Establishing a career in higher education depends on several factors, key among them are an academic’s level of knowledge and expertise in their field as well as their research and teaching experience (Oliveira, Nada, & Magalhães 2024). Many HEIs value the research role above all others, due to the funding it usually is attached to, the publications and citations it produces, and the impact it can create for the institution and the academic at reputational and prestige levels. Therefore, becoming an academic necessitates research training to achieve a PhD academic credential (Oliveira et al. 2024). A PhD demonstrates that a doctoral graduate has reached a certain level of expertise in their field of study and has acquired skills that will allow them to be an independent researcher (IUA 2021). However, teaching related skills such as didactics and pedagogy often do not enjoy the same level of prominence among the professional skills early career academics need to be equipped with in order to be good teachers, even though it is the most visible role academics engage in (Cassuto 2022).

Due to the rapid technological advancements of the last few decades especially in terms of educational/assistive technologies, teaching has become more complex (Hyde, Clarke, & Drennan 2011). Despite academia’s best efforts to improve teaching, these efforts have been initiated largely by individual academic’s level, which has hindered the professionalization of teaching at HEI. It therefore comes as no surprise that academic teaching has been described as amateur in nature (Zimmerman 2020), which can be attributed to academics’ notion that good teaching is less about skills and more about personality and charisma (Cassuto 2022).

Universities in some countries have addressed the need for faculty training on teaching related topics and skills through formal programmes, Certificates, Diplomas or Masters in Teaching in higher education (e.g., UK, Ireland, Netherlands). In some cases, those (or comparable) qualifications are becoming increasingly expected from the HEIs. PhD training on teaching is unfortunately lagging, and few HEIs are requiring their PhD students to take a credit barring course on teaching (Rifkin, Natow, Salter, & Shorter 2023) even though doctoral students in some countries are expected to develop professional skills such as teaching and mentorship (e.g., IUA 2001 - Ireland). The case study presented in this paper is from a doctoral training programme at an Austrian HEI on didactics and pedagogy called “Certificate of Teaching in Higher Education”.

This paper presents the design and development of a teaching observation process that integrates professional, peer and student feedback, implemented in an introductory / foundational course of the Certificate. We will detail how the pedagogy and didactic experts (professionals) engaged with PhD students (aspiring lecturers) taking the foundational course through a three-step teaching observation process: pre-observation, session observation and post-observation reflection and debrief. This process was concurrently carried out by fellow PhD-students enrolled in the course, providing both student (peer) and lecturer feedback to the observee. This paper will elaborate on the process and the form developed to support the professional development and growth of both the observees and observers.

The teaching observation detailed here is part of a “Certificate of Teaching in Higher Education”, offered to PhD students to professionalize their teaching. The observations occur during the first core module, “Foundations of Teaching in Higher Education”. We emphasized the importance of students conducting their teaching session authentically in front of an actual BA or MA cohort through a Teaching Assistantship (TAship). A teaching assistantship is a position held by a graduate student who assists a professor with instructional responsibilities, (e.g., leading discussions, grading assignments), and occasionally lecturing. However, some students opted for the less authentic but consequence-free mock teaching session in front of a group of their peers. To create the mock sessions, we introduced practicum sessions alongside the seminars for Foundations. The practicum comprised twelve 50-minute sessions, divided into three parts. Weeks 1-3 reinforced and provided space to apply knowledge from the seminars (e.g., drafting teaching philosophy). In weeks 4-6 students prepared a few slides for a 10-minute micro-teaching presentation. In weeks 7-12, students without a TAship session taught a topic of their interest to their Certificate peers. This paper contains the data from the reflection we (as authors and lecturers) engaged in as it relates to the teaching observations we conducted. The reflections are based on general observations and recollections (holistically), and the observation forms can be an additional source of information. Author 1 (YP) engaged with 17 students through the TA observation and 16 students through the practicum (mock) observation. Author 2 (IL) engaged with 10 students through the TA and 11 students through the practicum observation. The observations period was autumn of 2022 to autumn of 2023. Each of us completed our reflections independently, reviewing the other’s reflections only once we commenced the thematic analysis and coding phases together. We employed an inductive thematic analysis to identify and develop patterns of meaning within the data, which subsequently informed the emergence of key themes (Braun & Clarke 2006). Following this, we conducted a coding phase, systematically searching for words or phrases that encapsulated salient attributes or nuances within the language of the text (Saldaña 2016). The coding and thematic analysis phases we engaged in was heavily influenced by the process, product, praxis framework. Process focuses on how something is done, product focuses on what is achieved, and praxis emphasizes why and how theories are used in practice.

Our main reflection takeaway messages are: Process: 1. Preparation and Planning was highlighted as crucial for effective teaching, with structured lesson plans being a key tool. 2. Engagement and Confidence varied widely, often linked to students’ prior teaching experience. 3. Observation techniques and dynamics shaped the learning environment, balancing passive observation with active encouragement. 4. The process was resource-intensive but valuable for the authentic learning experience. Product: 5. The process cultivated a teacher identity. 6. Creativity was emphasized, though constrained by existing course structures or students’ personalities. Praxis: 7. Reflection helped in developing metacognitive skills, with students learning to identify gaps and plan improvements. 8. Feedback fostered improvement while highlighting the tension between peer and instructor perspectives. There was a clear contrast between participants teaching in the practicum, who had freedom in choosing a topic and designing the session (making it a low-stakes affair), and those teaching BA/MA students, who were often unable to find a suitable session and constrained by an existing syllabus. They couldn’t always collaborate closely with the faculty and felt unable to adopt a different teaching style, fearing it would create a stark contrast to other sessions. Following the first iteration of this teaching observation model and based on our own reflections combined with module feedback, we made two significant changes. We didn't initially consider that some PhD students might not have taught before or even presented at a conference or seminar. To give them the opportunity to experience standing in front of an audience, we added microteaching sessions to the practicum/ The second change addressed the lack of depth in reflective writing. We introduced guiding questions in the Teaching Observation form to help participants reflect more deeply, resulting in more meaningful reflections and increased confidence in presenting and navigating the teaching environment.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research Psychology 3(2): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Cassuto, L. (2022). Why Teaching Still Gets No Respect in Doctoral Training. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 10 March 2022. Available at: https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-teaching-still-gets-no-respect-in-doctoral-training. (Accessed on 29 October 2024) Hyde, A., Clarke, M., & Drennan, J. (2011). The changing role of academics and the rise of managerialism. In Kehm, B. & Teichler, U. (Eds.): The Academic Profession in Europe - New Tasks and New Challenges, 39–52. 5th volume. London: Springer. [DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-4614-5_4] Irish Universities Association – IUA (2021). Irish Universities Doctoral Skills Statement (3rd Edition). Dublin: IUA Kehm, B.M. 2006. Doctoral education in Europe and North America: A comparative analysis. Wenner Gren International Series, 83: 67-78. Oliveira, T., Nada, C., & Magalhães, A. (2024). Navigating an Academic Career in Marketized Universities: Mapping the International Literature. Review of Educational Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231226336 Rifkin, B., Natow, R.S., Salter, N.P., & Shorter, S. (2023). Why Doctoral Programs Should Require Courses on Pedagogy: The case for paying far more attention to developing teaching skills in graduate school. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 16 March 2023. Available at: https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-doctoral-programs-should-require-courses-on-pedagogy?sra=true. (Accessed on 29 October 2024) Saldaña, J. (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (2nd Edition). Los Angeles: Sage Zimmerman, J. (2020). The amateur hour: a history of college teaching in america. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.