This article was downloaded by: [Flinders University of South Australia]

On: 07 October 2014, At: 18:59

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Innovations in Education and Teaching

International
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riie20

Feedback within peer observation:

continuing professional development
and unexpected consequences
a
Sue Shortland
a
Business School , London Metropolitan University , London, UK
Published online: 12 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Sue Shortland (2010) Feedback within peer observation: continuing professional
development and unexpected consequences, Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
47:3, 295-304, DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2010.498181

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2010.498181

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Innovations in Education and Teaching International
Vol. 47, No. 3, August 2010, 295–304

Feedback within peer observation: continuing professional

development and unexpected consequences
Sue Shortland*

Business School, London Metropolitan University, London, UK

Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 18:59 07 October 2014

Innovations
10.1080/14703297.2010.498181
RIIE_A_498181.sgm
1470-3297
Original
Taylor
302010
47
s.shortland@londonmet.ac.uk
SueShortland
00000August
&
and
Article
Francis
(print)/1470-3300
Francis
in Education
2010 and Teaching
(online) International

This article explores, via a case study of sustained developmental peer observation
practice within the UK higher education sector, the hypothesis that feedback can
play a role in facilitating continuing professional development (CPD). Despite the
potentially evaluative and threatening nature of feedback, an unanticipated issue
emerges – professional relationships can be strengthened, leading to the
development of enhanced mutual trust and respect. The article highlights lessons
for practice and ideas for further research.
Keywords: peer observation; feedback; respect; continuing professional
development; reflection; trust

Introduction
As Skelton (2005) indicates, higher education (HE) lecturers’ duties are many-fold
(including subject knowledge/expertise development, communication, research,
administration and technological know-how), sometimes mutually enhancing, some-
times competing. Defining ‘excellence’ across them becomes a value-laden and
contested exercise. Yet, to achieve desired/desirable improvements in teaching, vari-
ous interventions have become popular. Training, for example, typically involves
short-term methods for skills acquisition, while competency development involves
understanding and promulgating appropriate behaviours in particular settings
(Roberts, 2005). Reducing ‘excellence’ in HE teaching to a set of such practicalities
is clearly inappropriate. ‘Development’ provides a broader context implying a longer-
term (The UK Universities’ and Colleges’ Staff Development Agency [UK
UCoSDA], 1994) and ongoing (Paechter, 1996) approach. It may refer to professional
(work environment) and/or personal development in a lifelong learning context
(Nicholls, 2000). It is typically carried out in a structured manner via continuous
review, evaluation, planning and implementation (D’Andrea & Gosling, 2001). Thus,
individuals form their own personal judgements and take responsibility for them over
the long term. Continuing professional development (CPD) may comprise a variety of
training and development interventions, but it becomes an aspirational and potentially
life-changing process because individuals control it themselves through critical reflec-
tion and their own action (Megginson & Whitaker, 2003).
Peer observation in HE has both quality and developmental objectives (National
Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education [NATFHE], 2001). It typi-
cally comprises a sequence of four stages (Fullerton, 1999): a pre-observation briefing

*Email: s.shortland@londonmet.ac.uk

ISSN 1470-3297 print/ISSN 1470-3300 online

© 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2010.498181
http://www.informaworld.com
 296 S. Shortland

when the parties agree their ground rules (Jones, 1993); the observation itself; discus-
sion, with feedback integral to the process; and the production of a written record. If
feedback is to benefit staff involved in peer observation, it must be non-judgemental
(Jones, 1993; Farrell, 2001; NATFHE, 2001). The weakness in this line of argument,
however, concerns the fact that to identify development needs involves evaluating the
base from which they may be addressed. Some academics demonstrate reluctance to
take part fearing some form of appraisal of their level of competence (Bell, 2001). This
may be reinforced by institutions’ ‘top-down approach’ (Peel, 2005) and their ‘requir-
ing’ reporting of observation activity as part of quality initiatives (Shortland, 2004a).
MacKinnon (2001) comments that there is general agreement that observers should
downplay an evaluative role as evaluation can be both threatening and disempowering.
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 18:59 07 October 2014

Guidelines for peer observation and the checklist-style forms usually supplied by
universities to help participants in the process are typically constructed in a structured,
‘scientific’ manner implying that data can be measured and recorded under headings
and that this represents ‘reality’ in the classroom. Such checklists can constrain the
observer into recording what the institution suggests is observed, rather than what
would benefit the person being observed. It might be argued that checklists, therefore,
‘pigeon-hole’ both observation and, as a consequence, feedback. Instead, mutually
understood and fit-for-purpose criteria for constructing feedback are essential if it is
to be meaningful to the recipient.
Relationships between lecturers are fashioned by individuals who construct mean-
ing through bringing their own perceptions and understandings to their social interac-
tion. As such, peer observation involves attempts to attach meaning to what is seen,
heard and experienced to generate feedback by grasping the implications of observed
social action. Yet, as observers, our own cultural value systems provide the medium
to interpret classroom events (Peel & Shortland, 2004). We, therefore, frame our feed-
back based upon perceptions of our own constructed ‘reality’. We bring, as Tubbs
(2000) describes, a ‘repertoire’ of previous experiences to make sense of the situations
we observe. The influence of the observer’s construction of ‘reality’ can limit the
ability to give helpful feedback; prior experience, timing and other filters can result in
misinterpretations and lack of agreement between observers and observed. Some
examples are outlined, followed by suggestions to address them.
Within peer observation models, emphasis is usually placed on focused and
context-specific feedback (Martin & Double, 1998) and on such feedback being
constructive and sensitive (Cosh, 1998). However, even constructive feedback may be
interpreted differently by the recipient(s) to the way it is intended. It may appear
discouragingly critical as opposed to its intention of being constructively critical; for
example, when simply intended to highlight differences in approach (Shortland,
2004b). In Timperley’s (2001) research, mentors frequently adopted a supportive role
at the expense of providing feedback that might be perceived as critical. Problematic
issues were avoided, but the expertise of the mentor was not fully utilised, leaving
both parties frustrated with potential unrealised student learning. Giving feedback is
extremely demanding (Cosh, 1998), but if it is honest, transparent and criterion-based
(Simmonds, 2003) and it involves shared discussion of experiences and potential solu-
tions, it can act as a platform to move forward, rather than a dissection of the past. It
is also a two-way process and, as Hounsell (1999) indicates, no one is better placed to
make sense of the feedback than the lecturer observed, requiring the recipient to weigh
up its significance rather than accept it at face value. MacKinnon (2001) emphasises
the importance of balancing positive and negative feedback. A joint feedback session
 Innovations in Education and Teaching International 297

may provide a means of doing so as both participants become givers and receivers of
information.
Peer observation partners should not be ‘critical’ or ‘friends’ in stand-alone terms,
but rather act as ‘critical friends’. This relies heavily upon the building of trust.
Fullerton (1993) places emphasis on both trusting relationships and the need for
respect between the parties involved. Farrell (2001) supports this, with emphasis on
the time needed to engage in a meaningful experience, enabling reflection and
learning. Brockbank and McGill (1998) suggest that empathy is needed.
The notion of a ‘climate of respect’ has significant implications for pairing
relationships. Francis (2001) comments that when giving feedback, little attention is
paid to the complex politics of interpersonal communication. Selection of peer obser-
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 18:59 07 October 2014

vation partners is important. Assuming that randomly generated pairings by manage-

ment do not bring lecturers together with hostile or negative working relationships,
allocated partnerships between individuals with neutral working relationships can
work well. However, there is likely to be greater hesitation and a lower willingness to
seek advice on difficult teaching situations in the early period of working together
when the parties are relatively unknown to each other. Over time, as relationships
become more trusting (Shortland, 2004b), or when mutual selection involves partners
with already developed productive working relationships, mutual awareness and
understanding of appropriate, constructive feedback is enhanced. Yet, mutual
decisions to work together are not always fool-proof – productive relationships may
be jeopardised through peer observation pairings. A proactive suggestion lies in the
partners having jointly shared objectives (Peel & Shortland, 2004) as these can help
to generate a ‘working alliance’ in MacKinnon’s (2001) terms.
In the recording process, the ordinary may be forgotten or make little impression.
Eraut (1995) suggests that frequently we are influenced by ‘atypical examples’ and
feedback may, therefore, be unrepresentative and potentially unhelpful to the person
observed. It is thus useful to record the overall context of the session observed. The
timing of the provision of feedback needs to be agreed. Eraut (1995) favours time
being set aside for deliberative interpretation and the more controlled collection of
evidence – both to avoid misunderstanding and also to introduce alternative perspec-
tives. However, thought needs to be given as to how long the ‘gap’ should be in terms
of losing the value of immediacy versus benefiting from a period of interpretation and
reflection (Shortland, 2004b).
Although there are many threats to learning from peer observation, the efforts
taken by institutions to address some of these should not be overlooked. University
cultures are becoming increasingly supportive of teaching and learning initiatives
(Roberts, Anderson, Betts, & Oakley, 2002), including (or with emphasis on) peer
observation (Brown, 1993a; Hodgkinson, 2003), supported through written guide-
lines, explanation and training (Brown, 1993b). The value of peer observation within
lecturing staff’s development is typically inherent within lecturer training
programmes (O’Connell, Anderson, & Coe, 2000), potentially acting as a ‘transfor-
matory tool’ (Peel, 2005).

Methodology
Salmon (1989) notes that we know aspects of the world through positioning ourselves
within it and our experience is inseparable from the position we have taken. How
appropriate knowledge (epistemology) of the social world is viewed and whether the
 298 S. Shortland

social world is regarded as external to the actors or is fashioned by them (ontology)

determines the use of research methodologies (Bryman & Bell, 2003). A peer
observer’s account represents an individually created version of classroom ‘reality’
drawn from interpretation of classroom events. Thus, an interpretive epistemology is
adopted here involving the ontological position from which social phenomena, and the
meanings attached to them, are constructed by the lecturers involved.
This research draws upon published work that appears to suggest that there is
value in extended peer observation relationships in promoting the participants’ CPD
(Shortland, 2004b). Here, in contrast to previous research, a series of 10 consecutive
peer observations is presented as a single case study. A distinctive aspect relates to the
examination of a sustained peer observation relationship between two partners. The
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 18:59 07 October 2014

aim is to explore the hypothesis that feedback within peer observation over an
extended period can enable the facilitation of CPD. Although the case study is unique
and its generalisability is thus limited, it is argued that lessons may still be learned by
others intending to engage in peer observation.
The 10 peer observations comprising this case study spanned an autumn semester
(when new full-time overseas students are admitted). The author conducted the series
of weekly peer observations as observer. Each concerned a three-hour class – compris-
ing a lecture followed by a seminar on research methods at postgraduate level –
observing a colleague, referred to here as James. (Although James did observe the
author on a number of later occasions, this did not take place during the study period.)
James and the author were, at the time, both senior lecturers and course leaders (of
different courses, but within the same course cluster). Each had five years’ teaching
experience, had undertaken a postgraduate certificate in HE, had shared the teaching
and assessment of some modules and had both entered HE at approximately the same
time from a background in human resources in industry. Over this time a ‘critical
friend’ relationship had developed built on shared experiences and respect. James
commented: ‘Having a well-established working relationship was an advantage. It
meant that there was plenty of mutual understanding already in place’. However, they
had not previously peer observed each other.
The values of the participants are important (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Bryman &
Bell, 2003) – both were committed to undertaking peer observation and sought to
learn from it. However, although they were prompted to undertake peer observation
as a result of a managerial initiative, they selected each other as partners. It was agreed
that the author would attend the 10-week series of classes and observe the happenings
both in recognition of her interest in the subject being taught and in peer observation
per se. For James, the purpose of the series of observations was to receive feedback
on his teaching over time and to identify changes in practice to aid CPD. He wished
to hear his colleague’s ‘take’ on his teaching – hoping for a different perspective to
his own. The three-hour class sessions involved taking two Masters student groups
together in the first hour and a half as a lecture session – one of whom he had little
familiarity with, while for the other he also acted as their course leader and seminar
tutor. The second session after a short tea break was in seminar format to his known
student group alone (the other group had their seminar with their own course leader).
The presence of an observer in the classroom can affect participant reactions
(Sideridis, 2000). Foster (1996) points out that personal reactivity results in those
being observed behaving differently in response to the characteristics or behaviour of
the observer. Ideally, therefore, the participants (the lecturer being observed and the
students) should have time to adapt to the observation environment and the observer’s
 Innovations in Education and Teaching International 299

presence. It was thought that the presence of the author in every class would help to
reduce participant reactivity. It was agreed that the author would join the class, as far
as possible, as a ‘student’ rather than a ‘researcher’ or ‘observer’. She therefore
agreed to undertake to engage in any pre-work set and to participate in class discus-
sions as appropriate. Tape-recording sessions was considered inappropriate as this
could potentially emphasise her researcher/observer status. However, covert surveil-
lance was not intended and the author was introduced to the class as being present
both to learn about research methods and also to provide feedback on teaching to
James.
Pre-observation briefings comprised sharing ideas of how potential and actual
difficult situations in the classroom might be managed. It was agreed that the author
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 18:59 07 October 2014

would make field notes on the issues that she saw as important and on those for which
James had specifically requested feedback. No university peer observation documen-
tation was used during the sessions. Notes were taken in respect of subject dissemina-
tion (reflecting the author’s desire to learn about specific issues) and the context for
the peer observation (ranging from timing, seating, movement, use of equipment,
etc.). Specific quotations (in respect of conversations with students as opposed to
factual dissemination of information) were recorded in shorthand for later transcrip-
tion. During the observations, the author also noted examples of how suggestions/
techniques discussed in the pre-observation briefing had been carried out and her
views as to their success so that these could be discussed after each session. Thus, the
observer’s field notes comprised a mix of factual content, interspersed with context,
intervention descriptions and conversation. To make sense of this, after each session,
content, context, interventions and speech were separately colour coded and conver-
sations transcribed. Notes and conversations were also made/transcribed from pre-
and post-observation discussions.
Key themes were identified, coded, extracted, categorised and traced in chronolog-
ical order following the principles of thematic analysis (King, 2004), thus grouping
points identified from changing relationships and interactions. The lengthy series of
observations revealed a wealth of rich data from which examples have been selected
to illustrate key themes (student engagement and integration) identified as relevant to
the articulated hypothesis.

The outcome
The thematic analysis revealed firstly the issue of difficulties in gaining student
engagement. Many students were new to the university and had come from abroad
where a more uni-directional lecture style is frequently practised – they appeared reti-
cent to raise questions or to be involved in class discussions. The pre-observation
briefings first addressed this via training interventions such as a suggested use of
‘shoulder pairs’. (This technique involves stopping at an appropriate point – usually
more than once – to ask students to discuss with their neighbour for two minutes
issues that they did not fully understand and to formulate questions to ask the lecturer,
to be raised in a public forum for the benefit of all.) Neither James nor the author had
used this technique before and both parties were interested to see how it would be
taken up by the students. The observer noted that while some students seemed to
embrace the idea, others were confused by what was expected (‘what does he want us
to do?’). Some students appeared to lose focus, while dominant characters appeared
to benefit by having areas of concern regularly addressed.
 300 S. Shortland

A second theme to emerge later from the observations concerned a lack of integra-
tion between the two class populations. This first became evident through the shoulder
pairs where students from James’s course were observed to dominate the discussions,
although at first this was not identified as an integration issue. Later sessions revealed
that James’s seminar group tended to sit together near the front of the room, while the
members of the other seminar group sat at the back. Straightforward interventions
were discussed by the observation partners and tried out in the classroom, but proved
unsuccessful. James did not normally attempt to control seating arrangements, but as
a result of peer observation discussion he attempted to integrate the two groups by
asking those students at the very back to move to the front to fill empty places.
Compliance did not result in integration. He next tried use of humour to find a shared
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 18:59 07 October 2014

basis for learning. The use of jokes as explanations fell flat as the mixed cultural audi-
ence did not understand them. James felt himself ‘digging myself further and further
into a hole’ as he tried to explain their meaning. Peer observation feedback discussions
focused on cultural competencies and this was taken in good spirit as both observer
and observed shared similar experiences and their various mistakes as well as
successes.
The issue of student integration between the two class groups remained as a key
theme. As the semester progressed, so James’s seminar group became even more
familiar with his style and more willing to enter discussion (the ‘in-group’). The other
group remained ‘on the fringe’ despite all efforts to integrate them further. Later feed-
back discussions paid less attention to potentially non-confrontational issues such as
training interventions and competency development and more in terms of professional
development as highlighted through jointly identified deep-seated class problems.
Feedback here had the potential to become highly charged, but in James’s view:
‘issues of trust and justice in terms of the feedback given’ enabled sharing of views
without any sense of ‘confrontation and judgement’. James felt that peer observation
discussions led to professional development in terms of his framing of arguments to
management as to why the delivery of the module should be structured differently for
future groups, thus suggesting improvements to course delivery.
In respect of CPD, he reported taking control of his learning on an ongoing basis
through reflection and action drawn from a mix of training, competency and develop-
ment interventions. The week-by-week discussions provided a momentum to taking
learning and development forward with CPD enhanced through feedback as had been
hypothesised (despite the difficult classroom situations under discussion). James
noted: ‘A lot of learning went on and…the dedication of parties to giving and
receiving feedback as immediately as possible following each session was very help-
ful – it meant that the process felt continuous’.
An unexpected consequence that neither party had envisaged was the sense of
deepened collegiality that ensued from the sustained peer observation partnership.
Both felt that their critical friendship relationship and their respect for each other had
been strengthened through the trust that developed through their weekly feedback
discussions. James even reported with some sadness ‘missing the author’s presence in
my class and our joint feedback discussions’ at the end of the observation series.
Mutual understanding of the distinctive student groups and classroom situation
induced unexpected reflective feedback on shared experiences, leading to longer-term
personal and professional development for both parties as the pair subsequently
worked together to reformulate the course delivery. Further unexpected consequences
related to benefits that have transcended the peer observation process and formed the
 Innovations in Education and Teaching International 301

basis of a support system that now operates between the partners across a range of
activities in both of their inter-related and unrelated working and personal lives. While
it is acknowledged that not all those in peer observation pairs will experience such
profound benefits from sustained reflective feedback, for those willing to engage in a
continuing process with others with shared developmental objectives, the potential to
achieve them may become a reality.

Pointers for practice and research

This article has indicated a number of issues that arise from the provision and receipt
of feedback within peer observation in terms of how, potentially, lecturers might bene-
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 18:59 07 October 2014

fit. To aid those engaged in the process, the key pointers are summarised here:

● Peer observation participants may be allocated partners to work with. If partici-

pants wish to maximise developmental opportunities participants should be
given – or demand – the freedom to build partnerships as they see fit for as long
as they see benefits in so-doing and, as familiarity and respect is built, so
resistance to the breaking up of valuable developmental relationships by
management may be required.
● Participants should be wary of using pre-determined checklists in conducting
observations and feedback. Pre-observation briefing sessions may be used to
determine developmental objectives for both observer and observed with the
observation itself to reflect this as far as possible. A reflective approach with
emphasis on learning is recommended where the parties are committed to joint
developmental objectives, and the building of working alliances.
● Feedback can be dangerous to relationships – it may be damaging if perceived
as critical, but serve little purpose in developmental terms if the problematic is
avoided. Feedback should, therefore, be focused and context-specific, construc-
tive, balancing the positive with the negative and, as far as is possible, be non-
judgemental. But this requires recognition of one’s own value systems and the
judgements that may so easily and inadvertently be made as a result of them.
The timing of feedback may need to reflect a balance between requirements for
immediacy and considered reflection.
● Relationships may grow over time, but shared experiences help to strengthen
them. The provision of feedback can act as a catalyst in building relationships
through the development of empathy, respect and trust. The objective of
successful peer observation is to harness the insight of critical friends to
promote personal and professional development on a continuing basis, within a
supportive framework. If this ‘higher level’ can be reached, lecturers themselves
can benefit immensely.

It is acknowledged that this article is based on a case study of sustained peer observa-
tion as a continuing process and that it is set within a methodological framework that
recognises potentially limited generalisability. Further research is needed to explore
the longer-term benefits of peer observation practice from both individual and
management perspectives taking into account a variety of disciplines and years of
study. Peer observation procedures in HE typically involve one-off pairings and
isolated observations. Further research into the implications and effects of peer obser-
vations within continuing relationships could potentially give new insights into its
 302 S. Shortland

benefits (and drawbacks), including implications for building trust and the role of
organisational justice in the development and implementation of peer observation.
Peer observation has typically been a subject for small-scale, case study-style
qualitative research. However, research into QAA (Quality Assurance Agency)
outcomes linked to the inputs of peer observation potentially could provide a valuable
insight into whether quality is enhanced to some degree by peer observation or
whether management’s drive to enforce peer observation to achieve quality targets is
driven by ‘scientific’ myth.

Conclusions
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 18:59 07 October 2014

The literature indicates that one of the underpinning principles of peer observation is
that feedback is shared between the observer and the observed. Yet, feedback is based
upon interpretations of events and perceptions of the rationale and environment under-
pinning them. It is inherently dangerous: it may be interpreted as critical, evaluative,
judgmental, threatening, painful, competitive or personal, even though this is not
usually intended. Observers need to be aware that they are, generally speaking,
untrained participants in a potentially highly emotive setting. An understanding of this
should prompt observers to undertake training (if available), be empathic and be
prepared to debate or defend their interpretations in giving feedback.
On a far more positive note, however, the literature suggests the shared nature of
feedback within peer observation gives participants learning and development oppor-
tunities. These are aided by supportive relationships, built up during a continuing
process, where the parties share objectives and motivations for participating. The
building of ‘critical friendships’ where the partners respect and support each other is
crucial in underpinning constructive feedback.
This article goes further than established literature in the field. From a case study
of sustained peer observation, it demonstrates not only CPD resulting from continuing
observation feedback, but also unexpected consequences including deepened collegi-
ality based upon the development of a high trust relationship. This suggests an alter-
native but complementary perspective to established literature: peer observation
feedback discussions over a sustained period can provide a mechanism to advance the
development of relationships and loyalty between and among those involved in the
process. Regular peer observation discussion can potentially induce more reflective
feedback, in turn leading to individuals being able to cross a threshold of significance
in their own professional development, facilitating control over personal learning and
growth. Thus, the twinned messages for those involved in peer observation are that
while critical friendships can facilitate provision of constructive feedback, so feed-
back itself, if part of a continuing process, can result in high trust and strengthened
personal relationships, with this inter-relationship helping to promote lecturers’ CPD.

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank the two reviewers, Stephen Perkins and Charlotte Hobson, for their
help in writing this article.

Note on contributor
Sue Shortland is principal lecturer in human resource management in London Metropolitan
University’s Business School. Her research interests include the role of women in international
mobility and peer observation of teaching.
 Innovations in Education and Teaching International 303

References
Bell, M. (2001). Supported reflective practice: A programme of peer observation and feed-
back for academic teaching development. The International Journal for Academic Devel-
opment, 6(1), 29–39.
Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (1998). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education.
Buckingham, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University
Press.
Brown, S. (1993a). Observing teaching in higher education. In S. Brown, G. Jones, & S.
Rawnsley (Eds.), Observing Teaching (pp. 51–53) Birmingham, UK: SEDA.
Brown, G. (1993b). Observing and evaluating teaching: Lectures and seminars. London: Law
Society.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2003). Business research methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 18:59 07 October 2014

Cosh, J. (1998). Peer observation in higher education – a reflective approach. Innovations in

Education and Teaching International, 35(2), 171–176.
D’Andrea, V., & Gosling, D. (2001). Joining the dots: Reconceptualizing educational devel-
opment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 2(1), 64–80.
Eraut, M. (1995). Developing professional knowledge within a client-centred orientation. In
T.R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New
paradigms & practices (pp. 227–252). New York: Teachers College Press.
Farrell, T.S.C. (2001). Tailoring reflection to individual needs: A TESOL case study. Journal
of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 27(1), 23–38.
Foster, P. (1996). Observing schools – a methodological guide. London: Paul Chapman
Publishing.
Francis, D. (2001). The challenge of involving students in the evaluation process. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 29(2), 125–137.
Fullerton, H. (1993). Observation of teaching: Guidelines for observers and observed. In
S. Jones, G. Jones, & S. Rawnsley (Eds.), Observing teaching (pp.77–83). Birming-
ham, UK: SEDA.
Fullerton, H. (1999). Observation of teaching. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall (Eds.),
A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice
(pp. 220–234). London: Kogan Page.
Hodgkinson, M. (2003). The effectiveness of peer observation of teaching initiatives in UK
business schools: an interim view. Retrieved February 12, 2007, from: http://
www.business.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/reflect/conf/2003/hodgkinson.
Hounsell, D. (1999). The evaluation of teaching. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall
(Eds.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic
practice (pp. 161–174). London: Kogan Page.
Jones, G. (1993). What to do before the session: Some guidance on observation of teaching in
higher education. In S. Jones, G. Jones, & S. Rawnsley (Eds.), Observing teaching
(pp. 31–33). Birmingham, UK: SEDA.
King, N. (2004). Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In C. Cassell & G. Symon
(Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 256–270).
London: Sage.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
MacKinnon, M.M. (2001). Using observational feedback to promote academic development.
The International Journal for Academic Development, 6(1), 21–28.
Martin, G.A., & Double, J.M. (1998). Developing higher education teaching skills through
peer observation and collaborative reflection. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 35(2), 161–170.
Megginson, D., & Whitaker, V. (2003). Continuing professional development. London: CIPD.
NATFHE (National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education). (2001).
Guidelines for higher education branches: Peer review and observation of teaching.
London: NATFHE.
Nicholls, G. (2000). Professional development, teaching and lifelong learning: The implica-
tions for higher education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(4), 370–377.
O’Connell, C., Anderson, J., & Coe, E. (2000). Creative pathways to professional develop-
ment. Educational Developments, 1(2), 8–10.
 304 S. Shortland

Paechter, C. (1996). What do we mean by professional development? Research in Post-

Compulsory Education, 1(3), 345–355.
Peel, D. (2005). Peer observation as a transformatory tool? Teaching in Higher Education,
10(4), 489–504.
Peel, D., & Shortland, S. (2004). Student teacher collaborative reflection: perspectives on
learning together. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 51–61.
Roberts, C., Anderson, L., Betts, M., & Oakley, D. (2002). Developing a supportive culture
for teaching and learning: A university, faculty and school perspective. Retrieved
February 12, 2007, from: http://www.business.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/reflect/conf/
2002/roberts,c
Roberts, G. (2005). Recruitment and selection. London: CIPD.
Salmon, P. (1989). Personal stances in learning. In S.W. Weil & I. McGill, (Eds.), Making
sense of experiential learning: Diversity in theory and practice (pp. 230–241). Milton
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 18:59 07 October 2014

Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

Shortland, S. (2004a). Peer observation: A tool for staff development or compliance? Journal
of Further and Higher Education, 28(2), 219–228.
Shortland, S. (2004b). Observing teaching in HE: A case study of classroom observation
within peer observation. The International Journal of Management Education, 4(2), 3–15.
Sideridis, G. (2000). Direct classroom observation: Potential problems and solutions.
Research in Education: An Interdisciplinary International Research Journal, 59, 19–28.
Simmonds, D. (2003). Designing and delivering training. London: CIPD.
Skelton, A. (2005). Understanding teaching excellence in higher education: Towards a
critical approach. London: Routledge.
Timperley, H. (2001). Mentoring conversations designed to promote student teacher learning.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 29(2), 111–123.
Tubbs, N. (2000). From reflective practitioner to comprehensive teacher. Educational Action
Research, 8(1), 167–178.
UK UCoSDA Task Force Five (1994). Continuing professional development (CPD) for staff
in higher education (HE): Informing strategic thinking. Sheffield, UK: UK UCoSDA.