• Staff home
• IT and online services
• Learning and teaching
  • Community Engaged Learning (CEL)
  • Learning Design and Technology
  • Quality assurance
  • Academic Practice
    • Lecturing staff
    • Graduate teaching assistants
    • Research staff who teach
    • Teaching leaders
    • Supervising Dissertations and Projects workshop
  • Inclusive-Learning@York
  • Student learning support
  • Contacts and committees
• Administrative hub
• Research
• Supporting students
• Project and change management
• Working at York
• Finance
• Legal Services
• Leisure and culture
• Support, health and wellbeing
• Policies and strategies
• External relations

Fostering collegiality: Archaeology

‌‌‌‌

How can Peer Support for Teaching (PST) be used as a keystone to foster a collegial culture to enhance teaching and student learning within a department, as well as encouraging wider discussion of best practice and innovation?

The PST process in Archaeology

The PST process in Archaeology is primarily organised around module teaching teams. The teams commonly consist of colleagues at different stages of their careers: from postgraduates who teach (PGWTs), to early career lecturers, to staff with considerable teaching experience. Teams meet twice a year: once just prior to teaching commencing, and again at its close. The process is driven in part by the department’s module evaluation system to ensure that students’ views can also be taken into account in any decision on enhancement changes, and to facilitate group discussion on issues that may have been raised.

Example: Supporting Individuals to Improve Their Teaching

At a module team PST meeting, a colleague reports finding it difficult to encourage students to speak in seminars. Another concurs, but two others report having no problems. Indeed, one of the latter has been particularly commended by students for the liveliness of their seminars in the module evaluation.  The group share their strategies for facilitating group discussion, and identify which are most effective. The colleague who raised the issue asks if they can observe a seminar run by the colleague who has received positive student feedback.   

At the first meeting, the group review any decisions on changes made in the previous PST cycle, any lessons learned, and any examples of good practice. This not only ensures there is broad consensus within the team on the objectives, learning outcomes, and the expected patterns of delivery and assessment on the module, it also allows for the orientation of staff and PGWTs new to the team. At the close of the module, the team have a “wash-up” meeting during which they review the impact of any changes made, consider students’ evaluations, and reflect generally on the effectiveness of their teaching.

Sharing practice

In addition to PST groups organised around module teams, all staff who teach (~35) meet once a year to share practice more widely within the department and to facilitate programme level discussion. There is also a proposal to incorporate specific examples of innovation and best practice into annual staff meetings.

Postgraduates Who Teach (PGWTs)

PGWTs are fully incorporated into the module team PST groups. In addition, the Chair of Teaching Committee holds a separate meeting with them once a year to facilitate discussion on issues specific to their role and career stage.

Peer Observation of Teaching (PoT)

The PST Group’s reflection on practice can include opportunities for peer observation of teaching on an ad-hoc basis, such as when an individual feels it would benefit them either to be observed or to observe a colleague to learn from their practice. All PGWTs are observed by an experienced colleague in their first year of teaching. In the past, the department also instituted a periodic peer observation process for all staff, and there are plans to reintroduce this on a tri-annual cycle. 

Reporting of PST activities

Archaeology has designed their own reporting form for PST meetings, which is shared on the department's Google Drive and reviewed by the Chair of Teaching Committee.  One section of the form is to capture the group's general reflections on practice and minor changes to the module for their own future reference; a second section is to identify any proposed changes that need to be reviewed or approved by the Teaching Committee.

The department's Annual Programme Review notes that PST is ongoing, but only provides brief details on any major changes to the process.  Details of specific PST group activities are not included.

Example: Ensuring Programme Coherence 

A module team PST Group reports to the Chair of Teaching Committee that students are at risk of underperforming in one of their mid-term summative assessments, and express the intention to change the mode of the assessment.  Reviewing the matter, the Chair wonders whether an alternative reason for the under-performance might be because the assessment submission deadline coincides with that of another module. The issue is discussed at the departmental meeting, with most judging the current mode of assessment to be robust and appropriate. The decision is made to stagger the submission deadlines across the modules rather than change the mode of assessment.

Impact of PST activities

Archaeology have noted a positive ripple-effect from embedding the PST process into their teaching cycle. Not only has it provided a formal infrastructure for genuine, democratic peer support for teaching, it has also fostered a culture whereby staff feel encouraged to discuss issues and to share practice with colleagues on an ongoing, informal basis. It has brought to light examples of excellent and innovative teaching that might otherwise have been overlooked, which has been a significant driver for plans to provide opportunities for the wider dissemination of good practice within the department.

The department has also found that their PST has provided a useful line of communication to Teaching Committee, so that everyone – including PGWTs – feel empowered to contribute to wider discussions on how to enhance the department’s teaching provision. This has been particularly apparent in recent departmental discussion on the implementation of the York Pedagogy. Moreover, engaging with the Pedagogy has made it apparent that fostering collegial discussion around teaching and learning has already ensured a high degree of structural coherence and departmental consensus on how modules fit with programme aims and objectives.

An added benefit to the process has been that the PST reports shared on Google Drive serve as a living archive of why decisions on change have been made, which mean that as module teams and teaching committees change, new staff undertaking these roles have access to an institutional memory of why modules have evolved in the way that they have. 

Module evaluation in Archaeology is aligned to the National Student Survey, with modules consistently scoring over 90 for Overall Satisfaction. This success has been maintained in strong performances in final NSS scores