Faculty’s perception of peer observation of teaching: the case of a higher education institution in Malta

Abstract

Peer Observation of Teaching (POT) is one of the areas which is steadily gaining importance in higher education. Nevertheless, it is generally shrouded with uncertainty, doubt, and a lack of procedural understanding, especially in the context of small states where the number of teachers is limited. This study explores faculty perceptions of Peer Observation of Teaching (POT) in a micro higher education institution in Malta. The findings reveal that factors such as smallness, the ‘already known factor’, guardedness, personalism, and fear of being judged shape how faculty view POT. The research advocates shifting from evaluative to developmental or peer-to-peer models of POT to suit the cultural intricacies of small states. It stresses the importance of transparent policies to foster trust and accountability and recommends enhancing relational and dialogic approaches to foster collegiality and offering Higher Education teaching training. These insights transcend small island states and are applicable to various educational settings, offering valuable lessons for teaching and quality assurance globally.

Keywords:

• Peer observation
• peer review
• professional development

Introduction

With the rise of new public management and the neo-liberal quest for more accountability Peer observation of teaching (POT) is becoming increasingly popular in higher education. However, there are mixed opinions about its effectiveness. Some view POT as an opportunity for individual academic growth and a way to build collegial relationships among faculty (Wingrove et al. 2017). Others see it as a practice that reduces academic autonomy, increases bureaucracy, and exerts quality assurance and control in the classroom (Thomson, Bell, and Hendry 2015; Blackmore 2005). The literature on POT is extensive; however few studies examine the impact of cultural idiosyncrasies on POT. Small island states have unique nuances, such as smallness, isolation, intimacy, guardedness, fear of negative judgment, and personalism, that may affect how teachers perceive POT (Baldacchino 2011; Baldacchino and Mayo 1996; Friggieri 1996). Further research could provide insights on POT in small island states and how it can be improved. To address the stated gap, the main research question guiding the study is:

RQ: What is the perception of faculty on POT in a small island state?

With the following sub-questions:

• What are the benefits and challenges of POT?

• What are the implications of the findings for understanding POT and its further development in small island states?

Peer observation of teaching (POT)

POT is a multifaceted practice, varying across countries and contextualized within each institution’s academic culture. Three models of POT have been identified: evaluation, developmental, and peer review. These models differ in their focus and level of management intervention, with the evaluation model emphasizing institutional processes, the developmental model involving educational experts, and the peer-review model fostering collegiality (Gosling 2002). POT serves as both a management mechanism and an opportunity for faculty to engage in self-reflection and collegiality (Shortland 2004; Gosling 2002; Johnston, et al. 2020; Chamberlain, D’Artrey, and Rowe 2011).

Acknowledged benefits include pedagogical enhancement, community fostering, increased self-confidence, and teaching effectiveness (Teoh, Ming, and Khan 2016; Thomson, Bell, and Hendry 2015; Bell and Mladenovic 2015; Johnston, et al. 2020; Smailes 2021). It also contributes to institutional collaboration and confidence in teaching quality (Smailes 2021). POT with feedback enhances self-regulation skills (Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond 2004). Additionally, POT with feedback enhances self-monitoring, autonomy, and academic self-regulation skills (Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond 2004).

The literature highlights fear of judgment and power struggles hinder receptiveness (Atwood, Taylor, and Hutchings 2000; Kell and Annetts 2009). Ideally, POT fosters trust, constructive criticism, and honest self-reflection among peers (Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond 2004).

Efforts have been made to formalize and structure POT, with some countries, such as Malta and the UK, incorporating it into national quality standards (Shortland 2004). However, formalization runs the risk of turning POT into a tool for performativity rather than quality enhancement (Warman 2015; Blackmore 2005). This can lead to increased anxiety and demotivation among faculty, inhibiting the developmental aspect of POT (Teoh, Ming, and Khan 2016; Blackmore 2005). While POT practices offer benefits, they also present challenges, and their implementation must navigate various complexities to realize its full potential (Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond 2004).

The context of this study’s POT: the ‘small state’ and ‘small island state’

Malta is a micro-state island with a population of approximately 500,000 individuals, having a high population density of 1380 per square kilometre (Worldometer 2024). It shares characteristics with states such as Andorra, Liechtenstein, Estonia, and others. Scholars like Friggieri (1996) highlight the significance of ‘smallness’ and ‘vulnerability’ in shaping the Maltese mindset, akin to other small island states globally. Cultural traits such as smallness, isolation, intimacy, and guardedness impact inhabitants’ perception of POT, alongside the fear of negative consequences and ‘exaggerated personalism’ (Sutton 2007).

Living in a small island state blurs the line between personal and professional life due to limited space, fostering overwhelming intimacy and multiplex relationships (Spiteri 2018). Residents experience a sense of being constantly under scrutiny, with relationships characterised by complexity, often prioritising stability and compromise (Lowenthal 1987). While conflict resolution may differ from larger states, the possibilities of ‘small can be beautiful’ emerge, especially in recognising resilience in these contexts (Sultana 2010; Briguglio 2014).

National context: higher education, POT procedures at major higher education institutions

In Malta, there are 45 higher education institutions (National Statistics Office 2022, 90), accommodating approximately 21,914 students (NSO, 2022) and employing 2,085 teaching staff (Eurostat, n.d.). Student and teaching staff numbers are relatively low compared to many other countries. The adoption of POT in Malta’s higher education sector is still nascent. This is evident in the absence of a formal policy for POT at the island’s major public university, as highlighted in the external quality assurance (EQA) audit report on the University of Malta commissioned by the Malta Further and Higher Education Authority (MFHEA) (formerly known as the National Commission for Further and Higher Education - NCFHE), indicating that POT is primarily conducted on an ad-hoc basis (NCFHE. 2015b, 29).

Feedback on teaching practices at the University of Malta is primarily gathered through end-of-module feedback questionnaires filled in by students, with no formal performance review mechanism in place for academic staff (NCFHE. 2015b, 29). Additionally, novice lecturers are informally mentored by heads of departments (HoDs) if they take on teaching duties as part of their master’s by research programme.

The Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology (MCAST), the second-largest public higher education institution, has implemented a Lecturer Performance Appraisal procedure to enhance lecturers’ professional and personal growth (MCAST 2021a, 1). This procedure involves observations of teaching by a ‘critical friend’ with expertise in professional knowledge and pedagogical practices. While the process is billed as having a critical friend approach, a comprehensive checklist report is compiled using a five-tier appraisal for each criterion, aligned with the National Quality Assurance Framework for Further and Higher Education (MCAST 2021b).

The Institute for Tourism Studies (ITS), the third-largest higher education institution, recently adopted an appraisal policy for full-time academic staff following an EQA audit in 2015 (NCFHE. 2015a). This policy requires all staff to undergo appropriate training and engage in yearly meetings with appraisers, with outcomes recorded and monitored annually (ITS 2021, 2). The appraisal process involves self-reflection, observation, feedback, and identification of areas for growth for the following year (ITS 2021, 4).

Overall, while POT uptake in Malta remains low, some institutions like MCAST and ITS have implemented appraisal procedures aimed at enhancing teaching quality and professional development among lecturers, albeit with varying approaches and levels of formality.

Institutional context of the study

The study focuses on a micro-higher education institution referred to as Institute X, which employs two distinct processes of POT. The first process, established since the institute’s inception, is overseen by the quality assurance department and involves unannounced lecturer observations aimed at ensuring competence and effectiveness. Lecturers are assessed on a four-tier scale and required to implement any recommendations. However, the policy lacks follow-up procedures (Institute 2019).

Institute X also offers a voluntary Peer Conversation on Practice, facilitating collegiality, personal development, and reflective pedagogical engagement among participating lecturers. Initiated by interested parties and supported administratively by the quality assurance department, this process entails joint reporting on observed modules and lectures intended for faculty-wide reflection (Institute X 2021). Despite its introduction in 2021, no such conversations have occurred.

Across various higher education institutions, POT emerges as an evaluative or appraisal tool, often in response to external quality audits. While some institutions employ checklist-based ­evaluations overseen by quality assurance departments, none utilize key performance indicators. One key observation to be made across all policy documents reviewed is the apparent discrepancy between the terminology used to describe the POT processes and their actual implementation. For instance, institutions may claim to follow a ‘critical friend approach’ but fail to incorporate genuine elements of critical feedback and support within their practices. This disconnect between terminology and reality undermines the trust and effectiveness of the POT process, hampers meaningful engagement, and contributes to faculty scepticism towards POT initiatives.

Methodology: questionnaire and semi-structured interviews

No empirical studies on POT in the Maltese context were found; therefore, the methodology adopted for this study includes a questionnaire circulated among lecturers and one-to-one semi-structured interviews.

Ethical protocols were adhered to, ensuring confidentiality and obtaining a 14% response rate from 157 lecturers; this was not a major cause for concern as the questionnaire provided an initial snapshot of POT's perceived benefits and challenges. Participants were not required to provide personal information to maintain confidentiality. The questionnaire used provided an opportunity for the respondents to voluntarily offer their email addresses for further one-to-one semi-structured interviews. Eventually, six teachers agreed to participate in the follow-up interviews. This mixed-method approach facilitated the data collection of both an initial snapshot through the questionnaire and more in-depth narratives during the interviews. Semi-structured interviews were conducted primarily in English but allowed for the Maltese language usage, when preferred by participants (Grix 2019). The stance of the research was constructivist, enabling the interpretation of documents and data from the interviews. All interviewees were lecturers teaching Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes, with the institution referred to as ‘Institute X’ throughout the paper to maintain confidentiality.

The study is qualitative and interpretive, allowing for a more in-depth understanding of the topic under investigation and its particular intricacies rather than conducting research for generalisation purposes, which is why the sample size is small (Creswell 2007, 18). The data analysis is located in an iterative, dynamic and recursive process in relation to the research questions. A thematic approach through the coding methods proposed by Cohen, et al. (2017) was used to categorise issues. The analysis involved multiple rounds of reading and transcription to extract salient points and ensure consistency in coding for similar themes or situations.

Findings and discussion

This section reports the joint findings of the qualitative questionnaire and the interviews.

POT as continuous professional development

Consistent with the literature available on POT, most lecturers view POT as a process of enhancing teaching practices and as an opportunity to learn among practitioners in the field (Teoh, Ming, and Khan 2016; Thomson, Bell, and Hendry 2015; Johnston, et al. 2020). 90% of (questionnaire) respondents see POT as an opportunity to exchange ideas and practices, followed by an opportunity for teachers to learn from each other at 86% and a professional development experience at 68%. As highlighted during the interviews, POT was associated with terms such as:

Teacher D: improving and enhancing the teaching experience by exchanging ideas and skills.

Respondents who favour the peer-to-peer model often highlight the concept of situated learning (Bell and Mladenovic 2015). In this model, professional development occurs in a dual format, where both the observer and the observee benefit. The observee receives feedback aimed at enhancing their lecture delivery, while the observer gains insight into practices they may want to incorporate into their own teaching. This process fosters a dual self-reflective approach, allowing both parties to reflect on their experiences and refine their teaching methods; respondents reported that observing other faculty:

Teacher E: it even inspired me to some extent with their teaching methods. So, even for the person observing, it is beneficial; it can be a learning experience both for the person being observed and the person observing.

Corresponding to Smailes (2021), respondents emphasised that lecturers need time to experience the delivery of the module before a POT process. Newly appointed lecturers need time to build confidence in the content and delivery of the module (Buchanan and Parry 2019). While several studies suggest that POT increases the lecturer’s confidence (Daniels, Pirayoff, and Bessant 2013), there is a correlation between allowing enough time for a new lecturer to assimilate and experience the module they are teaching and the POT process. Conducting POT in the early stages, when a lecturer is new to the module, can be seen as a performative stance rather than a support mechanism and can inhibit self-confidence and uptake of POT practices.

Teacher C: because now that I am in my third year doing these kinds of lectures and at an MA level, I feel much more confident in myself… So yes, if I had to do it in my first year, it [POT] would definitely be a much bigger challenge to do it because then I would still need to be much more certain about myself.

Teacher E: I think the nerves reduce with experience, so the longer I've been teaching, the less nervous I am about someone watching me because I'm more confident about what I'm doing.

POT is seen as a form of reassurance when taken from a peer-to-peer collegial approach. One respondent recalled that the POT process was beneficial because they voluntarily asked for a colleague to observe them. The parameters for its successful implementation included a good relationship with the observer; the observee felt the need to pursue the POT process and was already receptive to the observer’s position and feedback.

Teacher A: The good thing was she reassured me that, on the whole, my approach was OK … And at the same time, she had made a few suggestions, and it really reassured me because I valued her opinion.

In contrast to the literature, which suggests a preference among academics for experts in pedagogical methods and subject areas (Teoh, Ming, and Khan 2016; Esterhazy et al. 2021), respondents in interviews expressed a preference for subject area experts. Pedagogical expertise was not deemed as crucial because the respondents had extensive teaching experience, spanning over ten years, and felt they could gather pedagogical feedback from students within the classroom:

Teacher D: I try to keep updated as much as I can to deliver to my students the latest and the best quality service of the subject. However, I am sure that there are persons working in the industry and they know much more about what’s going on in this subject. With regards to pedagogy, as I said, I don’t want to sound that I am superman, but I’ve been in vocational pedagogy for 20 years.

Teacher A: I think you can get that feedback from students directly. Whereas, on the content on your level of expertise in that particular area, you can’t obtain that from students. You would need another expert in the area to judge you.

Smallness and the ‘already known factor’

Malta’s smallness presents a unique challenge where individuals within specific fields of study are likely to know each other, leading to what is termed the ‘already known factor.’ This phenomenon, as noted in various literature, exposes both vulnerability (Lewis 2009) and resilience (Briguglio 2014) within the context of POT. In terms of vulnerability, this close-knit environment can impede the uptake of POT initiatives. Institutions primarily adopt POT from an evaluative perspective, which can make peers hesitant to provide judgment on a ‘close colleague’ or ‘friend.’ as

Teacher A: …. it upsets the collegiality that you have built over a long period of time.’

Teacher E: one of your colleagues is going to observe you, going to criticise or going to comment on how you’ve been teaching you sort of feel tense about it and you say … Isn’t this person on the same level as I am? What more should they have, or what less do they have, to be able to, sort of, comment on my teaching?

Faculty were initially open to POT, but were exposed to an evaluative form of POT, leading to disengagement from the process. Concerns about confidentiality and professional conduct also emerged during interviews. Some interviewees suggested that management should oversee POT to ensure confidentiality and accountability (Baldacchino 2015; Briguglio 2014):

Teacher D: Reviewing must be done by professional persons in the QA department. I think by keeping this channel there is the responsibility of the management and QA to respect privacy. And if not, the lecturer knows who’s accountable …. so you know the lecturer has this protection.

Respondents recognize the potential of state ‘smallness’ for resilience. One idea is to leverage Malta’s small size and the existing relationships between lecturers in different institutions to enable cross-institutional observation (O’Keeffe et al. 2021). This could be achieved through bilateral agreements between institutions in the same field of study.

Teacher A: I am very curious how the modules I teach … how is it taught at institution Y or institution Z. I would love to have that opportunity to observe a lecturer at institution Y or institution Z.

Guardedness and fear of negative consequences vs trust

There is extensive literature on the fear that POT brings due to a lack of shared understanding (Teoh, Ming, and Khan 2016; Esterhazy et al. 2021). In the Maltese context, faculty perceive the outcomes of POT as a judgmental process on their persona, rather than feedback on their job, which is linked to the blurring of private and professional life in small island states:

Teacher C: Even if not [negative] consequences in terms of the job, some fear of what the other person would say about you. About me. And maybe he would start thinking that I'm not so good after all in my job. And so yes, that kind of fear would definitely still be there. So it would always be at the back of my mind.

In small states like Malta, individuals guard their resources and knowledge due to the limited expertise in specific fields. Baldacchino (2011) argues that guardedness is necessary for survival and prosperity. This attitude is also evident during POT, as faculty are reluctant to open their classrooms for observation and resist changes to their content and pedagogical practices.

Teacher F: Many people have a lot of knowledge but it’s like they’re giving their own money, you know, and they don’t want to share with people. They want to keep everything for themselves.

Teacher A: This idea of having academic independence and academic professionalism some might interpret it as this is my lecture room and I can do whatever I want… for a long time, in Malta we only had one University. Unfortunately, most probably, that is the example which we were given. Lecturers are like mini gods and whatever happens in their lecture room, nobody can criticise that. So maybe some of us could see this peer observation as exposing maybe our dirty linen.

The fear of negative consequences due to a lack of procedural clarity is one of the perceived challenges of POT, as highlighted in the literature (Atwood, Taylor, and Hutchings 2000; Heron and Head 2019; Wingrove et al. 2017; Shortland 2004). Interestingly, in the Maltese context, POT is directly associated with quality assurance as a performance tool, with respondents being more concerned about the potential impact on the faculty’s reputation than on the workplace. This could be related to the fact that many lecturers are shared between different institutions, and in a small space, rumours circulate quickly (Atwood, Taylor, and Hutchings 2000; Heron and Head 2019; Wingrove et al. 2017; Shortland 2004):

Teacher D: reputation for a lecturer is very, very important. 360 degrees not only from the students’ point of view but from the management, from the general public. So yes, this is the part of the judgment that we are talking about.

Working as a team and sharing resources was also reported to be a challenge not only in POT but also in the day-to-day delivery of lectures:

Teacher B: This smallness, this islander syndrome, this behaviour that I can do it without any sharing or without learning, I think it affects us… It’s coming from this islander syndrome where we have to do it all, and if we cannot, we just say shut-up and don’t tell anyone.

Consistent with extant literature, all respondents emphasized the importance of trust for POT to be effective (Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond 2004; O’Leary and Savage 2020). Two models were identified as valuable for POT: the developmental model, where an expert’s opinion on the subject area is valued, and the peer-to-peer model, where the observee has a prior relationship with the observer:

Teacher A: I already had an opinion about this person. I value this person as a very good teacher… And she was a friend, a very good colleague as well. We were roughly the same age, and I think that helps, as well. we had the same training. And I think that was important as well because, you know, we come from the same page, the same school of thought… In a way, I was biased because I knew beforehand that I am going to accept any criticism, and I wanted to hear her feedback.

Dissimulation … of feedback?

While most of the literature on POT emphasises the importance of providing feedback in a constructive and sensitive manner (Shortland 2010), feedback tends to be avoided in the Maltese context. Feedback is usually given through a report or checklist given to management for appraisal, which shows a lack of emphasis on relational or dialogic aspects within the guidelines and practices of POT. Establishing a community among faculty is important for cultivating an environment where feedback is shared for professional advancement and growth. The data gathered showed that feedback was given as an afterthought or if requested by faculty.

Teacher C: I received feedback in the report. If I remember correctly, I'm not sure about this. I was asked if there is anything that I would like to discuss, and if I remember well, I was given the opportunity to do it. What I definitely know is that I didn’t avail myself of that. And so I just kept it and thanked the person who observed me, and that’s it.

Teacher B: the director left towards the end of the lecture. And they’re like, OK, thank you. See you… And they left…And then, after the lecture, I went, and I'm like … can I have some feedback? And they’re like, what feedback? …. I was a little bit let down because I was expecting more feedback.

The reluctance to give feedback can be attributed to the small island mentality where small space and intimacy force people to coexist with one another and become ‘experts at muting hostility, deferring their own views, containing disagreement, avoiding dispute, in the interest of stability and compromise’ (Lowenthal 1987, 39).

Respondent 1: I would find it very, very difficult to give feedback; if it’s positive feedback, there’s no problem, but if it is negative feedback, I mean, it’s a very delicate balance. You have this collegiality, this friendship, which you built over many months. How are you going to frame this negative feedback? And it’s not easy. And people do get offended.

Increase POT awareness and allocation of time

Respondents recognise the benefits of POT; however, they view the process with scepticism and, to some extent, distrust due to its evaluative stance in Maltese institutions. Additionally, respondents indicated that they are unaware of how POT is conducted, even though POT policies and documents are publicly available, very few faculty know where to find this information. Consequently, readily available information needs to be accompanied by regular meetings with faculty to remind them of the purpose of POT. Depending on the institutional culture, POT can be managed either through a top-down approach by management or informally to foster collegiality, leading to a peer-to-peer model. At Institute X, faculty is unaware of the model in use and report limited POT opportunities. Hence, an outreach campaign is needed to promote available models.

Time constraints were frequently mentioned (Buchanan and Parry 2019; Warman 2015). Lecturers need time to familiarise themselves with the POT documents to engage in the process and focus on relevant aspects that make the process more valuable to them as it is based on identified needs.

Teacher F: I know that it exists, but the only issue is that I have so many lectures. And I’m only engaged on a part-time basis, so I don’t have so much time to engage with this.

POT policy, process, criteria and outcomes should be clear and publicly available

Faculty at Institute X reported that the Quality Assurance department conducts an evaluative POT model process. They narrate that they were caught off guard when the request to observe their lecture was made. Additionally, they lacked awareness of the peer review model and its associated documentation. It would be beneficial if introductory meetings were conducted when hiring newly appointed faculty to encourage them to familiarise themselves with the Institute’s policies and procedures. Any criteria for appraisal and performance indicators should also be made available; this includes the checklist report used by the Quality Assurance department and the free-text approach used in the peer-to-peer observation. Both processes should have clear guidelines on the aims of such a process, the expected protocols to be followed and the outcomes (Heron and Head 2019). To ensure that the process is as transparent as possible, documentation related to POT should be publicly available; on an ethical level, faculty should know the expectations of the higher education institution prior to their employment.

Beyond presenting mere documentation, it should also be ensured that the language used in the policy matches the reality on the ground. The discrepancy between stated terminology and actual practice, such as the assertion of a ‘critical friend approach’ juxtaposed with a process that fails to align with this claim, is pervasive, especially when the process is used as a checklist based on judgment rather than an opportunity for discussion and engagement. Language serves as a conduit for communication, shaping perceptions, expectations, and behaviours. When policies and guidelines articulate lofty ideals such as collaboration, support, and collegiality but fail to manifest these principles in practice, it engenders a sense of disillusionment, cynicism, and disengagement among faculty. This discordance erodes trust and diminishes the credibility of educational initiatives, such as POT, designed to enhance teaching quality and professional development. Until there is a harmonisation between the language used to describe the process of POT and the actual implementation, genuine engagement and trust will remain elusive. It is essential to recognise this discrepancy as it directly impacts the efficacy and credibility of educational practices.

Implications of the study

A shift from performativity to developmental/peer-to-peer models of POT

Nationwide, shifting from evaluative to developmental or peer-to-peer models in POT could enhance its adoption. Evaluative approaches by institutional management may deter participation, linking POT with performance judgment. A gradual transition to a developmental model focusing on content expertise sharing may foster greater engagement. Implementing a pre-observation structure and free-text approach in reports could make the process more collegial and less formal, addressing concerns about clinicality associated with checklist-based evaluations. Another issue raised quite frequently was the checklist-based POT reports. A preferred alternative is a free-text approach, allowing for detailed discussion notes for lecturers’ review:

Teacher E: I understand that the free text would mean more work for me… giving feedback rather than ticking boxes. However, I think it makes it less of a checklist task… I think that with free-text you can be more personal and have more flexibility.

Lecturers have reported that they struggle to accommodate POT due to workload constraints. Simplifying the process, reducing bureaucracy, and minimizing paperwork are essential. Echoing Chamberlain, D’Artrey, and Rowe (2011), excessive bureaucracy undermines POT's effectiveness, turning it into a burdensome task rather than a professional development opportunity. A relational approach is advocated. Therefore, a more relational approach is needed

Enhance relational and dialogic focus

A more supportive community, fostering trust, and promoting reflective practice through POT is needed. Teaching is inherently a human and relational activity, and POT should reflect this reality by fostering supportive and dialogic interactions among faculty. Building a sense of community among faculty is important for creating a supportive environment conducive to professional growth and development. As seen in the data gathered, POT emerges as a mechanism for enhancing teaching practices, promoting professional growth, and cultivating a culture of continuous improvement. However, one important aspect is that peers have ‘full respect for each other as persons and for each other’s opinions’ (Roxå and Mårtensson 2009, 553); therefore, feedback on observations made during POT is to be regarded as being a private matter between peers. Roxå and Mårtensson (2009) maintain that privacy and intellectual intrigue are essential parameters towards building collegiality and trust. Conversations are to take place in private settings where the faculty know they cannot be overheard. This allows for open and honest discussions without fear of judgment from others. At the same time, intellectual intrigue encourages conversations dealing with important disciplinary content and challenges related to teaching and learning. They involve problem-solving, idea testing, and reflections on teaching experiences. Focusing on intellectually rigorous topics helps build understanding and camaraderie between participants (Roxå and Mårtensson 2009). Respondents stressed that although they belong to the same educational institution, they rarely get the opportunity to meet formally and informally. Additionally, there is no ‘contact/reference person’ for faculty who could facilitate conversations and social gatherings to help them get to know one another. Faculty feel that they are teaching in silos and in isolation; this has been exacerbated by the increase in online teaching during the Covid-19 pandemic; thus, it is essential that they have opportunities to interact socially and professionally to promote collegiality as advocated by Goedereis and MacCartney (2019), social bonding and getting to know colleagues better through informal gatherings allow for mutual learning and collaboration. In hindsight, before introducing any POT procedures, higher education institutions should encourage faculty to meet on a more informal level where social activities are organised to encourage exchange.

Teacher A: More meetings, physical meetings, online meetings, communicating the vision of the Institute.

Teacher C: There aren’t many lecturers that I know. I mean, we haven’t had much, much opportunities as an institute and as lecturers to meet each other.

To establish a conducive environment for POT, prioritising community building and trust among faculty is important. Various strategies can be employed, including arranging group meals, networking activities, and informal gatherings to encourage interactions and collaboration (Simon and Pleschová 2019). These interactions help establish connections, build rapport, and promote a sense of belonging within the academic community. Additionally, initiatives such as faculty pedagogy seminars and student-faculty partnerships foster trust and open communication, laying the groundwork for effective POT (Cook-Sather et al. 2021). It has to be acknowledged that academics undergoing POT are more likely to engage in such endeavours with their ‘significant networks’ (Roxå and Mårtensson 2009), as the process involves inviting peers to observe their classes which introduces an element of collaboration and feedback, encouraging educators to share their practices with others and receive constructive input. As seen through the data gathered, lecturers tend to choose their peers based on long histories together and shared values and interests. Unlike formal evaluations, which often involve standardised criteria and official assessments, POT, having a more relational approach, offers a more informal and supportive environment for feedback. Faculty can engage in dialogue with their peers, exchange ideas, and explore different teaching strategies without the pressure of formal assessment. This informal feedback can be invaluable for professional growth and development. POT can be better framed and invited as a step in between pedagogical solitude and evaluation, as it can be seen as a proactive step towards improving teaching practices. Instead of waiting for formal evaluations to identify areas for improvement, faculty can actively seek feedback from their peers through POT. This proactive approach fosters a culture of continuous improvement. Additionally, framing POT as a collaborative endeavour rather than a judgmental process helps build trust among colleagues. It emphasises the notion that everyone has room for growth and that feedback is given with the intention of supporting professional development.

Training in higher education

In line with the need for continuous professional development, there was a significant demand for more training on teaching in higher education, as noted by various academics during the interviews.

At a national level, there is an emphasis on initial teacher training, which incorporates a teaching practice where novices are observed and assessed; respondents were quite critical of the fact that there is no training being given for individuals interested in lecturing:

Teacher B: There is no teacher training when you’re in a tertiary education system. So you’re not sure… How to teach? How to give feedback? Unless you actually do a degree in education, but a lot of people who lecture don’t necessarily have a degree in education. They’ve done their specialisation in their subject become an expert in that subject, but being an expert in your subject doesn’t necessarily make you the ideal candidate to teach or to lecture. So, I believe at that level, training is needed on how to give feedback and what to look out for when you’re observing.

Donnelly (2007) suggested that developing a qualification in Higher Education teaching that integrates lecture observation might increase openness towards POT.

Conclusion

The challenges of POT are notably accentuated in the unique context of small island states, such as the ones described in this study, yet the implications and proposed solutions hold relevance beyond these specific settings. While faculty in small island states contends with issues like smallness, isolation, and the intertwining of personal and professional lives, these are not exclusive to such locales. Small colleges, community colleges, specialised niche institutions and remote schools often face similar dynamics. The strategies proposed to overcome these challenges, such as shifting the focus of POT from evaluation to developmental purposes, providing clear guidelines, promoting confidentiality and anonymity, and prioritising relationality and dialogue, can be adapted and implemented in diverse educational environments to cultivate a supportive teaching enhancement and professional growth culture.

Acknowledgements

This paper forms part of the author’s studies at Lancaster University. The author thanks all the students who participated in the research and Dr Nataša Lacković who provided valuable feedback on the work. The author acknowledges the support of academic staff on the Doctoral Programme in Higher Education Research, Evaluation and Enhancement at Lancaster University, from which this publication has arisen. http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/educational-research/study/phd/phd-in-higher-education-research,-evaluation-and-enhancement/

Disclosure statement

The author reports there are no competing interests to declare.