TEACHER SELF-REFLECTION AS A RESULT OF PEER OBSERVATION-FEEDBACK MODEL

Reflection has long been advocated in the literature as a vital means of investigating the personal and professional self. It is believed that teacher development might be more efficient if driven by peer observation and accompanied by a structured follow-up discussion. The purpose of this study is to investigate the attitudes of instructors towards a peer observation-feedback model. It is hypothesized that when involved in peer observation and feedback, instructors will report improvement on their teaching styles and methodology.

INTRODUCTION

Educators’ reflection is an inseparable part of their professional development (Cooper et al., 2011). Many researchers have studied the development of reflection as an important process in learning and teaching to enhance teachers’ knowledge, methodology, and primarily, their teaching philosophy (Schön, 1996). So, what happens when one independently reflects on teaching practices? Honigsfeld and Dove (2010) believe that when reflecting on teaching, the instructor develops a deeper understanding of his/her own actions, a firmer grasp on the processes that take place in the classroom, and stronger problem-solving skills. A peer observation-feedback model, on the other hand, acts as an engine that pushes a teacher to more structured self-reflection. Snyder (2011) considers that learning from others in similar situations is important for anyone who wants to grow professionally, but especially for those who teach.

However, recently, there has been a tendency that novice teachers (Kumi-Yeboah & James, 2012) may be the only ones to benefit from observation and feedback while experienced teachers are capable of reflecting and enhancing their teaching independently (Chandler & Ruffinelli de Ortiz, 2004; Salas & Mercado, 2010). With this idea in mind, we want to understand whether both novice and experienced teachers value a peer observation-feedback model. Do they like to be observed? Do they really want to improve their teaching, and if yes, then how? Do they see the change in their teaching style based on the peer observation and feedback meeting? And finally, do they take into account or refer to the peer feedback for further development? The following research looks to
find answers to the questions presented above.

LITERATURE REVIEW

There are many ways to review teaching practices in the classroom, including teacher assessments, evaluations, and observations. Each type of review has its own goals and purposes, and within the teaching community, the names carry different connotations (Wood & Harding, 2007; Brown & Crumpler, 2013). The review processes have become intimidating and scary; teachers would prefer to not be on either end – neither the observer nor observed (McIntyre & Mehta, 2003; Goldstein, 2004). Assessments and evaluations by peers and supervisors have separate, but equally valuable goals. A supervisor’s evaluation will often carry a reward whereas a peer will focus on professional improvement (Wood & Harding, 2007).

Besides the positive or negative associations with the terms assessments, evaluations, and observations, the last few decades have seen changes in their definitions. In 1997, Brent and Felder did not differentiate peer evaluation and peer observation suggesting that the evaluation could either be exclusively for the instructors’ self-improvement or could be used for evaluative purposes. This has changed in recent decades; Wood and Harding (2007, p.940 as cited in Brown & Crumpler, 2013, p.140) distinguished these as two different reviews: peer review is meant for ‘quality assurance or for reward’ [and] peer observation is ‘for the purpose of professional development and the dissemination of good practice’. While assessments and evaluations are often tied to salary or promotion, observation is done solely for individual and professional growth. The question remains: Is professional development a priority for instructors?

Peer observation accompanied by a feedback meeting is one of the most powerful motivators to prompt teachers’ self-reflection and professional growth (Yiend et al., 2014; Ackerman et al., 2009; Schön, 1996; Zeichner & Liston, 1996). In Rothberg and Fenner’s (1991) study, the overwhelming majority of their respondents, with various levels of experience, considered peer observation necessary to advance their professional development. According to Gordon and Jan (1978), an ideal peer group is that of three to five teachers who support one another in a variety of ways to help each member improve his/her teaching. When observing others or being observed, people learn from each other and work more productively as they feel supported (Marzano & Toth, 2013; Kumrow & Dahlen, 2002; Gordon & Jan, 1978). Moreover, while Mayer (1992) claims that [trainers] learn from their job, we would add that many practitioners learn from their job and colleagues.

Consistent with Gordon and Jan’s (1978) recommendations, observation and feedback are most effectively provided by a peer, i.e. practice shows that a peer, “who is well-grounded in the content area” (Brown & Crumpler, 2013, p.139) and in current and established teaching methods offers more sound and constructive feedback (Kohut et al., 2007). Observation by a peer also facilitates a non-threatening environment that favors a more comfortable process, especially for first-time participants in non-evaluative observation. A peer should be kind and assertive so that “rich, constructive and meaningful insights into teaching practices” (Carroll & O’Loughlin, 2014, p.453) are achieved.

Reflective practices have developed over the last four decades. Today, more teachers and teacher educators appreciate teaching through a lens of reflection (Snyder, 2011), but even as far back as 1986, Greene was acknowledging that reflection involved not only emotions, passions, and intuitions but also logical thinking processes. Stanley (1998) wrote extensively on this topic including a series of phases, some of which have been integrated into this research: engaging with reflection, thinking reflectively, and using reflection. Carroll and O’Loughlin’s (2014) holistic approach encompasses and brings into the 21st century Greene’s visions of appealing to the emotional and logical character of reflection.

Honigsfeld and Dove (2010) ask if teachers stop and reflect often enough. But rather the question is: Do teachers notice their reflection or changes? The peer observation-feedback model includes an observation, not an evaluation, by a practicing peer instructor who offers follow-up feedback in a positive and comfortable environment encouraging structured self-reflection.

RESEARCH GOALS AND QUESTIONS

The present research has the following purposes, to investigate: whether present-day instructors are in favor of being observed; their attitude to the peer observation; their beliefs on any impact peer observation may have on their teaching styles and behavior. Another area of interest will be to see if the instructors refer to their peer observations and if they take them into account for further improvement.

The above purposes give rise to the following questions:

1. Do the instructors value peer observation? If yes, why?
2. Does the instructor find that peer observation helps or hurts their teaching practices?
3. Do instructors take into account peer observations when considering their professional development and improvement? Why and how?
4. Do instructors report changes or improvements to their teaching style based on this observation and the feedback meeting? If yes, how?

In light of these questions, we will define what the peer observation-feedback model is and what the future applications of this model are.

METHODS

The following study compares the answers obtained from full-time ADA University faculty in the School of Education (N=9) in Baku who teach public speaking, ethics, writing and information literacy, and leadership courses during the 2018-2019 academic year. Initially, we had 10 respondents but were only able to include 9 participants as the final respondent had no observable class sessions remaining in the semester. The faculty’s education levels range from bachelor’s to doctoral degrees; their teaching experience varies from two to fifteen years. Three respondents were males, while the other six were females.

Following approval of the study by the University administration, the instructors were e-mailed and completed an electronic informed consent form where they agreed to participate in an extended research project. At this time, they were provided with a detailed outline of the time commitment. The research included the completion of two surveys, an in-class observation followed by a feedback conversation, and a final reflective narrative. The pre-observation survey focused on the instructors’ most recent class taught. They answered questions regarding class preparation, any mid-lesson changes, objectives of the class, and general thoughts on observations. The final question requested class observation availabilities. The researchers equally split the observations based on their corresponding schedules. An e-mail was sent to each participant to confirm the observation. At this time, the instructors were e-mailed a version of the observation feedback form. This form would remain for the participant’s eyes only (McIntyre & Mehta, 2003) since our purpose was neither evaluative nor for the university’s administration. The observations lasted three weeks.

After the first week, the researchers met to discuss the observations and norm the feedback for each participant. To facilitate the conversation, feedback was limited to two-three examples of positive teaching practices and one to two areas that could be developed. The observers were careful to only suggest, not insist on these areas of improvement, and the instructor was encouraged to define their own weaknesses. Within one week of the observation, each participant met with the researcher who observed them. The observation feedback form structured the conversation between the peer-observer (the researcher) and the observed instructor. The instructor received the written feedback form including the notes; the researchers did not retain this paper. Within 24-36 hours of the feedback meeting, the participants were e-mailed the post-observation survey that focused on five main areas: class preparation, any mid-lesson changes, objectives of the class, the peer observation feedback, and general or evolved thoughts on peer observations. All participants completed this second survey without needing a reminder. Between the postobservation survey and the narrative, the participants had a winter break and then taught 5 weeks of classes of the subsequent semester, two months in total. The reflective narrative form was emailed out, and participants were asked to complete it within two weeks. This final form asked the faculty to reflect on any impacts the peer observation and feedback meeting may have had on their teaching practices, specifically during syllabus design and the first 5 weeks of the second semester.

RESULTS

The first set of questions compares the instructors’ pre– and post-observation lesson planning process and implementation. Respondents were asked how much time they spent planning their lesson. Seven of nine participants’ lesson planning time for an unobserved and observed class remained constant. Of the two participants whose time fluctuated, one increased his/her lesson planning time for the observed class, and one decreased his/her lesson planning time for the observed class (see Table1).

Table I Pre– and Post-Observation Lesson Plan

Similarly, respondents were asked to indicate whether they type/write down or memorize their lesson plan before they teach it. Of the 9 respondents, 44 percent reported typing/writing down their lesson plan for their unobserved classes, whereas 66 percent did it for the observed class.

The majority of the respondents also claimed not to change any part of their plan mid-lesson. When asked about their objectives, 78 percent reported that they specify their objectives for the class. Of these 7 participants, 4 wrote their objectives and 3 simply kept their objectives in mind. Just two respondents admitted that they did not specify the objectives for the unobserved lesson. The numbers are slightly different for the observed class with 100 percent specifying their objectives. The majority wrote these objectives down, while 22 percent kept them in mind. 

Interestingly, 70 percent claimed their objectives both for their unobserved and observed classes were met. One of the respondents admitted not to have met his/her objectives in the unobserved class, yet, they were partially met during the observed lesson. Additionally, instructors were asked to define whether their objectives were the right objectives for both classes. The results demonstrate that the majority of instructors were more critical of the objectives for the observed lesson than their unobserved lesson and demonstrated a degree of uncertainty using phrases such as I think and I believe when appraising the observed class (see Table 2).

Table II Looking back, were your objectives the right objectives for today?

Finally, instructors were asked to specify the success of their classes (see Chart 1). To analyze the results, we used a Likert scale with 5 being the most successful and 1 being the least successful. The chart demonstrates that the majority of respondents measure their classes at 4 or 5 (89 percent for their unobserved class and 68 percent for their observed class). There was a slight drop in the
self-reported success rate for the observed class, with one-third of respondents rating their class at just a 3.

Chart I How would you rate the success of your class?

Instructors were asked in the pre-observation survey to specify elements of the lesson that an observer might have noticed; instructors described the following obstacles: some of my students were not prepared for the planned class discussion; passive  students, no differentiation tasks, fast pace; they look a bit uncertain if they are [following the directions] in the right way; students were less motivated; and some students were packing their stuff before the lesson was over. The instructors also indicated positive aspects of their class an observer might detect: a level of interactivity; students are fairly participative; an orderly sequence followed in delivering the lesson; students work independently in groups; a structured presentation [and] practical activities; and organization, discussion, and friendly atmosphere. 

Table III Percentages for the perception of observation

Another set of questions sought to understand instructors’ perception of observations (see Table 3). Initially, participants were asked if they had ever been observed by their peers. The absolute majority contended that this was not the first time they were observed, and they find peer observation very helpful. Five respondents think that peer observation is important and four others believe it to be very important. Finally, all of the respondents claim that a follow-up conversation plays a crucial role in the development of instructors. On the other hand, the majority of respondents reported that their previous observations were structured differently from the current one which included four distinct steps: the peer schedules a mutually agreed upon observation time; the peer observes the class; the peer takes notes; the peer has a follow-up meeting.

Table IV The way regular peer observation takes place

As seen from Table 4, previous peer observations have followed the same first three steps; however, only 22 percent of participants have experienced the final step: a follow-up feedback meeting. Turning to our post-observation survey questions, we wanted to  glean instructors’ opinions on what they liked and disliked about being observed; if they had made any changes in their classrooms afterward; and if the post-observation feedback meeting affected their mindset for the next lesson they planned (see Table 5). Six respondents found that the detailed feedback was quite interesting and useful; for two of the respondents it seemed not to be overwhelming, and one of the respondents liked to hear the observer’s viewpoints regarding his/her class. Two instructors pointed to the possibility of more classes to be observed to get regular feedback. Another inspiring issue is that all of the respondents found the feedback helpful. Regarding the changes implemented onwards, at the time of the post-observation survey, one of the respondents had already implemented some changes, three respondents had slightly implemented changes into their further classes, and five of the instructors were planning to implement changes. Finally, five respondents claimed that the post-observation feedback meeting affected their mindset for the next lesson plan, one of the participants was partly affected by the follow-up conversation, two others assumed that their mindset might be slightly affected, while only one respondent reported not to be affected at all.

Table V Instructors’ opinions on being observed

When asked whether they believe that peer observation and the follow-up feedback meeting are important for the instructor’s development, 100 percent of the respondents replied positively. Moreover, they justify their answer in the following ways (see Table 6).

Table VI Reasons why peer observation and a follow-up meeting should be important for the instructors

To conclude, the majority of respondents believe that peer-observation is important to share practices and to see the class from the opposite side; the follow-up feedback meeting helps to reflect on their teaching.

As stated earlier, five weeks later after the winter break, the instructors were asked to complete a reflective narrative where they explained whether the peer observation and feedback meeting had an impact on their teaching practices. The majority of instructors discussed a noticeable positive change in their lessons after participating in this research study. Specifically, they emphasized the value of the follow-up feedback meeting. Another important aspect of the research was providing structured self-reflection. This was achieved by the observer’s guidance through making incremental changes. Finally, nearly all the respondents emphasized the importance of incorporating the peer observation-feedback model into university professional development.

DISCUSSION

Self-reflection encourages educators to examine their experiences and solve problems in a constructive manner (Snyder, 2011). The components of our peer observation-feedback model provided participants with a structured self-reflection process aimed to make areas for development visible to the observed.

Decades of research show that teachers want to improve (Marzano & Toth, 2013; Barnard et al., 2011; Brent & Felder, 1997; Rothberg & Fenner, 1991), hence, as mentioned in the introduction, our aim was to see the steps teachers take to improve. We went into our research questioning if the participants valued observation and why. Our participants, through their responses, demonstrated that improvement and observations are valuable to them, reporting: “observation is important” (Respondent #3) and “helpful” (Respondent #5). Arguably, no improvement can be possible if instructors are not observed and given adequate and structured feedback. More specifically, as one participant indicated, an observation “shows the students ‘/listeners’ perspective which I cannot always notice” (Respondent #4).

When asked if instructors consider peer observations for professional development and improvement, we found that the answer is not a simple yes or no. The majority had participated in observations previously, but the benefits were not always apparent. Whereas, in our study, they valued and benefited from [1] the peer aspect and [2] the follow-up feedback meeting.

The peer aspect is an important part of an observation. A solid understanding of the topic at hand is how trust is gained and with trust, observers can be candid in their observations. “A nonthreatening environment is vital to be established within the context of how [the observation] is to be conducted” (Respondent #7). This safe environment, as reflected on by one of our respondents is consistent with the writing of Kohut et al. (2007) who emphasized the importance of trust – and Carroll and O’Loughlin (2014) who furthered with an idea by writing that trust is achieved by using a peer. Where a relationship has already been established, a safe space for both negative and positive feedback is provided. A “peer opinion is always good” (Respondent #6).

The results of the study revealed that the majority of participating instructors prioritize being observed and participating in self-reflection. Moreover, we believed that instructors would not want to be observed because they would be nervous, specifically because previous observations had been conducted by administrators and tied to evaluations and promotions. We did not find this to be true, save one participant, “Categorically, I was observed by my colleagues but they were also my heads and immediate supervisors and they primarily observed me in my classes for evaluation and promotion purposes” (Respondent #6). The same instructor was nervous about being observed. “It was non-threatening – although at the beginning I thought it would be” (Respondent #6). 

Research supports that feedback facilitates instructor development and improvement (Yiend et al., 2014). But unlike Yiend et al., we have found that the instructors prefer a feedback conversation meeting, not just written feedback, to be beneficial.

“This is the most important part because written feedback is often brief and leaves out many details that the observer notices. Both have an opportunity to discuss why the teacher made the choices s/he made, how teaching can be improved, what went well and not so well. Also, I believe it is easier to accept a lesson critique in person than in a written form.” (Respondent #4)

Considering that the majority of the respondents took time to reflect on their teaching for the second term as a result of a follow-up meeting, we may claim that an observation followed by a clearly structured feedback meeting is capable of changing the instructors’ mindset. “I will pay more attention to clarifying the objectives to my students and work on the strategy to scaffold them with the presented material by the end of the session” (Respondent #5). And Respondent #1 said: “I need to introduce some changes into the related syllabus so I will completely get use of the peer’s recommendation and students will be [more] prepared to meet the new technique to be used in the learning process.”

In line with the longstanding ideas of Honigsfeld and Dove (2010), Snyder (2011), Zeichner and Liston (1996), it can be concluded that reflection allows instructors to examine their own teaching. Our instructors, by opting into the study, showed that they have an interest in reflecting on and changing their teaching practices. In fact, 78 percent (N=7) of participants said they liked being observed. When asked, instructors unanimously agreed that observations are important, and feedback and follow-up meetings help develop professionally.

In the final reflective narrative, there was no change and instructors supported these ideas with the following quotes:

“Teachers can get useful recommendations on how to make their teaching better.” (Respondent #1)

“Otherwise how to be informed about the shortcomings?” (Respondent #3)

“Because it completes the entire process of peer observation altogether. Without a follow-up feedback conversation, no real teaching improvement may take place.” (Respondent #6)

This final quote explicitly aligns with the hypothesis that a structured model including observation and feedback, not solely an observation as experienced previously by our participants, enhances self-reflection and improvement.

The influence of the peer observation-feedback model on the instructors’ self-reflection can be observed when we compare the language used by the instructors as they reflected on their lesson objectives. Before being observed the language was definitive: “Yes, the lesson went as planned and the students seemed to understand the content” (Respondent #8). Whereas after the observation this changed to be more suggestive and reflective: “Possibly not; some of the students probably needed more of a theoretical walkthrough of the concepts” (Respondent #8). In the post-observation survey, the conclusive yes evolved into phrases such as I believe, I think, probably, and however.

This peer observation-feedback model set out to provide a process for self-reflection followed by self-directed improvement. At no point were the participants given goals, timelines, or directions to change by the observer. The changes the observed instructors reported were directed and chosen individually. The observer acted as a mirror; “It reminded me to use what I already know in theory but may forget to implement in my lessons on a daily basis” (Respondent #3). The instructors found that the peer observation-feedback model was useful. Respondent #2 reported in his/her narrative “I have already included an important point from the feedback in question into my teaching practice” and Respondent #1 said, “It helped me to put extra efforts on engaging students into their own learning process.”

Providing that our participant were the specialists of various educational background (MAs and PhDs), whose teaching experience ranged from two to fifteen years, we can contend that the peer observation-feedback model is of great benefit for instructors of all experience levels. The model is a process through which an instructor invites a peer observer to hold up a metaphorical mirror to their teaching and walk them through a structured self-reflection. Particularly today, when we instructors face a huge number of new materials, deal with different approaches and techniques, and encounter a variety of students with different cultures and backgrounds, peer collaboration is simply inevitable. Thus, the current research though limited to a small number of respondents is a good motivation to do a larger study on finding the ways and techniques for a formative peer collaboration as the main goal.

Limitations: Regarding the limitations of the research, the greatest challenge during the study was time. Within their conversation on collaboration, Sufflebeam and Shinkfield (2007) claim it is difficult to find common time among peer instructors. We also found this limiting in our research. Had we had more time, we could have observed more participants; one participant was excluded from our study because of a time constraint. 

An additional limitation of our study was the scope; we included instructors from only the School of Education but not the other schools at the university. By expanding the scope, we could provide a better picture of the value of self-reflection across the university.

Lastly, our study could have been enhanced by multiple observations of individual instructors. As we were focused on a structured self-reflection model, follow-up observations would have provided the instructors with an opportunity to direct the second (or third) observation based upon the area they had chosen to improve.

Recommendations for future research: Some instructors expressed their interest in multiple observations to be able to give a healthier appraisal of their classes. That is, to develop teaching practices, a future study could follow an instructor who welcomes a colleague to observe and guide them through a reflection process multiple times. With this in mind, the two areas we recommend for future research are: expanding the participants to include other colleges at this university; and creating a longitudinal study where the observed instructors participate in multiple observations over the course of the academic year. Finally, implementation of a peer observation-feedback model in the present-day educational institutions should be the goal to achieve improvement.

References

¹ Ackerman, D., Gross, B., & Vigneron, F. (2009). Peer Observation Reports and Student Evaluations of Teaching: Who Are the Experts? The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 55(1): 18-39.
² Barnard, A., Croft, W., Irons., R. (2011). Peer Partnership to Enhance Scholarship of Teaching: a case study. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(4): 435-448.
³ Brent R and Felder RM (1997) It Takes one to know one. Chemical Engineer Education, 31(1): 32-33.
⁴ Brown, I., & Crumpler, T. (2013). Assessment of Foreign Language Teachers: A Model for Shifting Evaluation Toward Growth and Learning. The High School Journal, 96(2): 138-151.
⁵ Carroll, C. & O’Loughlin, D. (2014). Peer observation in teaching: enhancing academic engagement for new participants. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(4): 446-456.
⁶ Chandler, P.M. & Ruffinelli, O.S. (2004). Building Consensus on Teacher Assessment. English Teaching Forum, the United States and Paraguay, July pp.22-31.
⁷ Cooper, J., He, Y., & Levin, B. (2011). Developing Critical Cultural Competence. California: Corwin.
⁸ Goldstein, J. (2004). Making Sense of Distributed Leadership: The case of peer assistance and review. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(2): 173-197.
⁹ Gordon, L., & Jan, B. (1978). Peer support as the heart of in-service education. Theory into practice, 17(3): 245-247.
¹⁰ Greene, M. (1986). Reflection and Passion in teaching. Journal of curriculum supervision, 2(1): 68-81.
¹¹ Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. (2010). Collaboration and Co-teaching. London: Corwin.
¹² Kohut, G., Burnap, C., & Yon, M. (2007). Peer observation of Teaching: Perceptions of the Observer and the Observed. College Teaching, 55(1): 19-25.

¹³ Kumi-Yeboah, A., & James, W. (2012). Transformational teaching experience of novice teachers: a narrative of an award-winning teacher. Adult Learning, 23(4), pp.170-177.
¹⁴ Kumrow, D., & Dahlen, B. (2002). Is peer review an effective approach for evaluating teachers? The Clearing House, 75(5): 238-241.
¹⁵ Marzano, R., & Toth, M. (2013). Teacher evaluation that makes a difference. Virginia: ASCD.
¹⁶ Mayer, S. (1992). Cultivating reflection-in-action in trainer development. Adult Learning, 3(4), pp.16-31.
¹⁷ McIntyre, C. & Mehta, S. (2003). A Program for Faculty Peer Review of Teaching at North Dakota University. In: 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference S1A.
¹⁸ Rothberg, R., & Fenner, M. (1991). Teacher Perceptions of Teacher Assessment. The Clearing House, 64(4): 272-274.
¹⁹ Salas, S., & Mercado, L. (2010). Looking for the Big Picture: Macrostrategies for L2 Teacher Observation and Feedback. English Teaching Forum #4, the United States and Peru, pp.18-23.
²⁰ Schön, D. (1996). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
²¹ Snyder, D. (2011). Preparing for teaching through reflection. Music Educator Journal, 97(3): 56-60.
²² Stanley, C. (1998). A framework for teacher reflectivity. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3): 584-591.
²³ Stufflebeam, D., & Shinkfield, A. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
²⁴ Wood, L.N., & Harding, A. (2007). Can you show you are a good lecturer? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 38(7): 937-947.
²⁵ Yiend, J., Weller, S., & Kinchin, I. (2014). Peer observation of teaching; The interaction between peer review and developmental models of practice. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38(4): 465-484.
²⁶ Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.