Faculty peer tutoring in teaching and supervision - Innovating teacher collaboration practices in Norwegian higher education (PeTS)

In this innovation-project we have initiated and revealed how peer group mentoring (PGM) has been implemented and experimented within four different higher education academic communities. Peer group mentoring includes a group of teachers that collaborate for the purpose of helping each others to develop and learn as teachers and supervisors in the roles as "critical friends". The project has aimed to address the following three overarching questions: 1. How does PGM condition collective knowledge-sharing and development? 2. What obstacles may emerge related to the implementation of PGM? 3. How can these findings inform further conceptualisation and implementation of PGM practices? The PMG activities implemented, specifically aimed at establishing symmetric relations and a democratic dialogue in four different scientific disciplines. The project and the publications written from the project, provide a unique glimpse into this kind of mentoring practice in a higher education context. Two different models for PGM where implemented. The first model provides a basis for in-depth discussion of work-related cases and challenges concerning supervision. The second model, OPGM, affords a framework for discussing teaching and observing and reflecting on teaching practices. Both models provide for symmetry, ensuring the mentees’ influence on the conversation, as well as regulating the conversational flow by not letting the discussion run its own course. A core finding from the project is that PGM is experienced as an activity that gives the opportunity to develop professionally in a motivating way through critical, formative and creative reflection. The outcomes from the PGM sessions recurring point to the process starting from descriptive entrances that evolve into alterations, that end up as transformational experiences for the problem owners. Having sessions over a longer period was important not just to become acquainted with the model and each other, but that maturation within the group enabled members to feel more secure and dive deeper into the problems. Challenges experienced in one’s own practice contributed to a process of reflection on more detailed, structural issues, which the participants had deeper familiarity with and which helped the participants to not only promote constructive solutions, but also take actual steps to change practices. PGMs in general evolved into a community sanctuary for the participants to explore pedagogical issues in a nonjudgmental manner. Discussing structural issues in PGM probed a valuable learning opportunity contributing to institutional awareness. This raised awareness frequently gave rise to confronting decision makers at a higher level in the organisational hierarchy, opening opportunities for organisational change. A risk with PGM models is that the conversations can evolve into a noncommitting dialogue. Because no model is perfect, having the opportunity for open meta-conversations is important, especially in cases where guidelines may appear contriving or rigid. Keeping an open and exploratory approach to the models is an important part of developing and moderating the PGM practices further within the partnership communities. The meta-conversations revealed themselves as very important in this respect, creating the space for respectful reflection and disagreement. Another limitation concerns how PGM is rooted in the organisation. A premise for succeeding with PGM frequently points to how leadership and the strategic level of the institution commits to this peer group mentoring. Both models and the experiences and research on these are available in the publications from the project, in particular the two books published within the project. Furthermore, the project has contributed innovation within teaching and supervision in higher education. Although the discussions helped clear up many fallacies on how to handle and negotiate around institutional conventions and practices, the equivalent discussions of initiating organisational change were rather scarce. It is, therefore, relevant to discuss how PGM conversations can be made more relevant to institutional self-reflection and contribute more deeply to pedagogical knowledge development within the larger scope of the surrounding academic communities. We encourage further theoretical exploration of peer group mentoring as a possible separate discipline with its own coherent conceptual empirical grounding. Apart from analysing group-based peer mentoring conversations, which many scholars have already done in the fields of supervision and professional mentoring, we are keen to see clearer analytical descriptions of the qualities that are the hallmark of PGM. It is important to examine the significance of various mentoring models, as prompted by this project. The results from the project has inspired different Nordic environments to innovate PGM as a tool for quality development in their institutions.

Se resultatrapport

The main purpose of this project is to develop collaborative communities of practice in supervision and teaching in higher education. We will achieve this by engaging with four specific educational communities, which are willing to invest in innovative efforts by using following collaborative strategies: Peer review of supervision (PRS): This is a model structuring conversations related to experienced challenges in supervising students. The participants describe and submit case descriptions of problems they are facing, which are critically discussed and analysed in peer groups. Peer review of teaching (PRT): This is a model structuring conversations related to planning, observing and reviewing teaching by peers. The participants describe and submit detailed lesson plans, which are presented to and critically discussed in peer groups. Four teaching communities at the UiO have, based on their own initiative, been selected as cases in this innovation project; respectively: a) PhD supervision at the Faculty of Medicine b) master supervision at the Faculty of Humanities c) teaching at a professional program in pharmacy d) teaching at a professional program in theology The project will also explore how these collaborative efforts can be supported by using digital tools. In our innovation, we will closely consider the characteristics of the involved context and how the developed methods of collaboration influence on the participants interactions and reflective communication about teaching and supervision. To combine the level of innovation and the need for research, we approach this project based on Cultural-Historical Activity Theory, which provides us with a conceptual perspective on the systematic experimental innovation of organisational practices.