Conclusiones Parciales

My primary interest was in how observers made judgements about the teaching they see in classrooms. There was little directly about this in the literature with most studies focussed on the effects of being observed, rather than the process of observing. These

30

works were considered relevant because all the observers in this study have been and continue to be classroom practitioners as well as observers and it seemed reasonable to assume that their judgements and approaches to observation will have been informed by their own experiences as practitioners who are observed and their concerns for the tutors they manage.

2.4.1 Observees’ experience of OTL

Cockburn (2005) points out that practitioners predominantly associate OTL with QA and the question of competency and that, therefore, “it is not surprising anxiety is commonly associated with the process” (p374). He goes on to outline a series of concerns identified by his practitioner interviewees, including increased

“scrutinisation”, and the “artificiality” of the OTL process (p377). Practitioners viewed OTL “as a bureaucratic exercise with little genuine concern for teacher development” and therefore, at best, “a ‘necessary evil’”. Practitioners derive positive benefit from OTL when “it throws light on activities central to the professional role” (ibid, p382), when the process became a “Reflective Mirror” (ibid, p381). However, for these benefits to be felt, the judgmentalism inherent in the QA purpose of OTL would have to be reduced. Although Cockburn does not specify how many interviews he carried out, referring only to a “range of professionals deeply involved in the classroom observation procedure” (p374), the interview quotes he provides are compelling and inclusion is therefore justified on qualitative grounds.

O’Leary’s (2013a) examination of graded OTL in 10 FE colleges also focusses on the effect of the process on practitioners. O’Leary found that the QA purpose of OTL was the most commonly recognised by the vast majority of practitioners; although there was

31

also “an expectation that observers will provide formative feedback” (ibid, p703-4) – a combination that many observers found problematic (p707). O’Leary states that practitioners found the experience “divisive” (p710), “difficult to manage” (p707), and found evidence of what Jeffrey and Woods (1998) referred to as ‘playing the game’ (p709).

Likewise, the University and College Union’s (UCU) wide-ranging survey of FE practitioners (O’Leary, 2013b) found that graded OTL, carried out by managers, was overwhelmingly the most common model, in 77% of instances (p41). This survey confirmed the largely negative attitudes of observees to the experience of graded OTL mentioned above, with 67% of all respondents, which included observers and small numbers of senior managers, agreeing that graded OTL “should no longer be used as a form of teacher assessment” (p45).

Other research has not been so negative and O'Leary's results may be the result of asking practitioners to give their ‘feelings’ about an experience that was, by its nature, intrusive on their day-to-day practice and stressful in terms of its high-stakes

consequences. Cockburn (2005), for example, found that “positive responses outweighed the negative by 35%”, suggesting that many, if not most practitioners valued some aspects of the process, if not the totality. UCU’s more recent survey found far less enthusiasm among practitioners, but a still substantial 40% of respondents supported the contention that graded OTL was “essential for monitoring the quality of teaching and learning” (O’Leary, 2013b, p45). However, as O’Leary contends, this perhaps higher than expected support for graded OTL may be due to familiarisation:

“as graded observations have become normalised in FE in recent years, so staff have become increasingly conditioned to expect to be graded on their classroom performance” (O’Leary, 2013b, p43)

32

2.4.2 Observers’ beliefs about OTL

There appears to be a lack of research within the literature specifically focusing on the observer experience. Where observers have been interviewed, or the process of observing featured, the focus of the studies themselves has usually precluded or

minimalised a consideration of how or what observers feel about their OTL decisions. Boocock’s (2013) study, in common with my own, focussed on the OTL practices within one, albeit large, FE institution. A range of subjects were interviewed, from classroom practitioners to senior management, and liberal use made of verbatim quotes. However, the emphasis throughout is in line with the researcher’s critical theorist

agenda, on examining the political “neo-Fordian” purposes presumed to be behind the OTL process. Consequently, Boocock’s study tended not to ask observers about why and how they reached their decisions, although there were some telling moments. For example, Boocock demonstrated that observers were aware of their observees’ tendency to ‘play the game’ in their observations: “it is a show that you put on for when

someone comes in and that is all it is really and if you know how to play the game you will be fine” as one observer put it (Boocock, 2013, p490). There was also a feeling amongst observers that “grading dominates” the process, to the detriment of the CPD function, which was “de-professionalising, controlling and not trusting of staff with what they do” (ibid, p 493). For this reason, it was common for observers to believe that “a less threatening OTL system, such as peer-observation, might be more effective” (ibid, p495).

O’Leary’s (2013) more substantial study also included some interviews with observers. However, his focus was on the effects of OTL policy on practitioners rather than the OTL decision-making process itself. However, the study does confirm that there was a tension experienced by observers between the QA and CPD functions of OTL: one

33

observer stating that it was “difficult to manage two very different roles for

observations under the one umbrella” (O’Leary, 2013, p707); and, in a rare comment upon the feelings of an observer within the literature: “I’m not sure I succeed in achieving both and I feel guilty about that” (ibid). O’Leary found that most observers expressed a desire to prioritise the CPD function of OTL but that “their ability to uphold such a commitment was compromised by the prioritisation of the QA agenda in colleges, coupled with practical time constraints” (ibid).

2.4.3 The relationship between observer and observee

There was little in the literature directly related to the potential effect of the relationship between the observer and the observee in an in-house OTL context. The creation of a good working relationship was often cited as beneficial, but the problem of observers making judgements of observees they might have known well for years was not dealt with. In the context of the less high-stakes mentoring relationship, Cullimore and Simmons (2010) found that mentors expressed anxiety, and even guilt, “about the need to be critical of their colleagues” and that “relationships in the staffroom can get in the way” (p231). The mentors were even more anxious about their judgements when these would have to become part of official feedback, one mentor asking whether, in the case of picking up on ‘problems’, they should, “pass them because this person is a colleague and friend, or fail them because you know they’re not ready?” (ibid, p232). It would appear reasonable to assume that given the high-stakes involved, and the status differential between observer and observee, that the effects may be even more significant in official graded OTL.

34