseminated within the department. • Departments should have a mechanism for disseminating findings internally

9. Reporting 2: Department to University • Departments should refer to PST in their APRs • Departmental records of PST should be made available to groups / panels who visit to audit / review L&T provision (e.g. periodic review panels, UTC departmental visits etc.) • Departments will be encouraged to disseminate PST findings via University-level mechanisms e.g. Forum magazine, L&T conference, University learning and teaching page etc.

10. Next Steps… • Departments should develop their own PST plans for implementation from October 2011 • Key points: • Who is responsible for overseeing PST and how will this individual / group operate? • What will be the calendar for PST within the department? • How can PST groups report to the department in a way that is efficient for all individuals concerned? • What information will PST groups be asked to report that will demonstrate progress but will maintain a sense of confidentiality and avoid a sense of ‘managerialism’? • How will the outcomes of PST be disseminated?