Peer Observation of Teaching in Higher Education: Systematic Review of Observation Tools

Background/purpose. This study presents a systematic review of teaching observation instruments in the current literature based on PRISMA standards.

Materials/methods. Three researchers performed searches on two databases, SCOPUS and Web of Science, focusing on two criteria: a) peer observation of teaching and b) higher education, with search terms included in the “Title/Keyword” fields. The AND command was used to join certain words, including peer observation and teaching, whilst the OR command was used to separate search terms within each criterion. Five exclusion criteria were defined and applied following the initial searches. The quality of research conducted in the literature using observation tools was assessed using a validated instrument in social science research.

Results. The results revealed a total of 13 instruments that were analyzed in terms of four variables: country, validation, observation, and feedback. a) Country: More than half were designed by researchers from universities in the United States and Australia. b) Validation: Only three studies were designed following some kind of validation procedure. c/d) Observation and feedback: The number of items ranged from very loosely structured, with only a few items, to more comprehensive research. The most repeated item (8 of 13 instruments) was about the objectives of the observation section. Four study instruments included only an observation section, with no specific feedback section. Of the remainder, some included all three aspects of “strengths,” “weaknesses,” and “comments” in the feedback section, while others included only a feedback section.

Conclusion. Excessive question numbers could make observation exercises overly complex, unless the items are distributed and observed across several sessions. An appropriate number of questions would correspond to the amount deemed by teachers themselves to be essential to observe the teaching process. Observation tools should include fields in which observers may add qualitative comments to deepen the understanding of the record and to improve the feedback quality.

Keywords: Instruments, peer partner, education tertiary, mentoring

References

Aiken, L. R. (1980). Content Validity and Reliability of Single Items or Questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40(4), 955-959. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448004000419

Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Popp, S. E. O. (2012). Peer observations among faculty in a college of education: Investigating the summative and formative uses of the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP). Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24(1), 5-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-011-9135-1

Barnard, A., Croft, W., Irons, R., Cuffe, N., Bandara, W., & Rowntree, P. (2011). Peer partnership to enhance scholarship of teaching: A case study. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(4), 435-448. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.518953

Bell, A., & Mladenovic, R. (2008). The benefits of peer observation of teaching for tutor development. Higher Education, 55(6), 735-752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9093-1

Bell, M., & Cooper, P. (2013). Peer observation of teaching in university departments: A framework for implementation. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(1), 60-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2011.633753

Biesta, G. (2019). What is the Educational Task? Arousing the Desire for Wanting to Exist in the World in a Grown-up Way. Pedagogía y Saberes, 50, 51-61. https://doi.org/10.17227/pys.num50-9498

Bolt, S. (2013). Closing the Loop with Collegiate Conversations in an Australian Voluntary Peer Review of Teaching Program. International Journal on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(3), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v19i03/48643

Brooks, C., Carroll, A., Gillies, R. M., & Hattie, J. (2019). A matrix of feedback for learning. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 14-32. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v44n4.2

Brooks, C., Huang, Y., Hattie, J., Carroll, A., & Burton, R. (2019). What Is My Next Step? School Students’ Perceptions of Feedback. Frontiers in Education, 4, Article 96. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00096

Burgess, S., Rawal, S., & Taylor, E. S. (2021). Teacher peer observation and student test scores: Evidence from a field experiment in English secondary schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 39(4), 1155-1186. https://doi.org/10.1086/712997

Byrne, J., Brown, H., & Challen, D. (2010). Peer development as an alternative to peer observation: A tool to enhance professional development. International Journal for Academic Development, 15(3), 215-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2010.497685

Cannarozzo, M., Gallo, P., Lo Coco, A., Megna, B., Musso, P., & Scialdone, O. (2019). The Peer Observation: “Mentore” Project at University of Palermo. Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning, 8, 237-248. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29872-2_14

Carbone, A., Ross, B., Phelan, L., Lindsay, K., Drew, S., Stoney, S., & Cottman, C. (2015). Course evaluation matters: improving students’ learning experiences with a peer-assisted teaching programme. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(2), 165-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.895894

Carragher, J., & McGaughey, J. (2016). The effectiveness of peer mentoring in promoting a positive transition to higher education for first-year undergraduate students: A mixed methods systematic review protocol. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), Article 68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0245-1

Cosh, J. (1998). Peer observation in higher education – A reflective approach. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 35(2), 171-176. https://doi.org/10.1080/1355800980350211

Drew, S., Klopper, C., & Nulty, D. (2015). Defining and developing a framework for the peer observation of teaching. In C. Klopper & S. Drew (Eds.), Teaching for Learning and Learning for Teaching (pp. 13-34). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-289-9_2

García, I., James, R. W., Bischof, P., & Baroffio, A. (2017). Self-Observation and Peer Feedback as a Faculty Development Approach for Problem-Based Learning Tutors: A Program Evaluation. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 29(3), 313-325. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2017.1279056

Georgiou, H., Sharma, M., & Ling, A. (2018). Peer review of teaching: What features matter? A case study within STEM faculties. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(2), 190-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1342557

Goñi, A., Esnaola, I., Ruiz De Azua, S., Rodriguez, A., & Zulaika, L. M. (2003). Autoconcepto físico y desarrollo personal: perspectivas de investigación [Physical self-concept and personal development: research perspectives]. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 15-16, 7-62. https://ojs.ehu.eus/index.php/psicodidactica/article/view/156

Gosling, D. (2002, August). Models of peer observation of teaching [Keynote address at LTSNGC Peer Observation of Teaching Conference.

Gosling, D. (2014). Collaborative Peer-Supported Review of Teaching. In J. Sach and M. Parsell (Eds.), Peer Review of Learning and Teaching in Higher (pp. 13-32). Springer.

Hassel, D. M., Fahie, M., Loehr, C. V., Halsey, R. L., Vernau, W., & Gorman, E. (2020). Inter-institutional collaboration for the development of a local peer observation process to enhance teaching. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 47(5), 555-569. https://doi.org/10.3138/JVME-2019-0093

Hattie, J., & Clarke, S. (2018). Visible learning: Feedback. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429485480

Johnston, A. L., Baik, C., & Chester, A. (2022). Peer review of teaching in Australian higher education: a systematic review. Higher Education Research and Development, 41(2), 390-404. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1845124

Kohut, G. F., Burnap, C., & Yon, M. G. (2007). Peer Observation of Teaching: Perceptions of the Observer and the Observed. College Teaching, 55(1), 19-25. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.55.1.19-25

López-López, E., Tobón, S., & Juárez-Hernández, L. G. (2019). Scale to evaluate scientific articles in social and human sciences – SSAHS. Revista Iberoamericana Sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio En Educacion, 17(4), 111-125. https://doi.org/10.15366/REICE2019.17.4.006

López-Noguero, F. (2002). El Análisis de contenido como método de investigación [Content analysis as a research method]. Revista de Educación, 4, 167-180. https://www.uhu.es/publicaciones/ojs/index.php/xxi/article/view/610

López Pastor, V. M. (1999). Prácticas de evaluación en educación física: estudio de casos en primaria, secundaria y formación de profesorado [Assessment practices in physical education case study in primary, secondary and teacher training] [Doctoral dissertation, University of Valladolid, Spain]. https://produccioncientifica.ucm.es/documentos/5d1df62729995204f7662e4c?lang=gl

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Moscoso, S. C., Antonio Pérez-Gil, J., Pablo, F., Tello, H., & Ruiz, Á. L. (2003). Evaluación de la calidad universitaria: validez de contenido [Evaluation of university quality: validity of content. Psychotherna]. Psicotherna, 13(2), 294-301. https://reunido.uniovi.es/index.php/PST/article/view/7833

Muijs, D., Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P. M., & Teddlie, C. (2018). Assessing individual lessons using a generic teacher observation instrument: how useful is the International System for Teacher Observation and Feedback (ISTOF)? ZDM - Mathematics Education, 50(3), 395-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0921-9

Mutlu-Gülbak, G. (2023). Expectations for Training Mentors: Insights from a Preservice Language Teacher Education Program. Educational Process: International Journal, 12(2), 76-92. https://dx.doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2023.122.5

Noor, S., & Md Isa, F. (2023). Online Learning Challenges Faced by SSC-Level Learners During Pandemic: A Case of Pakistan. Educational Process: International Journal, 12(4), 65-77. https://dx.doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2023.124.4

Nuis, W., Segers, M., & Beausaert, S. (2023). Conceptualizing mentoring in higher education: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 41, Article 100565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100565

Panadero, E., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2022). A review of feedback models and typologies: Towards an integrative model of feedback elements. Educational Research Review, 35(1), Article 100416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100416

Peel, D. (2005). Peer observation as a transformatory tool? Teaching in Higher Education, 10(4), 489-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510500239125

Rabada-Rice, F., & Scott, R. S. (1986). A peer evaluation for measuring team teaching effectiveness. The Journal of Nursing Education, 25(6), 255-258. https://doi.org/10.3928/0148-4834-19860601-10

Ridge, B. L., & Lavigne, A. L. (2020). Improving instructional practice through peer observation and feedback. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(61). https://doi.org/10.14507/EPAA.28.5023

Rosselló, M. R., & De la Iglesia, B. (2021). El feedback entre iguales y su incidencia en el desarrollo profesional docente [Feedback between equals and its impact on professional teaching development]. Revista Complutense de Educación, 32(3), 371-382. https://doi.org/10.5209/rced.70173

Sachs, J., & Parsell, M. (2013). The place of peer review in learning and teaching. In J. Sachs and M. Parsell (Eds.), Peer Review of Learning and Teaching in Higher (pp. 1-10). Springer.

Servilio, K. L., Hollingshead, A., & Hott, B. L. (2017). Partnerships Enhancing Practice: A Preliminary Model of Technology-Based Peer-to-Peer Evaluations of Teaching in Higher Education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32(1), 23-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643416681161

Strathern, M. (2000). The Tyranny of Transparency. British Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 309-321. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/713651562

Strelchuk, E. N., Kozhevnikova, M. N., & Borchenko, V. S. (2023). Blended Learning in Russian Higher Education: The Evolution of the Term in Science and Practice. Educational Process: International Journal, 12(1), 97-116. https://dx.doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2023.121.6

Sullivan, P. B., Buckle, A., Nicky, G., & Atkinson, S. H. (2012). Peer observation of teaching as a faculty development tool. BMC Medical Education, 12, Article 26 . https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-12-26

Sultoni, & Gunawan, I. (2023). Relationship between Perceived Transformational Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior of Virtual Teaching During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesia: The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction. Educational Process: International Journal, 12(3), 56-78. https://dx.doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2023.123.3

Tenbrink, T. D. (2000). Evaluación [Evaluation]. In J. Cooper (Ed.), Estrategias de enseñanza: (guía para una mejor instrucción) [Teaching strategies: (guide to better instruction)] (pp. 499-558). Limusa.

Torres, A. C., Lopes, A., Valente, J. M. S., & Mouraz, A. (2017). What catches the eye in class observation? Observers’ perspectives in a multidisciplinary peer observation of teaching program. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(7), 822-838. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1301907

Wingrove, D., Hammersley-Fletcher, L., Clarke, A., & Chester, A. (2018). Leading Developmental Peer Observation of Teaching in Higher Education: Perspectives from Australia and England. British Journal of Educational Studies, 66(3), 365-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2017.1336201

Announcement

EDUPIJ News!

► Journal Metrics

8% acceptance rate
3.4 (2023) CiteScore (Scopus)
Q2 (2023) CiteScore Best Quartile
0.42 (2023) Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

► EDUPIJ Statistics from Scopus

CiteScore: 3.4, view Scopus page

► Educational Process: International Journal is member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

► New issue coming soon! (Volume 13 Issue 2, 2024)