Teacher observations in SoTL: what do we really mean and how are they valued? Anders Ahlberg, Maria Larsson, Katarina Mårtensson, Thomas Olsson, Torgny Roxå (Lund University)

Lund University has for the past decade rewarded excellence in university teaching using a SoTL-based Kolb-like circular model wherein “Teaching practice - student learning” is followed by “Teacher observing teaching and learning”, and in turn “Teacher using knowledge about teaching and learning” and finally “Teacher plan teaching and learning in relation to limiting aspects and possibilities”, and so on, iteratively (Olsson et al. 2010). The reward system has been growing, and is accepted by academics. Teachers wishing to be recognised for their teaching excellence write stories for their portfolio’s which are 10 – 20 pages long and the portfolio is submitted for recognition alongside the applicants being interviewed by their peers who are already recognised as excellent teachers.

The team wanted to evaluate some portfolios to see why people achieved using this format. Some portfolios do not pass and some of the issues have been a focus on their practice only with no theory, just theory and no application to practice and no peer reviews. The good portfolios however following some evaluation of a sample of these have been found to have the following eight characteristics:

·         Observation content clearly stated problems, area for improvement and focus on results

·         Timing of the observation often in action recreated from memory

·         Level of organisation designed and deliberate

·         Rationale behind the observation why this was important

·         Observed object what was explored

·         Single/multiple observations had they used just one observation or had a series been undertaken to see development

·         Theory driven they had read something and wanted to integrate this

·         Who originally identifies the issue students, peers, personal views

There is a need now having identified these characteristics to research these further and the team acknowledge they have no included any evidence which is important.