Peer Support Project.

Innovations DayKeele University

3 July 2009

Presenters: Kim Sargeant and Pauline Walsh

Project Team: Julie Green, Cath Hill, Kim Sargeant, Pauline Walsh

Background.

• The School of Nursing and Midwifery academic peer support strategy has been developed in the wider context of support for the scholarship of learning and teaching.

• The strategy incorporates Keele University guidelines regarding peer observation of teaching (POT) and aims to facilitate achievement of the School’s learning and teaching plan.

Aims of support model.• To meet the requirements for professional registration and

maintenance of a professional portfolio.

• To foster support to staff implementing innovative and dynamic learning and teaching strategies including inter-professional and case based learning.

• To encourage staff to implement shared learning strategies within programmes.

• To enable staff to reflect on and develop their role in supporting students as a personal tutor and clinical placement link tutor.

Peer Support Model, 2008

Participants (n=43)• 25 staff participated in the questionnaire giving a response

rate of 58%

• Of those who responded 32% were male and 68% were female

• 48% of respondents had worked in Higher Education for more than 10 years and only 8% for less than 2 years

• Only 4% of respondents (1 staff member) had not yet completed a formal higher education teaching qualification

Peer Support Activities contribute to improving the quality of the student experience

• Positive response to the Peer Support project - 64% stated that the peer support activities contributed to the quality of the student experience.

• Cosh (1998) argues that the judgements of others do not develop or improve people’s performance, a point refuted by this sample group

Peer support activities positively enhance my personal professional development

• Donnelly (2007) suggests that peer activities develop staff confidence in their approach to teaching and develop good practice.

• 68% of respondents identified that the activities had had a positive effect on their development.

Feedback from peer support activity should be used within the appraisal system

Feedback from peer support activity should be used within the appraisal system

0%

12%20% 20%

48%

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree

I have benefited from observing others teach

I have benefited from observing others teach

20%

4%0%

40% 36%

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree

I have benefited from my teaching being observed

I have benefited from my teaching being observed

24%

4%0%

36% 36%

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree

I was adequately prepared to undertake the role of observer

I was adequately prepared to undertake the role of observer

4%0%

32% 36% 28%

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree

The main focus of Reflective Activity was

• Reflective practice is a professional body requirement of all nurses and midwives, as part of their ongoing professional development (NMC, 2006).

• Donnelly (2007) suggests that reflective practice can be a key process in the professional learning of academic staff and can prevent teaching from becoming routine and mundane.

• 82% of staff stated that their main area of reflection was around their teaching in the classroom.

I felt able to disclose issues that concerned me during the peer group meetings

• Landmark et al (2004) highlight the importance of feeling able to share situations within the safety of the group to develop awareness and insight

• 76% of respondents identified that they felt comfortable disclosing their concerns during meetings in their peer groups

The Next Step

• Initial findings support the model and as such its continuance will be recommended

• Documentation will be amended to ensure clarity for all staff• Staff training will take place relating to peer support and

observation• Celebration of good practice• Feedback from groups will be used to identify areas for

school staff development next year

Further information

• Kim Sargeant k.e.sargeant@nur.keele.ac.uk

• Pauline Walsh p.n.walsh@nur.keele.ac.uk

• Julie Green j.green@nur.keele.ac.uk

• Cath Hill c.a.hill@nur.keele.ac.uk

References• Bell, M. (2002) “Peer Observation of Teaching in Australia”.

www.itsn.ac.uk/genericcentre

• Berk, R.A., Naumann, P.L., Appling, S.E. (2004) “Beyond Student Ratings: Peer Observation of Classroom and Clinical Teaching”. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship. 1(1):1-26

• Cosh, J. (1998) “Peer observation in higher education- A reflective approach”. Innovations in Education and Training International. 35(2):171-176

• Cosser, M. (1998) “Towards the design of a system of peer review of teaching for the advancement of the individual within the university”. Higher Education. 35: 143 – 162

References

• Costello, J., Pateman, B., Pursey, H., Longshaw, K. (2001 )”Peer review of classroom teaching: an interim report”. Nurse Education Today. 21:444-454

• Courneya, C., Pratt, D., Collins, J. (2008) “Through what perspective do we judge the teaching of peers?” Teaching and Teacher Education. 24:69-79

• Davys, D., Jones, V. (2008) “Peer observation: A tool for continuing professional development”. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation”. 14(11): 489-493

• Donnelly R. (2007) “Perceived Impact of Peer Observation of Teaching in Higher Education”. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 19(2):117-129

References• Hammersley-Fletcher, L., Orsmond, P. (2004) “Evaluating

our peers: is peer observation a meaningful process?”. Studies in Higher Education. 29(4):489-503

• Landmark, B., Wahl, A., Bøhler, A. (2004) “Group supervision to support competency development in palliative care in Norway. International Journal of Palliative Nursing. 10(11): 542-548

• Nursing and Midwifery Council (2006) “The PREP Handbook”. London. NMC