Cross-Institutional Peer Observation

Peer observation and peer feedback can be useful  resources for faculty professional development. In this episode, we examine a cross-institutional,  cross-disciplinary peer observation process. Thanks for joining us for Tea for Teaching, an  informal discussion of innovative and effective practices in teaching and learning. This podcast series is hosted by

John Kane, an economist... ...and Rebecca Mushtare, a graphic designer... ...and features guests doing important research  and advocacy work to make higher education more inclusive and supportive of all learners. Our guests today are Anna Logan, Ann Marie Farrell, and Martina Crehan. Anna is an Associate  Professor in the School of Inclusive and Special Education and the former Dean of Teaching  and Learning at the Institute of Education,

Dublin City University. Ann Marie is an Assistant  Professor, also in the School of Inclusive and Special Education at Dublin City University.  Martina is Head of Teaching Enhancement Unit at Dublin City University. She has over 20  years experience in professional development and as a curriculum innovator. Welcome back,  Anna and Ann Marie and welcome Martina. Hi. Thanks for having us back. It's good to see you again. Today's

teas are:... Anna, what tea do you have today? Today I am having a very traditional Barry's Red Label tea. Barry's is a very famous Irish  tea from County Cork. So I'm having that. And Ann Marie? I am having an earl grey tea today. That's actually my favorite tea.  So that's what I'm having this afternoon. And Martina? So I've gone a little bit more exotic with a rooibos tea. So it makes  me think of beautiful warm blue skies.

And I have an English afternoon today, And I have… something I missed out last time… an Irish breakfast tea today, I would  have had Barry’s if I was able to get back to the office this morning, but it's a Twinings,  but at least it's Irish breakfast this time. at least the right part of the world, John. So  we've invited you here today to discuss your joint work in setting up a cross-institutional process  of peer observation of teaching. Can you tell us a

little bit about the origins of this project? Thanks, Rebecca. So this project was a collaboration between three Irish universities,  Dublin City University, Maynooth University and RCSI, and our story began, hard to believe now,  actually, as far back as 2017 and it started with a conversation between myself and two colleagues  who worked as faculty developers in three

institutions. Have to mention my co-conspirators  here, Muireann O’Keeffe and Morag Munro, and we'd all been involved in peer observation  of teaching work in one form or another in our respective institutions. We were very aware of  how valuable a tool it could be in scaffolding professional dialog and reflection and practice,  and we became very interested in the potential

for cross-institutional and cross-disciplinary  peer observation. A lot of the literature at the time was very focused on peer observation of  teaching in a single institution, but we were coming across more and more publications which  really focused on the power of cross-disciplinary and cross-institutional. We were really lucky to  have some funding at the time that was available

via a partnership between the three institutions.  So we initiated a pilot scheme. We focused it on large-group teaching as the common focus for  the participants, and designed a process where we supported the participants with an induction.  We also supported them in terms of the observation

process itself, reflection, professional  conversations and so on. And we sought volunteers, and were really lucky to be joined by, I think,  10 volunteers across the three institutions from a range of different backgrounds, two of whom were  Ann Marie and Anna, and I think they might want to speak about their motivations for joining us. Well, from my perspective, I was just very interested immediately by the idea of having an  opportunity to work with somebody outside of DCU,

outside of my own university. And my background  is teaching. I was originally a primary school teacher, and so that's my background. And  since I've been working in higher education, I've been really interested in the pedagogical  aspect of my work. So when the invitation went out, it just seemed like something that was  really interesting to me, and it fitted in with some of the work I was already doing.  So that's what motivated me to join up.

And I love teaching. And of course, this was  something that was focused on teaching. I think Martina might have mentioned that it was focused  on large-class teaching, which was something that I was really interested in. So that was another  motivating factor. When I read a little bit about it, or was approached, the structure and  the opportunity to engage in reflection on my

teaching, particularly the teaching in a large  class, was really useful. I am very committed to improving my teaching all the time, and I really  was motivated by the opportunity that I could identify aspects of my teaching that I had a hunch  weren't great, that I was a little bit concerned about my pacing, for example, and so I knew this  would give me potentially a good opportunity to get feedback on that and develop my skills  in terms of teaching those large classes.

When we do peer evaluation of teaching on our  campus, it could be for formative purposes, but it's often more for summative evaluation,  which is perhaps not the most useful form of peer observation, and I really like the idea of having  people from other institutions observe teaching,

because it takes away any possibility of that type  of summative evaluation. Have people appreciated that aspect, that they’re getting reactions  from people outside their campus who will not be involved, even indirectly, in evaluating  their teaching for retention or other purposes.

From my perspective as a participant in the  cross-institutional peer observation of teaching project, it was absolutely fantastic to have  somebody coming from a completely different context who didn't know one single thing about the  culture and the ideas and the way we do things,

even generally as an institution, never mind  specifically, in my classroom. And I was paired up with a guy who was teaching a completely different  subject area and he was doing something around digital media and literacy for trainee doctors at  RCSI, the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, so it's a medical university in its entirety.  So he was coming from a completely different

perspective, and even when we visited each other's  institutions, that was really useful. Like one of his comments is, a lot of my students are all  student teachers, they're all resident in Ireland, most of them go home at the weekends, whereas  his students were mostly International, maybe went home once a year. So he was very struck. He  came in to see me on a Friday morning, and there were about 40 suitcases lined up at the door  as the students were coming to my session, and

then were running for buses to go home. And he was  struck by that, and even just the profile of the class. So what's really useful about that kind of  cross-institutional thing is that you see your own students, your own organization, in a much broader  context. And I think that does influence how you view Teaching and Learning then as well. And I absolutely agree with Ann Marie's observations in relation to that. I also think  that the cross-disciplinary nature that Ann Marie

has highlighted was really very, very important.  And coming back to your observation, John, that this really wasn't about summative  assessment, this was about mentoring and peer support and mutual peer support. I was paired  with somebody from a business background, so I was visiting and observing in a large undergraduate  business classroom. And it struck me at the time that I was authentically a learner in that place.  There wasn't a competition. I wasn't going in with

my lens as a teacher educator with a particular  interest in inclusive and special education. So it was, I suppose, in a way, less competitive. And  maybe this wasn't a conscious thing, it wasn't, “how do they do it in this institution?” Because  it was an entirely different discipline. It meant I was an authentic learner about leadership  and management education, and hopefully,

I think my peer was equally a learner in my  classroom about inclusive education. So I think it was both the cross-institutional and  the cross-disciplinary which really supported that mutual peer support aspect, rather than  somebody coming in in an evaluative summative role. It wasn't designed as such, and it didn't  slip into that space because we were in different

disciplines and in different institutions. I think generally as well, just to add to that, John, in Ireland, in higher education,  probably for the most part, we're quite lucky where peer observation of teaching  in most institutions has maintained that very formative developmental aspect. It's actually  very rarely used here in that much more summative,

evaluative way. So I think we're very lucky from  that perspective. But as I was listening to Anna and Ann Marie speaking there, I'm not sure if  somebody used this phrase in some of the research that we've conducted on this, but I remember  somebody talking about the cross-institutional and the cross-disciplinary piece allowed you to  tune into a different frequency of teaching and learning. And I thought that was just a lovely way  of summarizing all of that which kind of resonated

with me and has stayed with me, I have to say. One of the things that I heard you both speaking about is being a non-expert in a classroom on  the subject matter, which helps you be in the classroom as a learner, and probably helps you  give really different feedback on the teaching of your peer, in a different way than if you are an  expert on the subject matter, which I find to be

really interesting and really helpful. And I know  that when I've had the opportunity to be in other classrooms of different disciplines, have found to  be one of the most exciting and rich experiences as an observer is to be in those really different  disciplines: (A) because it's really interesting to learn something new, but (B) because the  methodologies are often really different and

give you some really interesting and new ideas.  I'm interested to hear a little bit more about some of the logistics of how this process was  put in place, because you're talking a little bit about visiting the different institutions  and coordinating three different organizations, and that sounds like a really complex  situation to put together. Can you talk a little bit about what that was like for both  the organizers as well as the participants.

So, I think we were very lucky in that, from my  perspective, from an organizational point of view, I had a colleague in each of the other  institutions who was as enthusiastic and as motivated in this. So from a logistical  perspective, we kind of shared the organization, and we shared the locations for some of the  induction workshops and some of the conversations that we needed to have with the participants,  which Anna and Ann Marie will be able to talk

to you about from their perspective and as  a participant. We took the responsibility of matching the individuals, so that made it, I  think, a little bit easier for the participants, and then it was really up to them to organize:  When will I visit? What day? What time? How will that work out? So we left that in the hands of  the participants so that they could make their own

decisions, and hopefully that made it a little bit  easier for them. So I think from the organization point of view, the logistics were possibly maybe  a little bit easier than for the participants. Well, from a participant's perspective, I  just found it was really well structured. So we had like a planning or a support day with  Martina, Muireann, and Morag at the beginning

of the process, where they went through models of  reflective practice. They went through principles of the type of feedback, or considerations we as  participants needed to take into consideration when we were working with our partner, like,  for example, establishing ground rules with your partner in terms of what the nature of  the feedback, maybe what you would request

as feedback that the person being observed might  ask for particular feedback and so on. So it was just really well supported from the outset, and  then when Martina then sent us off in our pairs, I linked in with my partner, and we had at  least one, if not two, phone conversations, and that was to agree when we were going to meet,  who was going to go where and when, basic things, like giving directions, all of that sort of thing.  And then when we met, we gave each other a tour

of each other's University. And that was really  interesting, and it broke the ice. It was a lovely kind of, I suppose, relationship-building thing,  like we spent a little time in both institutions before we did the feedback or the observation or  whatever. And in our case, the chap I was paired with came and observed two of my classes. He asked  could he come and see a second one? And I said,

“Yes,” I was delighted. His classes were  mainly completed at that point in the semester, but he had recorded them, so I watched one of  his recordings, and then we sat down in terms of feedback. And it was interesting, because  I was far more nervous about giving feedback than I was about receiving it, because I am a  teacher educator. I go out to schools all the time. I'm constantly giving feedback on teaching,  and that's a very particular context in terms of

going out to one of our students who's doing a  course. But this was different. So I didn't want to become the teacher educator. I wanted it to  be equal. So I was quite nervous actually about giving the feedback. But the whole process of the  actual observations and the feedback was just so collegial. It was eye opening, like he saw things  that he could only see because he was sitting at

the top of the room, and I do walk around when  I'm in a tiered lecture theater. I walk around, but I cannot sit down at the back for 30 minutes  or an hour and watch, whereas he did, and he had very interesting things to say about what students  were doing while class was going on. So that actual process of the two of us working together,  I just found it really, really, really useful.

So that was my main takeaway around that. My experience was different. You asked about the process, John, so just talking about the  process, my experience of the process was slightly different. Yes, there was that initial  face-to-face workshop, which was really useful. But there was a flexibility in this. Even  though it was structured, there was quite a lot of flexibility. Martina said, after that first  day, it was really handed over to us in our pairs

to work it out. And I think one of the things that  was great about it was the flexibility, because we had to be quite flexible, my partner and I, for a  number of reasons. First of all, my partner hadn't been able to come to that initial first day, so  Ann Marie mentioned the kind of the building and the breaking the ice. So actually, we had to  do that. I was on Skype at the time, because

this was before COVID and I certainly wasn't  comfortable in Skype. I'd never used it before, so there was quite a lot there, but we had a long  conversation and a long getting to know you chat on Skype, which did help us to break that barrier.  Now again, Ann Marie, you mentioned the logistics of when this would happen in the academic year,  when it would happen in the semester. So there were constraints to do with that which are to  do with when a module started, when it ended.

So I was very fortunate in that my partner was  still teaching at that time, so I could get out and go to her university. Again, we built in  time to have a chat, as Ann Marie had said, while we had to do it on Skype again, we were  very clear about what we wanted feedback on, and I would totally relate to Ann Marie's observation.  I'm really used to giving feedback. I was very

much conscious of stepping away from that. And  again, it was a different discipline and so on. So I went out to and I observed the lecture live in  a large lecture theater, and we had our feedback session after that, but it was a bit different for  me, because my teaching in that particular module was in blocks, and it just didn't suit my partner  to come out. But again, as Ann Marie said, we could record. So I recorded the session and shared  the recording with my partner, and then we came

together again online and had our conversation. So  the flexibility was great in terms of the process, and that structure at the beginning, clear  guidelines, ground rules, all that sort of thing.

Then flexibility was really important. Because if  it had had to be you have to see a face-to-face lecture, or it has to happen within a certain  period of time, there was that flexibility which made it very achievable too, I think, for us Now, you've already addressed some of this in terms of your responses, Anna and Ann Marie,  but have you heard any other responses from faculty in terms of the general reaction to  this process? Has it been popular? Have people

been anxious or concerned about it? How have  faculty, more broadly, responded to this. I can address this to some extent from the  perspective of the pilot project, and then maybe other forms of peer observation within  single institutions which I've been involved in. And I think for many people, particularly when  they start on this process, it's a mixture of fear

trepidation, a sense of the unknown. What am I  signing up to? What am I jumping into? Because realistically, you know, for most of us in any  teaching context, we go into our lecture theater,

our classroom, our lab, and we close the door.  It's us and the students. So that concept of having somebody sit at the back of the classroom  or the front of the classroom and observe us is challenging, and I think particularly in an  Irish context, it puts us in mind of the cigire, which is our Irish word for inspector, who might  come in, particularly if we're in teacher training

as primary level or second level, will come in  and assess us in that more evaluative way. So it is certainly daunting for people at the start, so  the structures and the supports that we put around it are really, really key in that. And one of the  things that participants usually respond to quite well is that sense of support, the fact that it  is developmental, that it is not something that is evaluative, that judgments are being made  on, and the fact that there is a reciprocity.

So if I'm paired with Anna, then she will come  into my classroom, I'll go into her classroom. And the philosophy is really centered around  a conversation about our teaching and learning practice. And I think once people have experienced  that for the first time and get that sense of the philosophy and the ethos, it really kind  of helps that progression, and it helps that

sense of comfort and that sense of familiarity.  So for the most part, I mean, there are people, I think, who probably feel a little bit more  challenged about it for a longer period of time, but I think having those supports in place are  really, really key to ensuring that participants engage in this in a productive and a positive way  and see it as something that helps their practice

and is going to develop their practice. And I suppose, from my perspective, since engaging in that pilot project, I've invited a lot  of people into my class for a variety of reasons, and sometimes not about the teaching and learning  piece, but more about the content. So I've invited staff in if they so wished, if we've guest  speakers, or if I'm in doing a session on special

and inclusive education, other teacher educators  who might be interested. And sometimes we do have some other members of faculty who come in and join  for some of those and that’s not quite the same thing, but I would be much more confident in doing  that now, and I also think it is really important for very new members of staff. I think for the  most part, new lecturers are thrown in teaching.

They're the one group of teachers who perhaps do  not have a teaching qualification, and they're in what are arguably some of the most complex  situations and some peer observation of teaching, but maybe initially, one way where new members  of staff can come in and be invited in to observe large-class teaching, just to help them get off  the ground themselves, or that has, in my case, morphed into co-teaching, where somebody has  come in initially a new member of staff has

come in to observe, and that's then kind of the  teaching, and that very large class context, in my instance, is supported then in a very  collegial, safe way, before they get up and stand in front of 400 students on their own. So  it can lead to that. I suppose it's like having

an open-door policy. And it might start off as one  way, but if the person ends up co-teaching one or two sessions with you, actually, you can then talk  about teaching and learning in that context and give feedback to both of us, rather than  the person, in terms of evaluating how the class went or whatever. So it has potential way  beyond just two people observing each other.

So Martina, you mentioned that this was  a pilot project. Is this something that you're hoping to continue across the three  institutions and expand beyond a pilot? I think we would love to. Obviously, there are  very fundamental issues like funding, which impact

future plans in this regard. So certainly we would  love to continue. We'd love to expand. I think, as the three of us here are all working in the  one institution now… I was actually working in one of the other institutions at the time of this  particular project… what we're really, I think, focusing on and thinking about is taking the  learning and taking some of the elements of that

project into how we facilitate peer observation  of teaching within one institution. So focusing on the cross-disciplinary aspect, so between  schools, between faculties, and really taking

some of that learning and embedding it within the  existing processes that we have here. And as Ann Marie just mentioned there, specifically also  focusing on the role of this for new educators in the way that she described, I think it's  hugely powerful in terms of those first steps into teaching, which can be so daunting and so  challenging for somebody new to practice.

One of the things I was thinking, and this  relates to a conversation we had in an earlier podcast with Anna and Ann Marie, is that by  having people from different disciplines, the focus of the observation will be on  the pedagogy and on teaching techniques, rather than on the content. Because when we  observe people teaching the same courses or in the same discipline, we often tend to think about  how we might be doing it, rather than focusing on

what is actually being done in the classroom.  Is that one of the benefits of this cross disciplinary aspect of the peer observations? Yes, absolutely, I completely think that it is, John, for all of the reasons that you've stated.  I think it really helps people to focus on the

process rather than the product of teaching. And  I think what's also useful is it also encourages, and I don't know Ann Marie and Anne if you  might have experienced this, but I feel that it encourages people in the observation setting  to also focus on what the students, what the learners, are doing in that teaching space.  So not just what the great teaching that Anna and Ann Marie are facilitating, but also: What  are the students doing? How are they engaging?

When are they being active? When do they appear  to be coming a little bit more passive? And that, I'm sure can be really, really helpful then  for the individual who is being observed, because it's that other set of eyes, and it's  a different lens through which you're seeing what is happening in that teaching space. I would agree with that. I think when you observe somebody who is from the same discipline or  sub-discipline as you, you can get very caught up

with the content and the curriculum, and you lose  sight of the teaching and the learning. Whereas if you don't know anything about the curriculum  or about the concepts that are being taught, you have to focus on the teaching. You have to focus  on the learning. You have to focus on the actions that have been taken by the teacher and by the  students in that context. So it is very helpful,

and I think it can be accomplished, though, even  within a discipline. So at university level, in particular, the more specialized, narrow  experts in some tiny nano aspect we are, the more hireable we are, and the better we are  at research and so on. So people within education, for example, who might be in different  sub-disciplines, I think, while there would be

some overlap in terms of content, in many cases,  there isn't. So even within a discipline, I think you could enable peer observation of teaching,  to observe somebody in another sub-discipline, albeit that you're all coming from the same  main discipline, if that was a factor in an institution or whatever, but it definitely  forces you to look at the teaching rather

than the content of what has been taught. And I would absolutely agree with that. And just again, I think Martina’s focus  was why it was cross-Institutional, why it was cross-disciplinary. The shared  concern was teaching large classes. So that was a shared concern. I would completely  support Martina’s observation. In that

business classroom. I felt I was authentically  a learner, and that, at least to some extent, gave me insights into how the strategies that  the lecturer were using were being experienced by my fellow students in the classroom, and also  because it was about leadership theory in business education, and that, as both Ann Marie and Martina  have said, meant that I wasn't getting distracted about… I mean, it's natural for us to think,  okay, but I'm teaching that I'm going to use

that strategy. It's great. I'm going to use it.  Or if I were doing it, I'd be using a different case study, or I'd be using a different student  response system, or whatever it was. Instead, I was really pared back to the things that I  recognized about this dynamic of working with a large class, the strategies that the person I was  observing was using to seek, maintain attention,

to support students’ reflection, for example.  So it's kind of paring it back to the core teaching and learning strategies, and as I say,  authentically, putting me in the learner place as much as I could be. The other thing that I  thought was interesting, just thinking about it further too, Ann Marie's observation was, while  our disciplines were very different, and indeed,

the time that we had spent working and teaching  in higher education were very different. We’re very different terms of our experience, my peer  spontaneously… I had asked for feedback on certain aspects of my teaching… but she spontaneously  said that she liked how I had given feedback

and that she was going to use that similar kind of  approach. So again, that was affirming, but that was maybe particularly valuable because it was  coming from a very, very different discipline, Building on what we're talking about, can  you share some advice to other folks that might want to set up a similar model of  feedback at their own institution? I think there's some key factors which  are important, regardless of whether it's

cross-institutional or within one institution.  Obviously, if it's cross-institutional, you need to secure your trusted partners  in each institution, and there are funding and logistical implications. But I think that  there's a few common ingredients for success, and one of those is something that I think we've  all touched on in the discussion, is that creation

of that sense of safety and trust in terms of the  system. So having a very clear process and plan, making sure that you start with participants  around the rationale for, and the philosophy of, peer observation, that introduction into the  ethos, very clear guidance in terms of the stages of observation, the feedback conversations, how  to reflect, giving people templates to assist them to do that, so making it as easy as possible,  so that academic staff feel that it's safe,

but it's also feasible. It's also something  that's achievable and that they can build into their practice. So I think that structure  and that support is really, really key. I think keeping the conversations alive then about  peer observation of teaching and giving people

opportunities to hear from those who have already  experienced it. So just a couple of months ago, we ran a session during our teaching and learning  week here at DCU, where Anna and Ann Marie and another colleague spoke about their experience of  peer observation of teaching and what it was like, and what they gained from it, and the challenges  and the opportunities. So it's really important

for people to hear those voices from the field,  so to speak. And the third thing I would say, is maintaining a focus on the scholarship of teaching  and learning around these and the opportunities for research. So we've been very lucky in terms of  this project. It spawned, I think, probably three publications at this point in time, but one of  them, which is the most important one, of course, was a co-authored publication by myself and the  two other faculty developers, but also all of the

participants. And I think that was a really, I  think, lovely and enjoyable part of the process, but really, really powerful in terms of keeping  that focus on not just the research output and the research impact of this, but actually what that  could contribute to the scholarship of the whole area. So those are my three pieces of advice. And just to add to what Martina had said there, the scholarship and the joint publication for  us… first of all, it was so generous of Martina

and her two colleagues to enable that. Obviously  we are expected to write and to research and to publish, and because of the way Martina,  Muireann, and Morag structured that, and

built in the scholarship that enabled that, that  ticked a box for us. And sometimes the teaching and learning piece for staff… staff can see it as  something other, and they don't have time for it, because they have to do research, whereas we need  to be looking at those two things being aligned, and I learned a lot from Martina and her two  colleagues did that time, and I'm actually using it in a project I'm involved in now  where I've built in opportunity, hopefully,

to get ethical approval. But anyway, I've built in  an opportunity for intended focus groups of staff here in my faculty to get publications based on  their work, on their focus group for themselves, and to get publications for themselves. And I  think that's important, because the reality is we do have to do that, and we cannot ignore it. And  the more we can align those two things from the beginning of a project like this, the better. Absolutely, I'd reiterate that. So in terms of

impact, I would encourage any colleague to go  for it. You'll gain more than you'll put into it. A practical consideration, I think, spending  that time using the kind of reflective models that Martina and her colleagues supported us with to  enable us to identify what aspects of teaching you want feedback on. If there's training available  before, the kind of model that Martina used, absolutely go for it. I would strongly encourage  it outside of your discipline, and, if possible,

outside of your institution. And then finally,  to reiterate Martina's observation about the alignment with scholarship and to encourage  Ann Marie on that, that has had a huge impact. The experience of engaging in this pilot peer  observation project has had a huge impact on my own practice and then subsequently as a leader  of teaching and learning within my faculty. So I found myself talking about this experience  a great deal. Actually, it happened at a time

when our institutions were undergoing a lot of  change. So it was a really positive experience. And therefore I have found myself talking to  lots of colleagues in my capacity as a leader in teaching and learning about this and encouraging  them, even in their own informal sort of ways, to avail of every opportunity to get into other  people's classrooms and to engage in that feedback

piece. And in terms of the alignment with the  research, just to echo Ann Marie's observation of how valuable that was, and that has had a  huge impact on other aspects of my practice, for example, leading projects during the COVID  pandemic, which were about transition of placement online, and I was really conscious from the get  go to build in the opportunities for scholarship, to secure the ethical approval, and we've had  several outputs in Scopus quartile 1 ranked

journals on foot of that. And it's continuing  to impact on my practice in the different role I have in leading placement in my faculty at  the moment, and again, adopting that role of kind of having participant researchers, very  much focused on participant researchers and building on all those opportunities, as Martina  said, not just to tick the box of publication, but the reality is we do need to do that, but  to be quite explicit in colleagues about how

collectively we are contributing to the furthering  of the scholarship of teaching and learning, as well as enhancing our own skills and  competencies as higher education teachers.

We'll include a link to those studies in the  show notes so that people can access them. I believe one of the things I saw in at least one  of those papers was a suggestion that this has led to faculty forming wider support networks,  that many of these relationships, once they were formed in a classroom, have continued since  then and provided people with more peer support, which I think in a time when higher education  is changing quite rapidly, could be really

important. Have you found that often happen,  that people have continued the relationships after the initial peer observation? I just was one observation on that, and one of the reasons that I was motivated to  engage in the study was because it provided an opportunity to work with our colleagues in the  university's teaching enhancement unit. And again, that was a really positive so that has absolutely  encouraged me, personally, to continue to engage

with colleagues. I’ve engaged with, actually,  colleagues who were involved with Martina in leading the institution in other contexts.  So that relationship and also encouraging, again, in my own role as a leader in teaching  and learning, encouraging other colleagues in the faculty to similarly engage as much as  possible with colleagues in the teaching enhancement unit in relation to other aspects of  enhancing and supporting teaching and learning.

Well, we always wrap up by asking, what's next? So from my perspective, and we've mentioned this a little bit already, it's really, I think, taking  those learnings and those elements that we've used in that pilot project and implementing them  within a system within the institution. So I think our focus on the future will be very much from  that cross- disciplinary perspective, so getting different schools and different faculties to work  together on this. So that will certainly be one

of the things that we'll be focusing on in the  future. I think also maintaining that scholarship of teaching and learning. This is something  that I think is ripe for research in so many different contexts, and I think maintaining that  collaborative and that participatory approach to the research as well. So that will certainly  be some of our key focus in the future.

For me, in terms of just my own practice, I  suppose I have continued on in the way I described earlier, with newer members of staff and existing  members of staff coming in to classes sometimes as well. But maybe going forward, it's something  that maybe could be a bit more formalized or a bit more structured. At the minute, it's ad hoc,  so maybe in our own school, that it's something that could be more structured, more obvious, and  spread out a bit more, although I have to say a

lot of staff in the school I work in already  would have people. They're very welcoming for other members of staff to come in and sit  in and observe and listen to their sessions and so on. So I'm very lucky from that perspective  that the doors are open anyway, but maybe it is something we could do a little bit more in a  structured way, for new people coming in.

And just to add to that, again, just thinking  about Ann Marie's right, in our own school of inclusive and special education, there will be  a lot of awareness and knowledge in terms of the programs that we offer in the school.  But just in terms of teacher education, initial teacher education does tend to be quite  packed programs with lots and lots of different

elements. And we've come out of faculty quality  review and come out of a significant review of our initial teacher education programs, and maybe  peer observation might also provide a context for colleagues to learn about disparate elements  of a program that's a very large program with a view not just to professional development for  those involved in the peer observation, but also

developing a kind of a shared understanding of  what the program looks like. The more we know about what each other is doing in a program, the  more we can scaffold our students’ learning and gets us a little bit out of our silos as well. Well, thank you so much for joining us. It's always great to hear about the work that you're  doing, and peer observation is important work, and it's helpful to hear of specific  models of how this can work.

We've really enjoyed learning more about  this process, and we look forward to future conversations. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, both of you, for inviting us. Thanks. John. Thanks. Rebecca. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please  subscribe and leave a review on iTunes or your favorite podcast service. To  continue the conversation, join us on our Tea for Teaching Facebook page. You can find show notes, transcripts and other materials on teaforteaching.com.  Music by Michael Gary Brewer.