National School Reform Faculty

Peer Observation
Date: September 20 - October 20, 2004
Listserv: Coaches

Monday, September 20, 2004 10:19 AM
Hello CFG Coaches-
For those of you who are actively involved in peer observation, I am wondering how often you engage in it. I am teaching a course involving these skills, and I am trying to decide how many observation/debriefings to require over the course of the year. Any advice?
Edorah, VT

Monday, September 20, 2004 10:25 AM
Edorah,
NSDC suggests at least weekly sessions for both mentoring and peer coaching.
Chris, PA

Monday, September 20, 2004 10:44 AM
Interesting! Thanks for your response-
Edorah, VT

Monday, September 20, 2004 2:54 PM
Hi Edorah,
After a short set of initial visits just to increase the comfort level among participants (one per month for perhaps 3 months), my inclination is to "require" visits when and only when the information coming from an observation would be timely in helping the teacher with the issue of classroom practice the teacher (either teacher) is working on. I haven't had much success with regular visits under any other approach (and frankly, not that much success with this approach - but a little more). I hope this helps.
John, ME

Monday, September 20, 2004 5:33 PM
Yes, it does. Thanks for your thinking and ongoing participation in the conversation-
Edorah, VT

Monday, September 20, 2004 5:43 PM
Hi Edorah,
Here at I.U., my colleague, Eric Metzler, and I have started an "observation group" where we asked people to join with four requirements in mind: 1) willingness to observe and be observed, 2) we form pairs each month and the teachers in the pairs should observe each other once in that month at their convenience, 3) we debrief as a group once per month, and 4) we are asking for a one-year commitment to the group. The debrief, for just this first month, will be about "what I learned about my own teaching by observing my partner". We are starting there and will build toward more "feedback" type situations as we progress in the year. I'll let you know how it goes.
Ross, IN

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 8:01 AM
My experiences have been similar to John's. Peer observations work when there is a purpose that is closely connected teachers' need to better understand their practice --- The first few observations do help in making teachers comfortable in opening up their classrooms -- I think that in some ways we need to "require" several just so participants become comfortable in the process but over requiring teachers to participate in observations weekly or monthly begins to be a checklist of things that must be done and I think the participants begin to loose focus on the benefits -- I have not found the secret number that helps with process and still is purposeful for everyone --- we are having a much more difficult time in year two with peer-observations than in year one -- I think it is because we required observations year one and the process became something teachers needed to do and not an invitation to look at one's practice from another point of view.
Peggy, IL

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 11:08 AM
Do you think that this could be a topic at the national conference?

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 11:39 AM
In Peacham we tried and agreed to do 3 sets of observation /debrief etc over a year. We had support for time /subs etc. BUT even this was had to do in the real world. All the teachers managed one set of observations beyond that...it didn't necessarily happen. I think issues driven observations work better than this even though they established goals for the observation etc rather than a set schedule.
Margaret, VT

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 6:32 PM
For the peer observation discussion - about the power of observing "ordinary teaching"...

Education Week
American Education's Newspaper of Record
November 5, 2003
The New Heroes of Teaching
By James Hiebert, Ronald Gallimore, & James W. Stigler
Education Week

Identifying a few excellent teachers and hoping others will copy their methods has not improved teaching in the average American classroom.

At a recent meeting of mathematics teachers and educators in Wilmington, Del., an 8th grade math teacher named Crystal Lancour was introduced to enthusiastic cheers and heartfelt applause. Had she won an award? Had her students accomplished something special? No, nothing like that. Then what prompted the applause? The answer to this question takes a little time, but is worth telling because it opens a new pathway for teacher learning-a path that might in time change the face of classroom teaching in the United States, if the country is wise enough to take it.

The story begins with a bit of history. Traditionally, classroom teaching in the United States has been viewed as a personal skill, invented and refined by each teacher during his or her career. Good teaching is considered to be the result of each teacher's doing his or her job behind the classroom door. Good teaching is believed to be idiosyncratic, depending on individual style and personality. To improve teaching, many say, the profession must find better teachers. Celebrity teachers, such as Jaime Escalante, are held up as models of what's possible and are hailed as heroes of the profession. The trouble is that most students do not have Jaime Escalante as a teacher, and more Escalantes are hard to find.

Identifying a few excellent teachers and hoping others will copy their methods has not improved teaching in the average American classroom. Teaching, as most students experience it, has not changed for decades. Why? Because the average classroom is not affected much by what the few celebrity teachers do. To make a dent in the learning experiences for most students, educators must find a way to improve the quality of instruction in the average classroom. Even slight improvements in the average classroom, accumulated over time, would have a more profound effect on students around the country than recruiting a hundred more Escalantes into the classroom.

To achieve small and continuing improvements in the average classroom requires a major shift in educators' thinking-from teachers to teaching. Rather than focusing only on evaluating the quality of teachers, the educational community must begin examining the quality of teaching. What kinds of methods are teachers using now and how could these methods be improved? Tackling this deep-seated problem begins with opening the classroom door. The process starts by learning to analyze the details of ordinary classroom instruction, with all its warts and foibles, and then learning to see more effective ways of teaching. But to do this, to even begin down this path, teachers must be willing to open their doors. They must be willing to allow others to use their lessons as data that can be examined and discussed over and over.

More than 600 math teachers from seven countries have done just this. Chosen at random (not because of their teaching abilities), these teachers agreed to be videotaped for the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, or TIMSS, 1999 video study, the results of which were released this year. The study documented what ordinary or typical mathematics lessons look like in each country. It did not try to find the best teachers, because the goal was to provide a portrait of the kind of teaching that most students experience in each country. There was to be nothing special about the filmed lessons-no special preparation, no special materials-because the lessons were to typify the way in which teachers in each country teach mathematics at the 8th grade level. The teachers were promised anonymity: Only researchers would see their videotaped lessons.

Following the taping of these 600-plus lessons for the research project, four teachers in each country went even further: They agreed to have their videotaped lessons made available to the public. These lessons would be posted on the Internet and included on a CD-ROM that could be ordered at cost. The lessons would be shown around the country as educators interpreted the results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study of Mathematics Teaching. Many teachers are reluctant even for the teachers next door to come into their classrooms and observe their lessons, much less open their classrooms to anyone who wants to watch. These teachers whose lessons were publicly released displayed exceptional professional courage by allowing the videos to be circulated and discussed around the world.

Teachers and educators around the country are beginning to see that the goal of improving teaching can only be reached by a path that the United States has never taken before. The meeting in Wilmington, with which the story began, was taking advantage of the professional-development opportunities provided by these new heroes of the teaching profession. The meeting was organized to introduce participants to the results of the TIMSS video study, and to give them an opportunity to spend two days studying examples of typical lessons from various countries-the lessons that were publicly released.

Some of the participants were skeptical at first about the value of analyzing ordinary lessons. Why not analyze exemplary lessons instead? But by mid-afternoon of the first day, many participants were convinced that much can be learned by analyzing ordinary teaching, studying how missed learning opportunities can be saved, how students can be helped to connect key concepts, and how small successes can be strengthened by altering the methods that are used.

During a break in the afternoon session, the participants were informed that in the audience was one of the U.S. teachers who had released one of her ordinary daily lessons for public use-just like the videos the meeting participants had been collectively analyzing and discussing that day. There was an audible gasp and immediate, spontaneous, and expectant applause-as if a celebrity were about to be introduced.
A second round of even louder applause greeted Crystal Lancour as she was introduced by name and stood to acknowledge the audience's appreciation. Clearly, those assembled were not applauding the lesson Ms. Lancour had taught. They had not seen her lesson. They were applauding her courage in allowing others to view the lesson as a means of improving their own mathematics teaching. This audience, at least, had come to understand the importance of her contribution to the profession.

Teachers and educators around the country are beginning to see that the goal of improving teaching-improving students' opportunities to learn-can only be reached by a path that the United States has never taken before. This new path moves educators away from a view of teaching as a solitary activity, owned personally by each teacher. It moves them toward a view of teaching as a professional activity open to collective observations, study, and improvement. It invites ordinary teachers to recognize and accept the responsibility for improving not only their own practice, but also the shared practice of the profession. For this new path to be traveled, however, teachers will need to open their classroom doors and, rather than evaluating each other, begin studying their practices as a professional responsibility common to all. In short, it will require more teachers like Crystal Lancour.

Taking this new path also means a change in the culture of the wider educational community. It requires educators, parents, and policymakers to support and maintain this new pathway to improved teaching by respecting teachers brave enough to open their classroom doors. Petty nitpicking and ad hominem criticism of typical classroom lessons must give way to serious professional analysis for purposes of improving everyone's teaching.

If not a celebrity, Crystal Lancour surely is a pioneer and a new kind of heroic teacher in what just might become an overdue change in how America goes about improving the heart of its educational system-classroom teaching.

James Hiebert is the Robert J. Barkley professor of education at the University of Delaware, in Newark, Del. Ronald Gallimore and James W. Stigler are professors of psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the vice president for research and the chairman and CEO, respectively, of LessonLab Inc., where copies of the public-use lessons on CD-ROM mentioned in the essay can be ordered (www.lessonlab.com). Mr. Stigler serves as the director of the times video studies.
---------------------------------------
© 2003 Editorial Projects in Education Vol. 23, number 10, page 56,42

Gene, MA

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 7:42 PM
On a similar note, I’ve used this brief piece to strike up a conversation about what we might learn from observing each other in order to get “better at doing the things we already do.”
Pete, FL

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 8:25 PM
I have also found that frequency needs to be tied to purpose. For instance, teachers who want to see how a cycle develops or how community is built in a classroom, etc. may wish to observe each lesson in sequence with frequent consultations with the observed teacher regarding why and how each lesson was planned and carried out.
Other teachers may wish to get ideas about how to teach a specific thing and may prefer to visit a few teachers who are teaching that particular thing.

And then again, some teachers may just use it in terms of reflecting on general practice, and may choose a narrow focus to consider and perhaps to try or adjust to personal teaching style, and not want another visit until a new issue comes up or until teaching becomes stagnant.

By the way, I love the focus suggested to report back on what teachers learn about their own practice--so simply stated, so non-threatening. I think my focusing idea for this topic managed to beat around the bush, rather than to present itself so clearly.
Finally, what are some other ideas out there as to focus for the observer--I can always use new ideas for this!
Elissa, NY

Thursday, September 23, 2004 6:43 AM
While I agree that frequency of visits needs to be tied to purpose or inquiry, I also feel that a general "opening the doors" model can be used to initiate peer visitations. In terms of initial visits some of us have taken "Ghost Walks", Walk Throughs that take place after the students have left for the day. I have found this tool useful and non-threatening as a start to the peer observation process. I'm wondering how others have gotten started.

A brand new coaches' CFG that I'm working with is interested in engaging in peer observation of their coaching as they work to spread collaborative, reflective processes throughout their schools. I'd be interested in hearing about peoples' ideas and experience with this type of peer observation. In particular, I'm wondering how you have balanced the group's norm of confidentiality with the inclusion of an outside observer.
Thanks,
Debbie, PA

Thursday, September 23, 2004 6:40 PM
Our CFG also participated in the "Ghost Walk" visitation with a focus of "what did you notice?, what questions came up for you?, Any aha's? It was very important to keep the post-conference focused and non-judgmental. Many people wanted to say "I really liked..." and we did not want that to happen. We also asked that we did not name any one's classroom specifically, but talked in general. This was best for the group's comfort zone, which was newly established.

We also did this with the entire staff, but with more of a focus of what evidence do you see of student learning?? (that came from administration)

We have had very little progress with peer observations besides that and have established a group goal several years in a row to increase our peer observations, so I am enjoying this conversation we are all having.

In response to your coaches observing coaches, I do remember several years ago, before I was a coach, my coach had another coach come in and observe her. She approached the group first to explain that this was part of her CFG coaches group and we all were okay with it since we knew the other coach knew the basic ground rules. I remember sharing with that coach later on when she suggested us new coaches do this and she told us that we may want to have the other coach focus on some of the following: how we stick to an agenda, how we facilitate a protocol, or even observe certain group members who may be affecting the dynamics of the group (dominating, side bars, etc).
Kim, NY

Thursday, September 23, 2004 10:51 PM
On the Ghost Walk protocol:
I worked with 9 school leadership teams of 5-8 people each for four days last spring (spaced as two days, followed by a day a month later, followed by a day a month later) on Understanding Their School's Culture, and we used the Ghost Walk in between the first and second sessions, which I revised slightly so it was focused on school culture issues. People from 8 of the schools found it to be very useful, especially after having worked for two days on school culture and the beginning of a gap analysis.

However, in the 9th school, the Ghost Walk caused huge problems and highlighted big divisions on the staff (what are you doing? Don’t come in my room. What are you looking for?). Now, I (and the leadership team) would argue that this was, in a way, a good thing -- talk about understanding what is happening just below the surface in a school that is important to uncover, raise up and talk about!

But it could have done damage had the team not known how to embrace the conflict and work with it, had the principal not been willing to work publicly with the whole faculty, had the team not had a safe place to go to (our session) to talk with others and to do a consultancy with me as an "outsider" about how to proceed, and had they not as a faculty already been engaged in some pretty good CFG work that at least gave them a basis for returning to students and student learning as the focus of their engagement with each other.

I learned not to take anything for granted - I hadn't talked at all with participants about preparing the rest of the faculty for the Ghost Walk that would be happening in the school - or about other "set up" issues.

So, I learned a lot - and am passing that learning on, for what it is worth!
In terms of peer observations - I hope Aimee Gibbons chimes in with what it looks like when peer observation is linked to an inquiry question - when ONLY peer observation will get you the feedback you most need.

One of the best things we have done here in MA in coaches trainings has been to use one or two of the peer observation protocols to observe one of the session facilitators leading a text based seminar on a potentially provocative text about race and achievement and education, and then debrief publicly using one of the peer observation protocols. Let's just say a lot happens in those 15 minutes of debriefing (if it is done well - and when you have Teri Schrader or Aimee Gibbons debriefing your work as I did it is pretty powerful!) that the group can then use to talk about CFG coaching, raising and discussing issues related to race, facilitating and using text based seminars as a tool, AND peer observation....
Gene, MA

Friday, September 24, 2004 11:32 AM
I would agree with Gene that the set up and debrief are critical components of the Ghost Walk experience. Whenever I have been involved in the use of this tool, the group whose space is being observed has always indicated a question or focus for the walk/observation.

Usually, the school draws their focus from their Mission or School Improvement Plan so that it is something everyone has agreed to work on and feels they've made some progress around. In one high school we were asked to look for evidence of high expectations and equity. In an elementary school we were looking for a print rich environment because the push was on advancing literacy skills.

In two cases, the folks being observed brainstormed what they expected to see as evidence and actually conducted their own Ghost Walk to see if their expectations were confirmed or not. An additional layer of comparing observations was added when the data collected by those being observed could be cross referenced with the data collected by the "visitors."

In every case, individual room numbers were not used; names of individual teachers were omitted as well. The process was not about assigning blame and that was made very clear from start to finish.
Debbie, PA

Saturday, September 25, 2004 1:10 PM
Gene mentioned
"What it looks like when peer observation is linked to an inquiry question - when ONLY peer observation will get you the feedback you most need."

The most valuable peer observations for us have been those linked directly to an inquiry question and even more so when colleagues have been collaborating on the lesson being observed.

Last year we had pairs of teachers within the CFG working closely to craft lessons together that would then be observed by the partner. With this approach our work shifted to another level of quality and importance.

It was the first time I got how really powerful collaboration could be when a first grade teacher teamed up with me on my middle school classes, helped tune the lesson prior to her visit, so she really understood what was going on in the class when she was there and was able to give more targeted and valuable feedback afterwards.

The years leading up to that with many friendly visits to one another's classrooms using the observation protocols, yielded a lot of back patting, "nice job" comments. I am sure those visits established a level of trust that can't happen in the beginning, but I am wondering if it needs to take years.

Can close collaboration on lessons prior to observations build in the possibility of more meaningful, trusting visits earlier on?
Eric, NY

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 9:42 AM
Hello,
We are looking for an article on peer observations, both their value and discussion on giving feedback in them. We have used the Liz Lehrman piece and are looking for a second one.
Kim, OR

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 10:29 AM
Hi Kim.... An old, yet still relevant article is "Through the Lens of a Critical Friend" by Costa and Kalick from Ed Leadership Oct. '93. I have used it as an introduction to peer observation. There is also a great old NY Times article on peer observation and its effects on saving lives of critical coronary care patients...It is short and immediately relevant to our work. I can find it if you want it...I don't have it digitally.

Showers and Joyce wrote a provocative article suggesting that feedback should not be a component of observation...The article is called "The Evolution of Peer Coaching" again from Ed Leadership...I don't have the date but I think the Office might have a digital copy.In Solidarity.
Daniel, IN

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 8:41 AM
Attached is the coronary bypass article from the NYT.

Cooperating to Cut Bypass Deaths
CHICAGO, March 19 (AP)
Applying industrial management techniques to medicine, a group of surgeons saw the death rate among their heart-bypass patients fall by one-fourth after observing one another in the operating room and sharing their know-how.

We didn’t invent any treatment, said Dr. Gerald T. O’Connor of Dartmouth Medical School in Lebanon, N.H., an epidemiologist. “We got better at doing the things we already do. Dr. O’Connor’s report on the project appears on Wednesday’s issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association.

All 23 participating heart surgeons in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont took part in the project. It also included nonsurgical heart doctors, anesthesiologists, nurses and aides at all five of the medical centers that provide bypass operations in the three states.
The doctors spent nine months cooperating intensely, using methods made famous by W. Edwards Deming, an industrial consultant whose theories emphasizing teamwork and communication over competition, are widely applied in industry in Japan and the United States.

Dr. O’Connor noted that doctors usually function like individual craftsmen, without sharing information about how they practice. In the study, however, teams from each hospital visited all the other medical centers, observed operations and wrote reports comparing what they saw with methods at their home centers. All results were shared, and institutions and doctors adopted changes in the scores of steps in cardiac surgery that they thought were beneficial.

For example, one institution might have changed the way breathing tubes were removed after surgery, another the position of the heart-lung machine in the operating room and a third the type of antibiotic used.

The study compared overall death rates in the three years before the cooperation with the two years and three months afterward, during which the hospitals continued to communicate but stopped the structured visits and meetings.

The death rate in the first three years was 4.4 percent, while in the second period it was 3.6 percent.

The 6,500 patients in the second period were generally older and sicker and needed bypasses more urgently than patients in the first three years, and the expected death rate was 4.7 percent for the final period.

There were 234 observed deaths, while 308 were expected, the researchers said. “This 24 percent reduction in mortality rates represents 74 deaths.”

Dr. O‚Connor said he believed the methods used in New England could be applied in other parts of the country and in other fields, such as orthopedics, brain surgery or cancer treatment. But outside experts who praised the work said it will be hard to get doctors to change.

“Will human beings actually do this?” asked Dr. Sankey V. Williams, a researcher into heart bypass death rates and a professor of medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. “Not until they’re forced.”
New York Times (March 20, 1996).
Edorah, VT