Sally Brown, Clive Colling et al.

4. Observing teaching: issues and outcomes

Sally Brown, Clive Colling et al.
From Observing Teaching, SEDA Paper 79, 1993. Reproduced with permission.

Issues

Observation of teaching raises a number of issues that must be addressed before any system for doing so is designed and put into practice. Fundamentally, the designers must ask themselves whether the observation of teaching is primarily developmental, concerned with enabling the lecturer to become a better practitioner or whether it is concerned with control of the academic by the line manager, including some element of accountability for poor performance.

If the former, then there are numerous, demonstrable benefits for all parties and it will be able to be implemented consensually rather then by imposition. If it is designed so that managers can use the process to assert authority over lecturers, a much more confrontational situation is envisaged. Of course, accountability does not necessarily imply a Draconian approach by management; indeed it can be extremely valuable where it is appropriately handled.

These are sometimes described as hard and soft approaches; a hard approach being characterised by the use of, for example, systematic, objective, interactive schedules. Soft approaches tend to be more descriptive activities and may include triangulation of perceptions of lecturer, students and observer. The terms hard and soft should not be viewed as implying value judgments, that is that the former is better or worse than the latter. Different contexts will make one or other approach more appropriate or viable.

Questions

What are the functions of observation? What will be done with the information gained and who will use it?

Is the process of observation to carry rewards and/or penalties or is it simply to provide feedback and inform a pedagogic dialogue or both?

What support can be offered to the lecturer? How can the process be made to be of maximum benefit to the individual as well as the institution?

Is there to be any element of choice about who observes? Some would prefer to be observed by near colleagues rather then distant line managers. Equally, some may prefer the impartiality of someone they do not know well. Some would argue that women should be offered the choice of being observed by a fellow woman. Should those for whom observation is total anathema have the ultimate choice to opt out of being observed? In any case, there is a need for credibility, trust and respect to be an integral part of the process.

Should observers be trained? If so, how should this be done? It is not enough simply to devise a universal checklist and send line managers out to do it. They will need to develop the skills to discuss the criteria used for observation and evaluation with the lecturers being observed. The success of the system will depend heavily on the observers' sensitivity in implementing the agreed scheme.

How can observation be applied to all teaching contexts? It is relatively easy to see how observation can take place in a lecture theatre or a seminar room. But much teaching takes place in one-to-one situations where observation can be more intrusive and the context more sensitive. No system of pro formas can hope to be appropriate for every teaching context, so processes will have to be customised for each individual observation to some extent. Nevertheless, are there some basic criteria which can be applied to all teaching contexts?

Should the lecturer have some say about when he/she is to be observed or should the occasions be at the line manager's discretion entirely? We assert the observer should not be viewed as an inspector swooping into the classroom without warning to catch the lecturer off guard. The levels of stress that many lecturers feel when being watched teaching should not be underestimated.

It should not be assumed that observations conducted without warning are more likely to provide opportunities to view the "real" abilities of the lecturer. It is more likely that the element of shock or surprise will throw the lecturer off balance and performance will be unrepresentatively poor. Some advance knowledge may enable some lecturers to put on a special show for the occasion but if the process is a non-threatening one, lecturers are more likely to be relaxed and to behave (relatively) normally.

What techniques should be incorporated in observation? Will the process incorporate audio or video-recording? Will checklists or recording sheets be used? How far will the observer's subjective responses be incorporated? Will the process incorporate self-evaluation by the lecturer? Will feedback be included?

Values

We assert that there is tremendous potential for observation to be used as a methodology to promote self-knowledge and personal development for the lecturer. They will be able to get new perspectives on their work and possibly become more confident and self-aware. The importance that the institution is seen to be placing on teaching may well help lecturers feel more highly valued.

Students will be likely to benefit, because they will see that the University values and takes note of teaching quality in the classroom. This will be enhanced particularly if the observation process includes an element of student feedback, so that students feel their views are noted.

The institution should gain a better understanding of what actually happens in the classroom, enabling easier identification of developmental and training needs. The effective teacher will be able to be commended and the less able will be supported to improve. Managers will be more confident about the value of teaching processes and will be able to demonstrate this to external agencies.

Conflict can largely be defused if the process is designed to be supportive rather than authoritarian or sanctioning. If it is imposed in a strictly hierarchical way, we assert that it will become a bone of contention between academics and their line managers and this will lead to lost opportunities. We therefore propose the following guidelines:

Guidelines for practice

• Observation of teaching should never be unannounced. Timing, duration, criteria and process should be agreed in advance.
• As far as possible, the choice of who does the observing should be a matter of negotiation between relevant parties. For preference, we would advocate the incorporation of peer observation.
• As with appraisal, it should be delegated to the lowest level, rather than weighted towards the top of the hierarchy.
• Observers will need to be trained to maximise the learning potential of the process. Discussion before and after the observation will provide opportunities for discussion, feedback and identification of training needs. It is vital that there should be a debriefing process for participants, and some negotiation about the processes being observed. Ideally, both the person observing and the person being observed should receive training, as in appraisal.
• Clear, overt and agreed criteria about what constitutes good teaching will need to be debated and agreed.
• Observation should be viewed as an on-going process rather than a one-off event.
• Observation systems will need to accommodate the numerous practices that make up the modem academic's teaching work and not just concentrate on conventional lecturing.
• Observation of teaching should not imply a deficit model. It is not concerned with finding faults and remedying them (although this might form a part of the process). The Educational Development Service at the University of Northumbria at Newcastle uses Teaching Process Recall, a methodology using videotapes through which lecturers can look closely at their own teaching and learn from it. [See Tony Claydon and Liz McDowell, Watching yourself teach and learning from it, Observing Teaching, SEDA Paper 79, 1993.]
• While observation of teaching may well inform the appraisal process, where it can be tremendously valuable in contributing to the dialogue on teaching and learnng, it should be specifically delinked from Performance Related Pay.

Conclusions

Systems for the observation of teaching can be devised in such a way that they are acceptable to an participants and that they can add meaningfully to the dialogue on teaching performance. Heavy-handed and over-instrumental systems will be counter-productive, however. Instead, we look forward to a developmental model being implemented that satisfies the needs of each constituent groups and which promotes genuine improvement in the quality of teaching in the University of Northumbria at Newcastle.