Reciprocal peer observation: a mechanism to identify professional learning goals

Figures & data

Table 1. Relationship between research phases, instruments, and objectives.

	Phase	Instrument	Objectives
RPO	1. Pre-observation
	2. Observation	1. Post-observation report	Ob. 1, 2, 3
	3. Feedback Meeting	2. Audio recording	Ob. 1, 2
	4. Final reflective synthesis	3. Final reflective synthesis	Ob. 1, 2, 3
Post-RPO		4. Questionnaire (two items)	Ob. 3
		5. Groups interview	Ob. 3

Table 2. Criteria for classifying the learning goals into different levels of quality, and examples.

Quality level	Criteria	Example
Low	(1) It deals with topics not relevant to professional learning and/or student learning - regardless of whether there is a specific action plan -, or (2) it deals with improving teaching practice in classroom management without a clear action plan.	(2) “Giving feedback is very important, it is a good tool to use with students as it makes them much more aware of what they are learning or doing”. (XCB-183)
Medium	(1) It deals with improving teaching practice in classroom management with a clear action plan or (2) it deals with a relevant topic but without a clear action plan.	(1) “Have better control of the order in the classroom and check when the computer should be used and when not. Try it in the next class”. (XCB-266)
High	It deals with very relevant topics that have a direct impact on students’ learning and provides a clear action plan.	“Improving the use of self-regulated learning tools. At the next coordination meeting, we can create a Drive folder for students to manage their learning”. (XCB-192)

The criteria for the learning goals classification were established, ratified, and updated by the working team. Each member of the team coded the learning goals following the agreed criteria and put them together to assess the degree of agreement and discrepancies, until absolute agreement was reached.

Table 3. Frequency and weight of the number of teachers who follow each pattern.

Pattern	Post Observation	Feedback meeting	Final reflective synthesis	Ƒ	%
1	NoLG	NoLG	YesLG	23	10.09
2	NoLG	YesLG	YesLG	54	23.69
3	YesLG	NoLG	YesLG	12	5.26
4	YesLG	YesLG	YesLG	139	60.96
			total	228	100

Table 4. Frequency and weight in relation to the different quality levels of the learning goals.

Quality level of learning goal	Ƒ	%
Low	94	41.23
Medium	96	42.10
High	38	16.67
Total	228	100

Table 5. Distribution of teachers among the different patterns and the different quality levels of the learning goals.

			Quality level of learning goal
Pattern	Post Observation	Feedback meeting	Low Ƒ (%)	Medium Ƒ (%)	High Ƒ (%)	Total Ƒ (%)
1	NoLG	NoLG	11(47.83)	7(30.43)	5(21.74)	23 (100%)
	Standardized residuals		0.68	−1.20	0.69
2	NoLG	YesLG	28(51.85)	23(42.59)	3(5.56)	54 (100%)
	Standardized residuals		1.81	0.08	−2.51
3	YesLG	NoLG	7(58.33)	4(33.33)	1(8.33)	12 (100%)
	Standardized residuals		1.24	−0.63	−0.80
4	YesLG	YesLG	48(34.53)	62(44.61)	29(20.86)	139 (100%)
	Standardized residuals		−2.57	0.96	2.13
Total			94	96	38	228 (100%)

Table 6. Dimensions and category analysis of the group interviews.

Dimension	Category	Ƒ	% (within dimension)	% (total)
How do you assess the fact that both instruments involve writing activities?	negatively	1	4.55	1.19
	positively but with limitations	13	59.09	15.47
	positively with explicit benefits	8	36.36	9.52
	Total	22	100%	26.18%
How do you assess the fact that both instruments should be prepared individually?	negatively	2	9.09	2.38
	positively but with limitations	11	50	13.09
	positively with explicit benefits	9	40.91	10.71
	Total	22	100%	26.18%
How do you assess the two instruments in terms of how they help identify learning goals?	negatively	1	5	1.19
	positively	3	15	3.57
	positively but with limitations	12	60	14.29
	positively with explicit benefits	4	20	4.76
	Total	20	100%	23.81%
Suggestions to improve the use of the two instruments	not necessary	8	40	9.52
	improvement with suggestions	12	60	14.29
	Total	20	100%	23.81%
	Total interventions	84		100%