Determining an observation process may start with wider dialogue within the department to agree upon a shared understanding of what good teaching is within your discipline. A simple prompt for this discussion could be Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) seminal list of seven principles for good teaching that:   

• encourages student-faculty contact
• encourages cooperation among students
• encourages active learning 
• gives prompt feedback to students
• emphasises time on task 
• communicates high expectations 
• respects diverse talents and ways of learning

A more involved discussion that reflects contemporary priorities around inclusivity, resilience, self-regulation, and community building could refer to the nine principles of the Universal Design (UDL) for Learning Framework (CAST 2018), which  proposes that inclusive practice should provide multiple means of engagement, representation, action and expression. The UDL Framework proposes that teachers offer a variety of options for students to access, build and internalise learning to achieve constructive goals. 

In developing an innovative model of [peer observations] that is generative rather than evaluative or punitive in approach, we suggest that an [appreciative inquiry] approach to [peer observations] has the potential to cultivate “best practice” teaching and contribute to enhancing student retention, engagement and learning outcomes. (Filburn et al, 2022)

The idea of Appreciative Inquiry was first outlined in 1987 by Cooperider and Srivasta as a means of counteracting their perception that theories of organisational change tended to take a deficit approach. Consequently, these theories focused too exclusively on objective and rational problem-solving - with the emphasis on identifying “problems” - at the expense of acknowledging social and interpersonal dynamics, meaning-making, ideals, and personal goals. Their counterpoint was to propose a “mode of inquiry [that] lies not so much in problem solving as in social innovation.” (Cooperider and Srivasta, 1987; see also Bushe (2012) for a summary of the subsequent evolution of Appreciative Inquiry and some critiques.)

Picked up by Higher Education Studies, and developed in the context of peer observations, Appreciative Inquiry has been adopted to counteract a common assumption that the observation process will be a “formal compliance mechanism” that risks an assumption that it will focus on identifying and “fixing” things that teachers are “doing wrong.” Fileborn et al instead argue that the application of an Appreciative Inquiry framework to the process can instead “[assist] us in learning from ‘the best’ aspects of our colleagues’ teaching.” (2022) 

Adapting Cooperide and Srivasta’s dimensions of Appreciative Inquiry and Goslings Collaborative observation model to the observation process would mean it:  

1. Begins with appreciation and an assumption that teaching usually “works” to enable learning to varying degrees. 
2. Should be applicable to practice. 
3. Should be provocative - meaning that it empowers teachers to be bold in identifying and enacting enhancements through their own “critical deliberation and choice.” (Cooperide and Srivasta 1987)
4. Should be collaborative, with both observer and observed gaining insight into their teaching through the process, and ideally contributing to dialogue on learning and teaching within the wider social context of the department, school, faculty or institution.

In more recent adaptations of Appreciative Inquiry, the framework has been broken down into four phases (Cooperidge and Whitney, 2005): 

• The Discovery Phase: Identification and appreciation of what works well. 
• The Dream Phase: Envisioning ideal actions and outcomes. 
• The Design Phase: Co-constructing actions to achieve outcomes. 
• The Destiny Phase: Sustaining enhanced teaching.

Prompt questions for observations related to these phases are suggested below.

There are three main models of observation: (Gosling, 2002, 2013; See Byrne et al, 2010 also Bennet, 2008 (online): 

• Collaborative or peer-review model: teachers observe each other non-judgmentally to aid mutual discussion and self-reflection on effective learning and teaching, and to expose staff to different teaching practices. 
• Developmental model: education developers or expert teachers observe staff to assess competency and/or support enhancement of learning and teaching. 
• Evaluation model: senior staff or experts observe other staff to confirm probation, appraisal, or promotion; for quality assurance or professional accreditation purposes; or as an element of performance management. 

This guidance focuses primarily on the collaborative model, considered through the lens of “Appreciative Inquiry” described below (Cooperider and Srivasta, 1987). Brown et al (1993) argue that observations are most effective when their primary intention is to be developmental, non-judgmental, and confidential between the two (or more) staff members, which is most readily feasible within this model.  

Focusing on a collaborative model means foregrounding mutual and social support and development. However, the broad emphasis on using observations to enhance learning and teaching and to support the professional development of staff can also constructively inform developmental and evaluative models where used. Examples of these latter approaches at York include teaching observations of: 

• Participants on the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP) (Advance HE requirement to authenticate practice).
• Staff teaching on Apprenticeship Programmes (OFSTED requirement as part of a regulatory review).
• Of Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) in their first teaching role (a UoY GTA Policy requirement).

All three of these examples have an element of quality assurance on the basis of regulatory, accreditation, or policy compliance. However, the intention and approach of each foregrounds quality enhancement and continued professional development. Where areas for improvement are identified, constructive feedback is framed by this intention. 

For staff unaccustomed to having their teaching observed routinely, lack of clarity on its purpose  can provoke considerable anxiety, so it is important that departments or schools developing a POT process be clear in communicating intention from the outset and ensure that observing staff are trained to work in alignment with this intention. 

The guidance will mainly consider the observation of taught sessions. However, the principle of Appreciative Inquiry can be adapted for peer review of other learning and teaching activities, in line with the University’s Peer Support for Teaching (PST) Policy (2011). 

The observee identifies a session they would like to have observed and liaises with the observer to attend.

The shared PGCAP templates suggest some general elements of learning and teaching that might be considered as prompts for observation feedback. 

The observee is then asked to complete a pre-observation form that includes a lesson plan for the session and sends it to the observer in advance. The form enables the observer to begin evaluating the session design and intention, to understand the teaching context, and to identify the learning stage and the background of the students attending. The form also invites the observee to identify any specific areas of practice that they would like feedback on, which might be prompted by the appreciative inquiry questions below. Observers and observees may optionally meet in advance to discuss these. 

Appreciative Inquiry questions for pre-observation phase

Discover Phase

• What aspects of your teaching do you feel most proud of?
• What teaching methods do you find most effective? 
• What feedback from your students has been most affirming or encouraging? 

Dream Phase

• What new teaching techniques or technologies might you like to explore? 
• What behaviours would you like to see in your students that would affirm interested engagement and enthusiasm? 

The observer does not normally participate in the learning activities. In most teaching circumstances, they are likely to identify a spot in the classroom, with the agreement of the observee, where they have a good line of vision of both the teacher and their students. In laboratory, field trip, or workshop observations observers may find they need to shift between stepping back to observe the individual or team’s management of the entire room and then moving in to physically shadow individuals to observe their interactions with groups, pairs or individual students.

The observer may wish to bring a digital copy of the PGCAP observation report template with them, adapted to your disciplinary context where appropriate,  to take notes and identify probing questions for future discussion. The form is intended to support the observer in identifying what to focus on during the session. This can be especially useful if the observer has an intrinsic interest in the session topic as it can help mitigate focusing on disciplinary content at the expense of observing things like teaching methods and learner engagement.

• The observer takes preliminary notes and questions for discussion on the observation report, which can optionally be sent to the observee in advance, and sets up a follow-up meeting. 
• As the focus of this meeting is a dialogue on  teaching quality and the observee’s professional development the feedback often includes questions as prompts for further discussion. While questions should be tailored to individual contexts, some Appreciative Inquiry questions are suggested below. 
• The meeting lasts up to an hour. 

Appreciative Inquiry questions for post-observation meeting

Design Phase (the observer should aim to draw upon examples from the observation)

• What current practices might you build or expand upon in your teaching? 
• How might you enhance practice through collaboration with colleagues?

Destiny phase

• What small changes might you consider to further enhance your teaching? 
• How might you evaluate your progress in achieving your teaching goals? 
• How might you share your practice with colleagues? 

There can be a tendency to assume that observations are best suited to situations where the teacher is observably “performing” their role (e.g. in lectures or seminars), meaning sessions staff support that are very strongly oriented around independent student work (e.g. labs or field trips) or occur as 1:1 discussions (eg academic or project supervisions) risk being omitted from an observation schedule. 

 A first step in determining an observation process, whether as an informal, collegial process or at departmental/school level, should therefore be to discuss the types of teaching that occur within the discipline, what kind of issues teachers commonly face in each of these situations, and what best practice looks like. 

Departments or Schools implementing a process should consider whether you wish to put constraints on what will be observed or leave it to the observee to decide based on their own developmental interests, priorities, and career stage. Where constraints are imposed, consideration should be given to the differing developmental needs of staff at different career stages. 

An assumption that labs are unobservable can be especially detrimental in supporting the professional development of GTAs working as Demonstrators, who may need some guidance to learn how to be proactive instead of reactive in supporting students’ lab work. Stang and Roll (2014), for example, draw on observational data of GTA interactions with students in a Physics lab to conclude that “a high rate of TA initiated interactions is strongly associated with increased engagement.” As lab and field trip teaching is often team based, one option is to consider a group observation focusing on team teaching dynamics.

What is being observed will impact how the observation occurs. Decisions should be made in advance, either by the process design or between the observer and observee, on things like:

• whether the observer should be remote from or involved in the teaching activities. 
• the impact of the observer on the interpersonal dynamic between students and teacher. 
• the potential impact of the observation process on the observee and their teaching performance, especially if they are unaccustomed to having their teaching observed.  
• the logistical dynamics of  the observation - especially for things like field trips or labs where the observer may need to physically shadow the observee quite closely to evaluate their interaction with students.

Observations can have an impact on the dynamics of live teaching, especially with smaller groups and 1:1s where the impact of the observer on interpersonal dynamics is likely to be more pronounced. Care should be taken to notify and prepare students in advance that an observation will be occurring and to assure them that the subject of this is the observee and not their performance in the session. In cases of very small groups or 1:1 supervisions it is advisable to ensure the students are comfortable with the observation process and that they have given informed consent to participate.

A collaborative observation process based on Appreciative Inquiry should consider carefully how colleagues are paired or grouped. If, for example, early career teachers are paired with very experienced or senior colleagues, then there is an evident benefit for the former to learn from the experience of observing the latter. However, there can also be a tacit element of hierarchical judgement in the process of early career colleagues being observed by more experienced or senior ones that may run counter to an intention of collegial dialogue around teaching quality. Pairing colleagues at equivalent career stages may limit access to experienced insight, but may also lead to conversations around shared experiences; empowering autonomous problem solving, and bringing fresh perspectives on teaching quality and good practice to the department or school in general.

Collaborative observations oriented around Appreciative Inquiry should support the professional development and teaching efficacy of all staff involved in the process. Developmental and evaluation observations may be less likely to have a bidirectional orientation between observer and observee, but should nevertheless focus on supporting individuals to develop and enhance their teaching. 

Agreement should also be reached in advance of the process on whether and how the outcomes of observations might be more widely shared, especially given the value of confidentiality - noted above - in securing trust and openness between parties (Brown et al 1993). Options might include: 

• Collaborative observations: a group report to the department or school on best practice identified and/or enhancement recommendations. 
• Developmental and evaluative observations: anonymised examples of good practice or recurrent issues to be addressed selectively might be shared with the Department or School. Individual staff might be approached to present a spotlight on innovative and/or effective practice. 

Bennet, S. (2008) Peer observation - a case for doing it online. Teaching in Higher Education. 13: 5 (pp 559-570) (DOI: 10.1080/13562510802334871)

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

Bushe, G.R. (2012) Appreciative inquiry: theory and critique. In Boje, D.,  Burnes, B. and Hassard, J. (eds.) The Routledge Companion To Organizational Change. Oxford, UK: Routledge (pp 87-103). (Taylor Francis; ResearchGate)

Cooperrider, D., and Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative Inquiry in organisational life. In R.W. Woodman & W.A. Pasmore (eds.). Research in organisational change and development). Vol.1. Stamford, US: JAI Press. (UoY Library; ResearchGate)

Cooperidge, D. and Whitney, D. (2005) A Positive Revolution in Change: Appreciative Inquiry in Holman, P et al (eds) The change handbook: The definitive resource on today's best methods for engaging whole systems. Beret-Koehler Publishers. (pp. 129–169) (Beret-Koehler; ResearchGate)

CAST (2018) Universal Design for Learning Framework (https://udlguidelines.cast.org/)

Chickering and Gamson’s (2006 (1987)) Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 47 (pp 63 - 69 (DOI: 10.1002/tl.37219914708))

Drew, S. et al (2017) Formative observation of teaching: focusing peer assistance on teachers’ development goals, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42: 6 (pp 914-929) (DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2016.1209733)

Fileborn, B. et al (2020) Peer reviews of teaching as appreciative inquiry: learning from “the best” of our colleagues. Higher Education. 83 (pp 103-117) (DOI: 10.1007/s10734-020-00637-9)

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

Gosling, D. (2013) Collaborative Peer-Supported Review of Teaching. In: Sachs, J., Parsell, M. (eds) Peer Review of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. Professional Learning and Development in Schools and Higher Education,.  9 (DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-7639-5_2)

Otero Saborido, F.M. et al (2024) Peer Observation of Teaching in Higher Education: Systematic Review of Observation Tools. Educational Process: International Journal, v13 n1 p84-101 2024 (ERIC: EJ1416202)

Stang, J.B. and Roll, I. (2014) Interactions between teaching assistants and students boost engagement in physics labs, Physics Education Research, 10: 2 (pp) (DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020117)

Sullivan, P. et al (2012) Peer observation of teaching as a faculty development tool. BMC Med Educ 12: 26 (DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-12-26)

University of York, (November 2022) Peer observation of teaching and teachers’ developmental goals. SoTL Journal Club (Wordpress Blog)