Observing Classroom Teaching in Higher Education. A CASE STUDY
| Published date | 01 March 1993 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889310046176 |
| Pages | 26-30 |
| Date | 01 March 1993 |
| Author | Janet Hanson |
| Subject Matter | Education |
QUALITY ASSURANCE
IN EDUCATION
Observing Classroom
Teaching in Higher Education
A CASE STUDY
Janet
Hanson
BACKGROUND TO THE SCHEME
The proposal to develop a scheme to appraise
teaching practice through classroom observation
at Bournemouth University was put forward as
early as the autumn of
1990.
A combination of
several factors, including the publication of
the
Warnock Report on Teaching Quality
(PCFC,
1990),
and the experience of
several
visits
from Her Majesty's Inspectors to the University
(then Bournemouth Polytechnic), contributed to
the seriousness with which the proposal was
considered. The additional demands now placed
on institutions by the HEFC quality assessment
exercise have also
figured
prominently in our
most recent reflections on the scheme. The result
is a system of
classroom
observation which aims
to encourage the development of
good
teaching
practice and may also provide the University with
aggregate data with which to demonstrate the
quality of its teaching.
The scheme was piloted with 27 staff
in
two
departments during October
1991.
Following an
evaluation, the scheme was introduced, with some
modifications, to all departments except one in
the autumn of
1992.
The pilot and its evaluation
are reported elsewhere by Hanson (1993). This
article describes the operation of
the
full scheme
and contrasts the results of
the
evaluation of
the
pilot with those from the evaluation of
the
full
scheme. This second evaluation was conducted in
May 1993.
The Scheme Aims
The overall aims for the scheme are:
• To provide intelligence on how to improve
teaching quality.
• To encourage a sense of personal
responsibility for, and continuing
commitment
to,
the improvement of teaching
quality.
The scheme took place between January and May
1993 and involved 257 staff
from
nine
departments. Of
these,
105 staff
acted
as
appraisers, 20 were the heads and associate heads
of departments and 85 were members of
the
University's Course Evaluation Group. This
Course Evaluation Group acts as
a
peer review
body for course approval and monitoring within
the University and was therefore the natural place
to look for peer appraisers of
teaching
quality.
Indeed,
members are frequently appointed to this
group on the basis of recognition of their teaching
expertise. The head of department also seemed a
natural choice for appraiser. As the lecturer's line
manager, he has responsibility for assisting the
individual to make use of staff development
opportunities. The role was extended to include
associate heads to ease the load on the head.
These line managers observed staff
in
their
respective departments and the peer appraisers
observed staff in departments other
than
their
own.
Two observation sessions for each member of
staff
were
planned.
One was observed by the peer
appraiser
and
the other by the peer appraiser and
the line manager
together.
In response to feedback
from the evaluation of
the
pilot, only one session
was to be observed by the appraisee's line
manager instead of
both,
as originally attempted.
One session was selected by the appraisee and the
other by the line manager. Staff
were
encouraged
to select whatever sessions they felt were most
representative of their
teaching,
so they were free
to have field-work and practical laboratory
sessions observed if
these
teaching situations
formed a significant proportion of their teaching
load.
If
possible,
each appraisee was to have the
same peer appraiser observe both sessions. It was
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 1 No. 3, 1993, pp. 26-30
© MCB University Press, 0968-4833
26
To continue reading
Request your trial