This paper reports on outcomes from a cross-institutional peer observation programme for distance learning tutors - a joint initiative between the Universities of York (UK) and Waikato (New Zealand) - launched for the first time in 2015. The programme was conducted fully online and offered an opportunity for tutors from different institutions and national teaching contexts to address challenges in their practice and share innovations in online tutoring techniques. Participants were paired up and encouraged to collaborate through use of synchronous discussion tools and the mutual sharing of course sites within their institutional LMS platforms. Evaluation of the participant experience revealed that the cultural and institutional differences between York and Waikato tutors were not insurmountable obstacles to effective peer exchange online and could be minimised through adequate preparation up front in defining respective programme cultures and ways of working. Partners who mastered this ‘norming’ phase in their relationship were able to move beyond agreed objectives for the observations to address deeper pedagogic discussions, challenging their views on institutional norms to assessment design and online support for student learning. Emergent themes for discussion between partners ranged from the merits of actively managing student learning online to the formality and tone of the tutor’s voice, focusing on language and modes of interactions with students. The study highlights the potential of cross-institutional peer observation to shine a light on institutional and personal ‘blind spots’ in tutoring techniques, stimulating deeper personal reflection on tutor identity and related strategies in managing student learning online.

1. Developing tutoring craft through
cross-institutional peer exchange:
Reflections on the inaugural
Waikato-York programme
Richard Walker
Head of E-Learning Development
University of York, UK
DEANZ Conference 2016: 17-20 April 2016Images: Rachel Clarke and James Rowan

2. Developing online tutoring craft: Some challenges
 Pace of change – alignment of teaching methods with
tools to support student learning
 Adaptation from classroom to online practice:
‘unlearning’ of traditional pedagogy (McWilliam)
– …and yet majority of tutors have limited or no
background of online learning experience to draw upon
(Bennett & Marsh, 2002)
 Defining and shaping tutor identity i.e. ‘online
teaching persona’ (Harper & Nicolson, 2012) and tutoring
strategies
 Re-envisioning of instructional role and different
dimensions of instructional support to facilitate
student learning (Danielsen & Nielson, 2012)

3. Putting pedagogy first in tutor development
 Shift of emphasis from ‘how to’ (technology
first) to a critical review of instructional
design
 Focus on process of learning: facilitating
and supporting student learning.
 A re-examination of approaches to teaching
and learning, exploring full potential of
technologies to support different
pedagogical models (Kirkwood & Price; 2012)

4. How can peer observation contribute to tutors’
professional development?
 non-judgemental / constructive dialogue
on tutoring practice
 opportunity to define tutoring approach and
address development needs through critical
dialogue and sharing of perspectives
(McMahon, Barrett & O’Neill, 2007)
– colleagues as mirrors, mentors or critical friends
(Brookfield, 1995)
 empowering to participants
– control of objectives for observation
– freedom to determine mode of participation
(observer and/or observee)

5. Why cross-institutional peer observation?
“…an opportunity to
have a rethink about
things and work
with someone I
have never worked
with before, so
there was no
institutional agenda
at work here, it was
about growing
ourselves”
“…getting experience of
the external culture of an
institution – that was
motivating. It is
important to keep abreast
of developments in
distance learning in other
institutions, to see
whether the way they do
things could benefit our
own students.”
Waikato Tutor
York Tutor

6. Design of the 2015 Waikato-York
cross-institutional programme
Shared features with
COOLAID model
(Bennett, Lee, Lynch & Howard, 2010)
Features specific to
Waikato-York programme
Choice over:
• Participation (opt-in)
• Focus of observation
• Form of feedback
• Future action
Choice over:
• Institution (internal or
external partner)
• Role (observer and/or
observee)
No choice over:
• Selection of partner -
although preferences over
discipline & tutoring
experience considered
where possible

7. Putting pedagogy first in tutor development
 8 pairings between York and Waikato tutors; 1 York – York pairing
 7 reciprocal pairings; 2 pairings focusing on ‘one-way’ observations
York participants Waikato participants
• Public Policy &
Management (x3)
• Health Economics
(x3)
• Applied Human
Rights (x2)
• Education:
Teaching English
to Young Learners
(x1)
• History: Railway
studies (x1)
School of Curriculum & Pedagogy (x4):
• Research Methods
• Digital Technologies & Pedagogical
Purposes
• Writing for Academic Purposes
• Teaching & Learning Mathematics
School of Human Development &
Movement Studies (x3):
• Intelligence, creativity & development of
talent
• Primary teacher education
• Human development for educators

8. Key stages in the 2015 peer observation programme
Blind
matching
of pairs
(March)
Preparing for
the
observation
Virtual
introductions
Definition of
observation
objectives
Conduct of
observation
archived or
'live' course
Exchange of
feedback
discussion of
outcomes
Evaluation of
observation
Confirmation of
'change
agenda' for
individuals and
programme
team
March 2015 2-3 Weeks 1 Month 2-3 Weeks Sept 2015

9. Emergent modes of engagement between pairings
• synchronous meeting / email exchange to confirm
procedures & describe individual course contexts
• objectives determined on an individual basis
Instrumental
(task focused)
• synchronous discussion(s) to build rapport, before
discussing objectives for observations
• objectives for observations agreed through discussion
Collaborative
(personal exchange)
• synchronous discussions to build rapport
• evolving foci for a series of observations, based on
shared interests and real-time teaching challenges
Collaborative
(cyclical exchange)

10. Engagement modes and reported outcomes
“It did reinforce
some of the things I
had picked upon in
my own reflection.
She provided an
answer for how I
might think about
doing it. She helped
me to make a
decision on a course
of action - she
influenced that.”
“Even when there were
points made that were
not glowing, they were
telling for me and I
appreciated this learning
even if it highlighted an
area beyond the initial
observation like effective
communication.”
Waikato Tutor
Waikato Tutor
Task focused
(driven by
objectives) Rapport-based:
(challenging – going beyond
the agreed objectives)

11. Are outcomes different in a cross-institutional partnership?
“…she recognised how the
language I used and the
way I talked was much
more informal than she
was used to. I don’t know
if that is NZ or a
personality thing….The
different experiences and
perspective of interactions
were valuable for thinking
about my teaching.”
Waikato Tutor
Discussion management:
encouraging student
participation and
meaningful engagement
Personal reflection on
tone / formality of the
tutor voice

12. Activity design:
Encouraging students to engage in reflective practice
“X’s questions on the
assignment – he raised
questions regarding the
validity as it is currently
set up. He raised a
question which I can put
to the team and this can
lead to real change in
the future.”
Waikato Tutor
Institutional differences in assessment practices:
challenging institutional norms and blind spots (what’s acceptable)
and academic values (e.g. freedom of students to determine
assessment focus)
“…their willingness to have a much
more varied assessment scheme
than University Teaching Committee
will allow us to do. That is
something to talk about and I can
come back with evidence. The other
thing is the level of trust that X
invested in her students – in
contrast to the way that we go
through each week – delivering a
lecture and then a discussion which
is very highly bound to the lecture.
It is very different in New Zealand.”
York Tutor

13. Technology usage and content design:
tools and visual structure
Waikato Tutor
institutional differences in course design and technology usage:
what’s possible
“Without exception I get new ideas
looking at someone else’s course…. -
an awareness of the … different tools
they were using – the VLE platforms
were different too… the way they
were branded and customised – our
Moodle platform is more boring, so
this was an interesting insight – I
didn’t know about that and it made
me look at that.”

14. Do participants associate a greater value in cross-
institutional / cross-cultural exchanges?
Pros Cons
(more) motivating – freshness of
‘outsider’ perspective
different context offers more objective
stance – no institutional agenda
Commitment needed to manage virtual
relationship: building rapport; overcoming
practical challenges -time zones & access to
learning environments
Perspectives can be broader – you get a
different picture of your practice
Can highlight personal and institutional
blind spots
Institutional differences may limit
transferability of observed practice and
insights:
value of feedback can be negligible if
suggestions cannot be implemented
Easier to be frank with people you don’t
know
Sensitivity to differences in national,
institutional and course-level practice is
needed to ensure a meaningful exchange (e.g.
teaching across multiple time zones and
challenges of introducing synchronous tutoring)
Affirming about own practice & tutoring
context: e.g. privileges /academic
freedoms of national HE context

15. What are the key conditions for a productive relationship?
 Growth mindset (Dweck, 2006): open orientation to
professional and personal growth….
 Commitment of time:
– investment in relationship building (rapport) -
establishing common ground;
 Effective time management:
– negotiating time zones and institutional calendars
 Adequate preparation: mastering “telescopic”
(big picture) and “microscopic” (operational)
perspectives of observed course

16. Further information
York tutor’s reflections on participation on the 2015
York-Waikato programme:
https://youtu.be/Gy5DOUWDzqU
Peer observation programme: guidance resources:
https://www.york.ac.uk/staff/teaching/community/
peer-support/distance-learning-observation

17. Next steps
 Expansion of cross-institutional peer
observation
 2016 programme: collaboration between
York, Waikato and Otago
 Further exploration of cross-institutional,
cross-disciplinary peer mentoring

18. Questions?
Dr Richard Walker
E-Learning Development Team
University of York, UK
richard.walker@york.ac.uk
Image: Bryn Jones

19. References
Bennett, S.; Lee, S.; Lynch, P.; Howard, L. (2010). COOLAID (Collaborative Observation in the On-Line
Environment for enhancement across Institutional Divides. HEA Evidence Net.
Danielsen, O., & Nielsen, J. L. (2010). Problem-oriented project studies - the role of the teacher as
supervising / facilitating the study group in its learning processes. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson,
C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on
Networked Learning 2010: 558 - 565.
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/PDFs/Danielsen.pdf
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House, New York.
Harper, F.; Nicolson, M. (2013). Online peer observation: its value in teacher professional development,
support and well-being. In International Journal for Academic Development, 18 (3). Available online at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2012.682159
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2012). Missing: Evidence of a scholarly approach to teaching and learning with
technology in higher education. Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University, Milton Keynes,
UK. Retrieved from: http://www.lth.se/fileadmin/lth/genombrottet/Missing_-_a_scholarly_approach-
HO.pdf
McMahon, T.; Barrett, T.; O’Neill, G. (2007). Using observation of teaching to improve quality: Finding
your way through the muddle of competing conceptions, confusion of practice and mutually exclusive
intentions. In Teaching in Higher Education 12 (4), (pp.499–511).
McWilliam, E. (2005). Unlearning pedagogy. In Journal of Learning Design 1 (1), (pp.1-11).