Using Teaching Observations and Reflective Practice to Challenge Conventions and Conceptions of Teaching in Geography

Abstract

Cultural activities such as teaching and learning are highly complex systems that are deeply embedded in a wider culture and these factors impede change. Despite feeling directly the effect of the recent drive towards mass participation in higher education, most lecturers have not accounted for these changes in their teaching methods. Unless lecturers engage in critical reflection and ongoing discovery they stay trapped in unexamined judgements, interpretations, assumptions and expectations. Collaborative teaching observations and reflective practice were conducted by the author and colleagues with a range of experience within a geography department. Several surprising discrepancies appeared between lecturers' expectations and observations of the teaching sessions. The experience showed that, regardless of teaching experience, lectures allow the lecturer in his/her routine practice to neither appreciate his/her performance nor be aware of student understanding. Reflection on these experiences caused the re-evaluation of events and experience and the investigation of other firmly held beliefs that were frustrating and difficult to explain. If lecturers are to become proactive in their professional development, to question their teaching practice and become reflective practitioners, then our teaching culture must embrace the need for change and differences in teaching and learning.

Keywords:

• Cultural scripts
• reflective practice
• teaching observations
• problem-based learning

Teaching (and Learning) as a Cultural Activity

Teaching has a cultural ‘script’ of generalized knowledge about its activity that resides in the minds of those involved. Stigler & Hiebert (1998) believe that these scripts not only guide behaviour but also tell participants what to expect and, somewhat insidiously, these scripts are shared widely within a culture and are hard to see. A cultural script for teaching (and learning) may form early in childhood as a consequence of the teaching and learning environment (classroom, infrastructure and language etc.). One of the reasons that classrooms operate smoothly is because students and teachers have the same script in their minds and they know what to expect and what roles to play (Stigler & Hiebert, 1998). The so-called ‘hidden curriculum’ in schools (Stenhouse, 1975) and universities (Ramsden, 1992) is insidious, pervasive and influential, making it difficult to mitigate. Stigler and Hiebert (1998, p. 10) believe that “The widely shared cultural beliefs and expectations that underlie teaching are so fully integrated into teachers' worldviews that they fail to see them as mutable. The more widely shared a belief is, the less likely it is to be questioned, or even noticed. This tends to naturalize the most common aspects of teaching, to the point that teachers fail to see alternatives to what they are doing…” (Stigler & Hiebert, 1998, p. 10).

Cultural activities such as teaching and learning are highly complex systems that are deeply embedded in a wider culture and these factors impede change. Only relatively recently have geography lecturers routinely had the opportunity of formally developing their scholarship of learning and professionalism. Despite feeling directly the effect of the recent drive towards mass participation in higher education, most lecturers have not accounted for these changes in their teaching methods. Often lecturers are only stimulated to evaluate critically their teaching practice in response to an external quality monitor (Kuit et al., 2001). That is, lecturers are frequently reactive rather than proactive and feedback is used to inform only the teaching. Beaty (1998) suggests that working with others causes the individual to move forward what otherwise might be intractable problems, to learn and develop and maybe more importantly to learn about the process of learning. Peer observation and group learning sets are important tools by which teachers can become aware of their practice.

The Need for Reflection to Support Change

Reflection is an essential ingredient of the learning process (Bengtsson, 1995). Unfortunately, reflection has been devalued to create a paradoxical situation such that reflection is often used in an unreflexive manner. This is probably because of the difficulty with interpretation and definitions, the description of reflection as merely thinking about a subject without the element of query and enquiry, and the fact that it has become little more than a mantra rather than a model of practice (Kuit et al., 2001). Since Schön (1983) first introduced the idea of a ‘reflective practitioner’ there have been many definitions and approaches (cf. Kuit et al., 2001) including the ‘critical incident method’ (Brookfield, 1990) and experiential learning (Kolb, 1984) using a cycle of stages including reflection and abstract conceptualization. Moon (1999a) provides a comprehensive review of the study of reflection that includes the ‘backbone philosophies’. Boud et al., (1993) defined reflection as a generic term to describe the processes involved in exploring experience as a means of enhancing understanding. According to Barnett (1992, p. 198), being involved in reflective practice is a means by which teachers can be “enabled to develop the capacity to keep an eye on themselves, and to engage in critical dialogue with themselves in all they think and do … it is a reflexive process in which the learner interrogates their own thoughts or actions”. In all cases reflection is supposed to have a certain enlightenment and to “declare the teachers' maturity so that they can act independently” (Bengtsson, 1995, p. 25) and develop the assumed relationship between the conception of reflection, teacher competence and teacher education. Reflection is difficult when done in isolation. Hence, reflective teachers are those who are helped to compare their teaching against their own experience and knowledge of educational theory that predicts the outcome. Invariably, these comparisons highlight differences between theory and practice, with the reflective process thus becoming a means of re-conceptualization. Consequently, reflective practice is about the process of teaching rather than the superficial evaluation of teaching. It enables us to question why and how we conduct our practice. Biggs (1999, p. 2) incisively captures the issue: “It is not just a matter of finding better techniques than lecturing. There is no single, all purpose best method of teaching. Teaching is individual. We have to adjust our teaching decisions to suit our subject matter, available resourcing, our students, and our own individual strengths and weaknesses as a teacher. It depends on how we conceive the process of teaching, and through reflection come to some conclusion about how we may do our particular job better.”

Unless lecturers engage in critical reflection and ongoing discovery they stay trapped in unexamined judgements, interpretations, assumptions and expectations (Larrivee, 2000). Dewey (1933 in Larrivee, 2000) believed that reflection was initiated only after a problem was recognized and uncertainty of its resolution was accepted. The dissonance created in understanding that a problem existed engaged the reflective practitioner to become an active enquirer, involved in the critique of current conclusions and the generation of new hypotheses. The importance and the power of critical reflection is that it “brings commonly-held beliefs into question. Beliefs are convictions we hold dearly, having confidence in their truth, while acknowledging they are not susceptible to proof. Our beliefs shape our identity; hence shedding a dearly-held belief shakes our very existence. If a teacher tries to shed the belief that the teacher must be in control to be effective, it means revealing uncertainty and vulnerability” (Larrivee, 2000, p. 295).

Although reflection may be seen as an essential part of our professional development, reflection alone is not sufficient for that development to occur. Beaty (1998) believes that the real test is in developing practice. Reflection then becomes a middle ground where theories are brought to bear on the analysis of past action and planned change should follow any period of reflective practice. She suggests that to assess the significance of learning from experience the question ‘So what?’ should be asked, so that change can be planned and implemented. Bengtsson (1995) goes further to suggest that reflection which produces self-knowledge has at least three different kinds of pedagogical value: (1) self-reflection aids the teacher to learn about his/her teaching practice; (2) self-knowledge enables the teacher to take a stance on his/her own practice; (3) self-knowledge makes it possible for the teacher to teach about his/her own teaching. By being reflective ourselves, we encourage reflection and critical evaluation in our students (Kuit et al., 2001).

The purpose of this paper is to show how an academic cultural script was identified, its rationale was questioned and its meaning and appropriateness was examined for the author's professional development, teaching and learning strategy and for students' learning. Collaborative teaching observations and reflective practice were essential to achieve this aim. This process of observation and reflection are described in the next section. The conclusion to this paper is an attempt to provide a rationale for student-centred learning that is sufficiently convincing to encourage others to challenge the convention of lecturer-centred teaching.

The importance of this process, Beaty's (1998) ‘So what?’, was the development of practice. This development comprised a complementary paper (Chappell, 2006), which describes the implementation of an innovative problem-based learning approach. In this newly created ‘environment’ the traditional role of the lecturer as ‘authority figure’ (Gold et al., 1991) needed redefining (Mathews & Livingstone, 1996) and was replaced by one of facilitator (Savin-Baden, 2000a). Problems were used to drive the learning and were not used to illustrate how to use the knowledge after it was learned (Woods, 1994). Furthermore, a student culture of observation and critical evaluation (in reflection) was stimulated and included the use of learning journals (Moon, 1999b) and a reflective commentary was part of the student assessment. Those student learning journals were used to evaluate that learning environment and their reflective commentaries were examined within the context of the students' changed learning environment using the ‘grieving process’ (Woods, 1994).

Collaborative Teaching Observations and Reflective Practice

In recent years teaching observations in higher education have become stigmatized by external quality assessment procedures. In a deliberate attempt to avoid this stigma the observations described here were devised to support formative development typical of those conducted in other UK geography departments in the early 1990s, rather than summative quality assessment. As Gibbs (1995, p.154) suggests, “peer review is most useful as a formative process: recognizing strengths and suggesting possible areas for attention or alternative approaches, rather than simply judging”. The aim of the process was to formulate, discuss, reflect on and evaluate one's own and other approaches to curriculum delivery, to identify areas of subject understanding and teaching activity that have particular merit or are in need of further development and to develop and refine curriculum planning and delivery skills in collaboration with other colleagues.

The teaching observations and reflective practice were part of a Postgraduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (PCLTHE) organized by the Education Development Unit of the University of Salford. Provided below is an outline of the main outcomes arising from the teaching observations and dialogue initiated between staff and a summary of the reflections. Details of this reflective practice can be found elsewhere (Chappell, 2003). The teaching observations were conducted in collaboration with three members of the geography academic staff during the academic year 2000–2001. These staff were selected on the basis of their teaching service and experience. The observations were conducted by the author, a peer who was also undergoing the same PCLTHE course, a lecturer with medium experience (c.5 years) and an experienced lecturer (more than 5 years). The teaching observations were on a reciprocal basis so that the roles of observer and observed were reversed on separate occasions. Because of the overlap between staff involved in the teaching observations the author and colleague on the course made many comparisons between the outcomes. These comparisons are inextricably bound into the reflections and summary provided below. The teaching observations were the culmination of a larger documentation exercise (Appendix 1). Prior to the observation the person to be observed would state the aim, outcomes and timing of the teaching session (Appendix 1a). This information would be given to the observer prior to the session and immediately before the observation both parties met to discuss the expectations. During the observation the observer would compare the actual outcomes with those expected by the observed (Appendix 1b). After the observation the person observed would complete a summary of the session (Appendix 1c). The observer was expected to discuss the observations made during the session and explain the comments on the form. The information from all three of the preceding stages formed the basis for private reflection on the session (Appendix 1d). The reflective writing from each session with lecturers of different experience, including reflections when acting as observer, was integrated to provide a reflective commentary of the collaborative teaching observations. Thus, the author was assisted in reflection. Reflective writing in ‘learning’ journals (Moon, 1999b) formed an integral part of this process by providing an intellectual space to record achievements, frustrations and in hindsight a further prompt for self-reflection.

Reflective Practice—So What?

Initially the documentation process of the teaching observations was met with contempt by many of the PCLTHE participants because it appeared to be an exercise in bureaucracy. By talking to other people on the course it was apparent that this attitude persisted until the first feedback session when several surprising discrepancies appeared between personal expectations and observations of the teaching sessions. The paperwork highlighted these differences and the feedback from observers emphasized them. In this author's experience all lecturers, regardless of experience, focused on themselves as the providers of information. Some lecturers maintained this lecturer-centred perspective on teaching but were aware of the limitations of lectures and sought additional teaching activities/skills to enhance the lecture in the hope of improving learning. These characteristics are similar to those described by Biggs (1999) as a level 2 approach to teaching and learning. Most of the observed lecturers had a very strong conception of the topic that was to be conveyed and when questioned after the teaching observation most had very good ideas about how to convey that message. However, all of the lecturers observed (including the author) failed to convey the information as strongly as they intended. Most struggled to relay the information perhaps because of the constraining didactic nature of the teaching methods. This realization awakened in the author and in other lecturers an interest in the teaching observations as a vehicle for change and caused some to enquire into the reason for difference and identified the need to change the sessions to benefit students and lecturers alike. More fundamentally, this realization showed that, regardless of teaching experience, lectures allow for neither an appreciation of performance nor an awareness of student understanding in their routine practice.

The teaching observations and reflections had a considerable impact on the two lecturers (including the author) in geography undertaking the PCLTHE course. The reflection caused the development of the author's personal teaching strategy (Chappell, 2001) that attempted to reconcile current teaching practice with assumptions made about its role in teaching and learning. ‘Critical incident reflection’ was responsible for triggering my enquiry and subsequent reflection. As Brookfield (1990) suggested, this form of reflection may be significant because of its success or because of its failure. In my case, an observer suggested that my approach to structuring information was very different from a didactic approach. My process of understanding made links to a variety of thoughts, experiences and sources of information and collated these to form an illustration or analogy of an explanation. Thus, a teaching session was analogous to a ‘train’ of thoughts that was difficult to follow but easier to see the ‘stations’ it stopped at. These ‘stations’ provided ‘platforms’ for students to board the ‘train’ but maybe more importantly it allowed the opportunity for students to examine and discuss the nature of the route (or the underlying assumptions) used to reach the destination. This observation was a revelation to me because I had assumed my approach was more or less didactic. I had never questioned my approach to teaching and learning. Instead I had accepted the conventional approach and used my learning script in the absence of any other overt expectations for my practice.

This event caused the re-evaluation of a number of previous experiences (of other staff and students) that at the time seemed very confusing. Consequently, a new set of assumptions and explanations for behaviour and experiences was created (Brookfield, 1990). This re-evaluation of events and experience caused the investigation of other firmly held beliefs that were frustrating and difficult to explain (Larrivee, 2000). An essential element in the reconciliation between my reflections and the frustration of constraint was an increased awareness of pedagogic theory on teaching and learning and reflection.

Biggs (1999) suggested that one of the fundamental conventions in university teaching is the belief that it is the responsibility of the student to make sense of the information transferred in lectures and to read additional material, understand it and write about it on request. This awareness is based on students' approaches to learning that may be very superficial in a lecture-based environment (Marton & Säljö, 1984). Ramsden (1992, p. 182) believed there to be fundamental problems with this convention and the damning evidence appears to be “the widespread use of surface approaches to learning and the related fact that students may successfully complete their courses while never gaining an understanding of fundamental ideas which the teachers of those courses themselves desire their students to gain…”. Furthermore, “surface approaches have nothing to do with wisdom and everything to do with aimless accumulation. They belong to an artificial world of learning, where faithfully reproducing fragments of torpid knowledge to please teachers and pass examinations has replaced understanding.” In diametric opposition to that world of learning, Shuell (1986) suggested an alternative, which is that it is not what the lecturer does but what the students do that is important for learning.

The reflective process combined with the pedagogic theory was empowering. It provided a firm base of knowledge that provided the confidence to challenge a conventional teaching and learning environment that had constrained the investigation and exploration of alternative and/or appropriate approaches (Chappell, 2003). It provided the opportunity to re-conceptualize my rationale and approach to teaching and learning. The adopted strategies focused on problem-based learning as a student-centred approach to learning that emphasized what the student does, and on what learning is or, more importantly, is not going on. Thus, it provided a highly interactive environment between ‘lecturer’ and student. These developments required a major shift from teaching as an authority figure to facilitating student learning (Gold et al., 1991). Thus, the new learning environment and relationship with the student provided an opportunity to allow the ‘lecturer’ in his/her routine practice to appreciate his/her performance, be aware of student understanding and take a role in supporting or redirecting learning to facilitate understanding. The approach implied a view of teaching that is not just about facts, concepts and principles to be covered and understood, but is about what it means to understand those concepts and principles and what kind of teaching and learning activities are required to reach that understanding. The responses of students newly introduced to that new problem-based learning environment are covered elsewhere (Chappell, 2006). It was greeted with contempt by some colleagues (Chappell, 2003).

Despite a briefing meeting with the PCLTHE organizers it appeared difficult for the more experienced lecturers to avoid comparisons between teaching observations used as a summative process in previous UK Teaching Quality Assessments (TQA). They appeared not to value observations from colleagues and remained obstinately opposed to the rationale and benefit of reflection. Their personal observations provided the opportunity for useful feedback sessions. However, the usefulness of these sessions varied considerably as they depended on an individual's personality, openness to feedback and to a great extent on the commitment of the participants to the exercise. Almost regardless of the success of the feedback sessions, those lecturers who were either willing and/or able to accept a need for change appeared to benefit from the feedback sessions. The other lecturers appeared to have less ownership of the process and, whilst they participated in the activity, they maintained a disinterested (procedural) association with it. Some did not actively engage in it and appeared to reflect very little on the activity. The absence of pedagogic knowledge and reflection in the latter lecturers' response to the teaching observations appeared to reaffirm the conventional lecturer-centred approach. For example, apparent inadequacies in student learning were treated superficially by these lecturers either by blaming the students or by blaming the observed lecturer's performance. This cultural script of blame is described by Biggs (1999) at level 1 in his model of approaches to teaching and learning. Larrivee (2000) suggested that experience is important because it provides a basis for conceptualization. However, in this case experience was related to an unquestioning cultural attachment with the potential to distort the perspective. Larrivee (2000) believed that personal experiences need the critical checks provided by “multiple lenses of students' and colleagues' perspectives”. Reflective practitioners must face deeply rooted personal attitudes and challenge assumptions and question existing practices, thereby accessing a “new lens to view their practice and later their perspectives.”

An informal component of the exercise and probably the single most important factor for maintaining morale in the face of pressure from the existing culture and in ultimately facilitating change was the presence of a ‘critical friend’ (Biggs, 1999). This person assisted the reflection, provided the support to challenge existing conventions and develop appropriate personal teaching strategies and encouraged its continuation into curriculum development. Notably, knowledge of and opportunity for change and support provided the empowerment to challenge the convention. The ‘critical friend’ provided a depth of questioning that provoked intense introspection that was not reached by other observers. The compromise between depth of questioning and support was based on mutual trust that enabled both parties to be critical, secure in the knowledge that it was for positive development and without negative judgement.

The desire to change teaching and the intention to improve learning often came from a frustration with the conventional teaching environment. The catalyst for change was reflection, often provoked by teaching observations or the reflective writing. The reflection provided the opportunity to internalize the information, to rationalize its meaning and to develop a conceptual basis for its use. Thus, reflection was the key to the activity and provided the major difference between it and previous TQA.

Conclusion

Despite feeling directly the effect of the recent drive towards mass participation in higher education, most lecturers have not accounted for these changes in their teaching methods. This is probably because in today's economically rationalized higher education institutions time is a precious commodity and little of it is allocated to account for change. Ashengt et al. (1996) suggested that many lecturers assume that the students in front of them are relatively homogeneous in terms of knowledge, experience and skills, and individual differences (e.g. in terms of curriculum, teaching methods and forms of assessment) are not accounted for. Instead, the lecturers depend heavily on teacher-led, lecture-based transmission of information (learning by ‘osmosis’) with little consideration of how and why students learn. This perspective implies little thought for the style and context of learning (Ramsden, 1992) and illustrates well the theories of teaching (Ramsden, 1992; Biggs, 1999; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). The reasons for this attitude are apt to be complex and personal but are likely to stem from the teaching culture.

The reflective practice conducted in this study was a highly valuable activity that caused changes to the teaching and learning environment which are documented elsewhere (Chappell, 2006). Although that change was a solitary activity, reflection was enabled by other staff. Collaborative teaching observations were the catalyst for reflection. Colleagues made a commitment to participate in the observations and the feedback to provide the opportunity for reflection. Despite conducting the teaching observations, few staff outside the course appeared to involve themselves in reflective practice. It is likely that the activity was not accepted as part of their cultural activity and consequently the practice was dismissed. However, the reflective practice identified several aspects of teaching practice that were not consistent with staff expectations of teaching and student learning. These aspects of daily teaching practice were so deeply rooted in the cultural activity that they were difficult to identify and an ethos of investigation was not prevalent in the department. The current teaching culture in the Western world is not one of peer observation and reflection (Stigler & Hiebert, 1998). This attitude towards teaching practice made it difficult to plan change identified by the reflection. The initiation of change required support provided by the concurrent investigation of pedagogic theory and the presence of an open-minded ‘critical friend’ through whom radical alternatives could be broached.

Knowledge of pedagogic theory and the support of a peer provided the confidence to attempt a radical departure from the conventional approach to teaching and learning. This was no small task because most people contacted during the procedure, from administrators to senior staff, actively discouraged the change. Even during its implementation the struggle with the status quo continued. For example, the problem-based learning approach for students embraced frustration, confusion and making mistakes as a natural part of the learning process. This is contrary to the current paradigm or conventional approach in teaching and learning. Student complaints concerning the difficulty, lack of organization etc. of the module were seized upon by several colleagues as evidence of poor lecturer performance. Summative student evaluations of a module are an indictment of the equilibrium state of the current paradigm. How such a vacuous and static management tool can ever represent such a dynamic and tempestuous student learning experience as that described in the companion paper (Chappell, 2006) is difficult to comprehend. Nevertheless, the tensions caused by opposition to the paradigm and the difficulty of implementing change is consistent with Stiegler & Hiebert's (1998, p. 9) perception of teaching as a cultural activity:

Cultural activities are highly stable over time, and they are not easily changed, for two reasons: First, cultural activities are systems; and systems, especially complex ones such as teaching, can be very difficult to change. The second reason is that they are embedded in a wider culture, often in ways not readily apparent to members of the culture. If we want to improve teaching, we must recognize and deal with both its systemic and its cultural aspects … it will be difficult, if not impossible, to improve teaching by changing individual elements or features. In a system, all the features reinforce each other. If one feature is changed, the system will rush to ‘repair the damage’, perhaps by modifying the new feature so it functions like the old one did.

Another integral component of that change was from a lecturer-centred approach to teaching to a student-centred approach to learning. This required the transition from lecturer to facilitator. It required a separate philosophy, one in which the loss of power and control by the lecturer was undertaken to benefit the students. This was entirely consistent with Larrivee's (2000) suggestion that meeting the challenge of current teaching calls for a teacher to resist establishing a classroom culture of control. The facilitator is defined by Jarvis (1995, in Savin-Baden, 2000b, p. 113) as “one who assists in the student's learning, even to the extent of providing or creating the environment in which that learning may occur, but (s)he is never one who dictates the outcome of the experience”. However, facilitation of student learning undermines the conventional hierarchical status between lecturers and students. This changed relationship between ‘lecturer’ and student encourages a critical engagement with subject matter that may give opportunities for student backlash and may make some lecturers insecure about their position (Maddrell & Jackson, 1996). A lecturer's position is tenable if the modus operandi is solving problems, not enforcing preset standards of operation (Larrivee, 2000).

One who continuously engages in critical reflection inevitably questions the status quo and the assumptions that underlie current practice, and “challenging currently-held beliefs, assumptions and expectations that translate into school policies and classroom procedures may cause direct conflict with school priorities and hierarchies or power. By questioning institutionalized definitions of acceptable teacher and student roles, a teacher challenges familiar routines and a way of thinking that is comfortable for colleagues” (Larrivee, 2000, p. 297). Thus, our attempts to rationalize or understand teaching and learning are themselves problematic or supercomplex (Barnett, 2000). Nevertheless, universities have a duty to encourage “epistemological pandemonium … openness and even rulelessness in the domain of knowing and understanding…” (Barnett, 2000, p.132) and cognately to sustain operational pandemonium rather than indulge in a futile retreat to rules and regulations (Cuthbert, 2002). If lecturers are to become proactive in their professional development, to question their teaching practice and become reflective practitioners, then support must be provided by peers, administrators and institutional structures in particular with the allocation of time for change. In short, we need to modify our teaching culture so that we embrace the need for change and differences in teaching and learning.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank those geography staff at the University of Salford who contributed to the teaching observations for their incisive and thought-provoking discussions of many of the issues described. The author is especially grateful to a ‘critical friend’ for encouragement and support in challenging the existing conventions and conceptions in teaching and learning. He is also grateful to the team of the Education Development Unit, University of Salford and especially Bernard Lisewski for initiating and supporting the reflective practice in particular with an encyclopaedic knowledge of the literature. Thanks are also extended to Bernard, Andrew Warren, Ian Livingstone and John Bradbeer for their comments on various drafts of this manuscript. The comments of the anonymous referees are also gratefully acknowledged.

Appendix 1: Example Documentation from Postgraduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education

(a) Pre-observation Planning Proforma

Teacher's name………… Observer's name………………

Date………………… Venue…………………………

Module……………… Learner group…………………………

Number of learners…………… Length of observation……………………

Main teaching method………………………………………..

A completed copy of this form should be given to your observer for discussion at the pre-observation meeting

[Spaces to complete the following sections have been deleted from this form]

• Aims of the session.

• Objectives/Learning outcomes to be achieved during this session.

• Learners—give a brief description of what you know about them.

• Teaching methods rationale: appropriateness to the required learning outcomes, learner needs, subject content, resource availability and equal opportunities.

• Timed session plan.

• Opportunities for learner participation, interaction and feedback.

• Assessment: how will I identify the extent of the students' learning during this session?

• Are there any particular aspects that you would like feedback on?

(b) Self-evaluation Proforma

Teacher's name………… Observer's name……………………

Date……………… Venue……………………………

Module……………… Learner group………………………

Number of learners……………… Length of observation………………

Main teaching method…………………………………………..

Evaluate the session alongside the Pre-observation Planning Proforma

[Spaces to complete the following sections have been deleted from this form]

• My summary of what happened in relation to aims, learning outcomes, teaching methods, learner needs, resource use, assessment and learner interaction and feedback.

• How did it compare with the timed session plan?

• What went well in the session?

• What could have been improved in the session?

• Possible action points and strategies for consideration at the feedback meeting.

(c) Observer Evaluation Proforma

Observer's name……………… Teacher's name…………………

Date………………………… Venue…………………………

Module………………… Learner group…………………………

Number of learners………………… Length of observation…………

Main teaching method………………………………………..

Evaluate the session alongside the Pre-observation Planning Proforma

[Spaces to complete the following sections have been deleted from this form]

• My summary of what happened in relation to aims, learning outcomes, teaching methods, learner needs, resource use, assessment and learner interaction and feedback.

• How did it compare with the timed session plan?

• What went well in the session?

• What could have been improved in the session?

• Possible action points and strategies for consideration at the feedback meeting.

(d) Observation Outcomes Proforma

Teacher's name…………………… Observer's name…………………

Date………………………… Venue…………………………

Module…………………… Learner group…………………………

Number of learners………………… Length of observation………………

Main teaching method………………………………………………..

[Spaces to complete the following sections have been deleted from this form]

• Record of the discussion in the feedback meeting.

• Personal teaching aims and strategies.