International Journal for Academic Development

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rija20

Academics’ perceptions of challenges of a peer

observation of teaching pilot in a Confucian
nation: the Vietnamese experience

Phuong Vu Nguyen & Huong Thi Pham

To cite this article: Phuong Vu Nguyen & Huong Thi Pham (2021) Academics’ perceptions
of challenges of a peer observation of teaching pilot in a Confucian nation: the Vietnamese
experience, International Journal for Academic Development, 26:4, 448-462, DOI:
10.1080/1360144X.2020.1827260

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2020.1827260

Published online: 01 Oct 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 200

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rija20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT
2021, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 448–462
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2020.1827260

Academics’ perceptions of challenges of a peer observation of

teaching pilot in a Confucian nation: the Vietnamese
experience
a,b
Phuong Vu Nguyen and Huong Thi Phamc
a
Office for Educational Testing and Quality Assurance, University of Economics and Law, Ho Chi Minh City,
Vietnam; bVietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; cResearch Centre for Educational
Evaluation and Accreditation and International Relations, Institute for Educational Research, Ho Chi Minh
City University of Education, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper discusses academics’ perceptions of challenges during Received 1 July 2019
the implementation of peer observation of teaching (POT) for pro­ Accepted 8 June 2020
moting teachers’ reflection and teaching improvement. This quali­ KEYWORDS
tative case study involved 11 academics teaching English at Challenges; Confucian
a university in Vietnam. Data were analysed inductively and thema­ values; peer observation of
tically. Several challenges were identified: limited learning from teaching; peer relationship;
observing junior peer teaching and junior peers’ feedback, uncriti­ reflection
cal feedback from peers without closeness, lack of sensitivity in
giving feedback, and limited time for POT. These findings suggest
that a strong peer relationship in a Confucian culture appears to be
key for successful POT.

Introduction
Engaging in professional sharing and critical reflection can enhance academics’ learning
about teaching (Donnelly, 2007) and peer observation of teaching (POT) is recognised as
an influential and strategic practice in higher education to improve teaching quality
(Byrne et al., 2010; Chamberlain et al., 2011; Fletcher, 2017). Numerous benefits have
been documented when POT is implemented under supportive conditions (A. Bell &
Mladenovic, 2008) yet academics involved in POT believe that there are several chal­
lenges to overcome (Motallebzadeh et al., 2017). This paper examines the challenges that
some experienced English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers perceive in the process of
collaborative POT as a reflective tool in the Confucian heritage Vietnamese culture.

POT models in higher education

POT can be implemented in three distinct ways: the ‘management/evaluation model’, the
‘development model’, and the ‘peer review model/collaborative model’ (Gosling, 2014;
Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2005). The ‘evaluation’ model, linked to teachers’
appraisal, serves a primarily administrative purpose and involves senior academics or

CONTACT Phuong Vu Nguyen phuongnv@uel.edu.vn

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 449

administrators who observe staff to monitor teaching quality and meet institutional
standards and promote ‘best practice’ (A. Bell & Mladenovic, 2008; Chamberlain et al.,
2011). This model is intended to benefit the institution. The development model involves
educational developers or other expert teachers observing practitioners (Fletcher, 2017),
for example, a more experienced colleague working with someone less experienced to
develop their practice, and it benefits the observed teacher (M. Bell & Cooper, 2013).
Lastly, the peer review/collaborative model involves academic peers: ‘two colleagues
working together as equal partners’ observing each other’s teaching (Chamberlain
et al., 2011, p. 190). It aims to engage teachers in discussions about teaching, as well as
self and mutual reflection to improve practice. This model offers mutual benefits to peers
(Fletcher, 2017; Yiend et al., 2014).

Advantages and disadvantages of each model

The evaluation model of POT may promote an evaluative improvement culture (Yiend
et al., 2014) that is supportive of teaching and learning practices (Fletcher, 2017).
However, it has the potential to bring about discomfort and anxiety as a result of the
perception of POT as judgmental and intrusive (Cosh, 1998). There seems to be a greater
likelihood that POT will be perfunctorily practised and not be valuable to academics’
learning when compulsory for institutional purposes (Byrne et al., 2010).
The developmental POT model that educational developers and institutions employ to
improve teaching skills and pedagogy (Fletcher, 2017) can promote critical reflection on
teaching (Bell, 2001). However, interactions between colleagues may be influenced by
social relationships involving power and authority (Gosling, 2014; Hammersley-Fletcher
& Orsmond, 2005). Distance in a relationship may hinder peers’ engagement in rich,
open dialogue about teaching (Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2005; Schuck et al.,
2008). The model is believed to be beneficial for the observed teacher (Fletcher, 2017).
The collaborative model of POT can strengthen professional relationships with mutual
trust and respect (Shortland, 2010) and can be viewed as a transformative tool for critical
reflection and learning (Engin & Priest, 2014). However, respect for and intimacy between
peers may hinder open critical feedback that may challenge a peer’s values and beliefs, with
only positive aspects of teaching discussed to avoid confrontation and protect the relation­
ship (Carroll & O’Loughlin, 2014; Schuck et al., 2008). Blind acceptance may be a challenge
that is present in any critical friendship (Schuck et al., 2008).

POT in the Vietnamese context

In tertiary education institutions in Vietnam, professional development activities such as
POT in coaching and mentoring, workshops or informal teaching dialogue have received
little attention compared to other most-preferred forms of learning such as formal degree
programmes and self-study (Nguyen, 2008) or compulsory teaching and learning certi­
ficates (National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2019; Ministry of
Education and Training, 2018). While POT may be used as a professional requirement
or annual practice for continuous professional development (Bell, 2001; A. Bell &
Mladenovic, 2008; Chamberlain et al., 2011; Santos, 2017), it is not a completion require­
ment for teaching certificates in Vietnam. POT may be used to comply with quality
450 V. P. NGUYEN AND T. H. PHAM

assurance requirements at some tertiary institutions, and it is not linked to academics’

appraisal.
However, there have been some studies of POT in the Vietnamese context, for
example, of the developmental model for beginning EFL academics (Nguyen, 2008)
and pre-service EFL teachers (Nguyen, 2013). Peer mentoring posed several challenges,
including such as the lack of awareness of the role of mentoring and administrative
support or the mentor’s poor skills and planning (Nguyen, 2008). The collaborative
model was also used in studies by Vo and Nguyen (2010) and Do (2012). Critical friend
groups were created for beginner teachers (Vo & Nguyen, 2010) and novice teachers (Do,
2012). These studies focused on early-career academics and reported on benefits, sug­
gesting that collaborative POT may be appropriate for improving teaching. The chal­
lenges associated with peers’ hesitation in post-POT meetings and giving negative
feedback were mentioned in Vo and Nguyen (2010) and Do’s (2012) studies. However,
these studies did not discuss the challenges concerning Confucian values in Vietnam.
At University A, there were prior discussions about using POT as a means of
improving reflection and teaching practice. However, because of limited knowledge of
how to implement such a project, it was delayed until this study. The POT project in this
study was designed to improve reflection and teaching practice for the first time. Hence,
the collaborative model was chosen.

The POT collaborative model as a reflective lens for academics

The collaborative model of POT denotes a collaborative process, whereby academics
participate in reciprocal observations of their peer’s teaching for purposes of examining
teaching practice and learning in the classroom context, with observations and teaching
dialogue leading to reflection to improved practice (Bell, 2005; Bennett & Barp, 2008).
POT has been viewed as promoting reflection and learning (M. Bell & Cooper, 2013;
Donnelly, 2007) when used for formative purposes, because peer colleagues as insiders in
the profession can provide a professional viewpoint on teaching.
The POT process generally includes a pre-observation meeting, a classroom observa­
tion and a post-observation meeting (Martin & Double, 1998). This three-step process
establishes an appropriate and ongoing relationship for reciprocal engagement (Fletcher,
2017). The pre-observation meeting allows the observed teacher to inform the observer
about the specific nature of the event and areas where they particularly invite feedback
(Martin & Double, 1998; Pressick-Kilborn & Te Riele, 2008).
The observation stage should be used as a formative process to recognise the observed
academic’s strengths as well as suggest possible areas for improvement or alternative
approaches (Martin & Double, 1998, p. 164). The observation should be conducted
without affecting the observed teacher’s usual level of performance, for collaborative
developmental experience without criticism (Martin & Double, 1998; Pressick-Kilborn &
Te Riele, 2008). A systematic approach to taking notes focuses on issues raised in the pre-
observation meeting (Pressick-Kilborn & Te Riele, 2008).
The post-observation discussion, which might occur immediately after the lesson,
needs to be truthful and constructive (Martin & Double, 1998; Pressick-Kilborn & Te
Riele, 2008). The participants remind themselves of the targeted learning of the observed
session and collaborative reflection to see which aspects of the teaching went well, and
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 451

Teaching &
Observation

Feedback &
Plan
Reflection

Figure 1. The process of teacher development programme (Bell, 2001, p. 30).

which were less successful, thereby suggesting necessary steps for improvement.
Researchers such as Cosh (1998) and Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond (2005) have
been advocates of POT as part of a reflective approach to improve teaching, and
reflection is an essential part of the POT cycle in a teacher development programme
(Bell, 2001) (Figure 1).

Principles for collaborative POT

For POT to be effective in encouraging academics’ reflection and professional learning, it
needs to be implemented under principles of reciprocity and parity. Reciprocity is
a distinctive feature of POT for professional development (Pressick-Kilborn & Te
Riele, 2008). It is essential to create an environment for shared meaning (Fletcher,
2017), whereby both peers are equally open to learning to maximise its potential
(Gosling, 2014) by offering suggestions for change and mutual reassurance (Pressick-
Kilborn & Te Riele, 2008). This kind of shared meaning may also require confidentiality
by trusted and thoughtful colleagues (Gosling, 2014; Motallebzadeh et al., 2017). In
addition, parity through both peers having equal roles in POT, supports teachers’
engagement in reflection and learning (Byrne et al., 2010; Gosling, 2014). Peers’ com­
munication should not be distorted by power imbalances, which hinder open dialogue
(Gosling, 2014). Thus, it is important to mediate power relationships to encourage
collegiality and participation (M. Bell & Cooper, 2013). The peer relationship needs to
be collegial and open to accept the challenge from each participant and facilitate con­
structive conversation and honest reflection (Barnard et al., 2011; Carroll & O’Loughlin,
2014; Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2005).
452 V. P. NGUYEN AND T. H. PHAM

Confucian values and POT implementation

POT may face cultural challenges related to interpersonal interactions in the Vietnamese
context because harmony is of primary concern in collectivist cultures (Nguyen et al.,
2005). Asian countries such as Vietnam, China, Korea, Singapore, and Japan as
Confucian societies share certain qualities of a collectivist cultures (Nguyen et al.,
2005). Vietnamese regard harmony, shame, and face as important factors that relate to
their status with others. They tend to take account of their relative status in communica­
tion with others (Hofstede, 1997) and accept the principle of social order by considering
their addressee’s age, sex, social status, and level of intimacy to establish a correct
relationship in verbal communication (Ashwill & Thai, 2005; Borton, 2000). It is
a cultural practice that great deference is paid to those of higher status regarding their
age and social or organisational position (Truong, 2013).
Showing respect or face saving is the underlying premise for such behaviour (Borton,
2000). Face can be seen as equivalent to honour or prestige and articulates one’s proper
relationship with his or her social environment, which is important to that person and
their family (Hofstede, 1997). The loss of face brings a bad feeling to people in all
cultures, but it appears more damaging to Vietnamese (Borton, 2000). Saving face and
avoiding criticism are often viewed as a preferable way of maintaining harmonious
interpersonal relationships.
In order to argue for POT implementation in Vietnam, it is necessary to consider
Confucian values in designing teachers’ learning strategies. Qian et al. (2017) found that
traditional Confucian values influenced school leaders in building a positive learning
culture among teachers, which requires connecting and aligning structures, values, and
relationships. Chinese teachers’ learning strategies, for example, collaborative inquiry
and peer coaching, align with societal values such as collectivism and respect for
hierarchy (Hofstede, 2001). Similarly, Vietnamese cultural values concerning
Confucianism may influence the way people communicate in interpersonal relationships
and hence, may influence the extent to which critical feedback will be offered during
post-observation meetings. It can be argued that collaborative POT may be suitable for
academics in a collectivist Confucian heritage culture if they show correct behaviours
towards each other to maintain a harmonious relationship during its implementation
(Truong, 2013).

Purposes of the study

This paper aims to explore the challenges of the first-time implementation of the POT
collaborative model at one university in Vietnam, a country with a Confucian heritage
culture in which academics’ beliefs and values relating to interpersonal relationships may
affect the implementation of collaborative POT. This has not been closely studied in any
prior research.

Case, units of analysis, and sampling

A single programme case study (POT) with embedded cases (11 EFL academics) (Stake,
2006) was chosen to capture teachers’ perceptions of the POT experience in the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 453

Vietnamese context. The unit of analysis is ‘the knowledge that key informants can
provide the researcher with’ Grünbaum (2007, p. 88). The ‘case’ in this study is the
collaborative POT, the process/programme, while the unit of analysis is the perception
(knowledge) that the academics of Business English (the key informants) had of the
implementation of the intervention. Purposive sampling was used to select ‘the most
productive sample to answer the research question’ (Marshall, 1996, p. 523).

POT pairing procedures

Several criteria for choosing the sample essential to the study (Merriam, 2001) were
determined. These were academics who: (1) had both teaching and research responsi­
bility, (2) taught Business English, (3) had at least three years’ teaching experience, (4)
had a master’s degree, and (5) taught in the same department. These criteria reflect the
purposes of the study as well as the POT collaborative model, which requires peers to be
trusted colleagues with equal roles. Twelve academics were invited and 11 agreed to
participate. Each academic also voluntarily selected a peer from among the participants
for reciprocal POT, making up six pairs (there was one academic paired with two peers),
as shown in Table 1. This would make academics feel comfortable with the peer’s
classroom observations and supportive of each other in reflection on teaching.
As evident from Table 1, three pairs (An-Binh; Phung-Giang; Hang-Nga) can be
considered as seniors and juniors in terms of age group and teaching experience. Three
pairs (Binh-Cuc; Dieu-En; Dang-Khoa) had similar teaching experience and were of
a similar age group (within a range of 10 years).

POT project implementation

As the facilitators of the POT pilot, the researchers offered the participants guidelines on
the implementation, including its nature, principles, and steps. The participants were
informed at an introductory session that POT was for their mutual reflection and shared
meaning. They were asked to be mindful of collegiality (including shared power and
cooperative interaction among colleagues), confidentiality, and purposeful enhancement
of teaching quality. They were given the POT protocols. For the pre-observation meeting,
the pairs used a pre-observation form to record areas of teaching they needed to improve
and on which they would like feedback from a colleague. For two reciprocal POTs during

Table 1. Peers paired for POT. Pseudonyms were used for the participants.
Peer pairing Participants Age range Experience (years)
An – Binh; An 41–45 20
Binh – Cuc Binh 26–30 5
Cuc 31–35 8
Dieu – En Dieu 36–40 13
En 31–35 11
Phung – Giang Phung 26–30 6
Giang 36–40 14
Hang – Nga Hang 26–30 5
Nga 36–40 13
Dang – Khoa Dang 26–30 3
Khoa 26–30 6
454 V. P. NGUYEN AND T. H. PHAM

the semester, the observer was advised to observe the teaching without obtrusiveness and
use the peer observer’s feedback form for their feedback on the peer’s teaching. The
observed academic used the teacher’s reflection report form for their reflection on
teaching and also received confidential written feedback from their peer after the
observation. Then, the pairs arranged a post-observation meeting to discuss each other’s
teaching and identify areas for improvement. They were advised that their feedback
should be constructive.

Instruments
Notes on post-POT discussions recorded as the researcher’s journals (coded as RJ)
and semi-structured interviews (coded as INT) were used to explore challenges
during the implementation of POT, as perceived by academics. During the debrief­
ings, the researchers played the role of moderators, audio-recorded the dialogue
between the peers, and took notes of instances that required further exploration. At
the end of the semester, semi-structured interviews were employed with individual
participants.

Data analysis
The data were thematically analysed in an inductive approach (Miles & Huberman,
1994), after which they were critically reviewed and broken into meaningful parts with
assigned codes (Maxwell, 2005); they were then compared and grouped into common
categories (Merriam, 2001). A critical examination of these categories facilitated find­
ing connections between the themes. Member checking was used to enhance the
credibility of the qualitative study (Creswell & Miller, 2000). During the interview in
Vietnamese, the researchers restated interview information and then questioned the
participant to determine its accuracy. Data transcripts were sent back to the partici­
pants for confirmation of their accuracy. These transcripts were translated into English
to be directly quoted in the analysis and were randomly checked for consistency by
a researcher who is fluent in Vietnamese and English. The study had ethics approval
from University B (No. SEPP/2012/88 RM 19,615). The names of participants are
pseudonyms.

Findings and discussion

Among the six pairs, five reported problems they had during the collaborative POT.

Limited learning from observing the junior peer teaching and from the junior
peer’s feedback
Among the six pairs, the four senior peers An, Cuc, Nga, and Giang respectively
considered their peers Binh (Binh was paired with Cuc and An), Hang, and Phung as
juniors. They perceived their peers were not as experienced in teaching as they were. One
said: ‘I may have experienced what Phung was experiencing in her teaching. I have
already known every step she took’ (Giang – INT).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 455

Data from the debriefings and interviews show that senior peers believed they learnt
little from observation and feedback. Both Cuc and Nga reported that their juniors did
not suggest any critical feedback. They believed their juniors may be hesitant to offer
negative feedback due to deference and/or lack of knowledge. Cuc said:
I do not highly value Binh’s uncritical feedback, which was affected by the oriental culture
with deference paid to the elder . . . She was reluctant to give critical feedback for fear of
losing face due to lack of experience or humiliating me. (Cuc – INT)

The interview with Binh confirmed Cuc’s belief that the lack of critical feedback related to
their interpersonal relationship, rather than lack of knowledge. Binh conveyed her
deference indirectly:
If two peers have the same teaching experience or age, or closeness in their relationship, they
are willing to be truthful with each other about teaching problems . . . If there is a distance . . .,
will the junior peer dare to be truthful about the senior’s problems? (Binh – INT)

Deference appeared to turn the debriefing session into back-patting and offering each
other praise or compliments (Byrne et al., 2010).
For another pair, the senior only received positive comments from the junior during
the debriefings. Hang, the junior, said: ‘I learned from her knowledge of the subject and
pedagogical methods. She is like a teaching model’ (Hang – INT).
The challenge seemed to occur because of the pairing, as was reported by senior-
junior pairs such as Cuc-Binh, An-Binh, Giang-Phung and Nga-Hang. Their peer
relationship had a distance deriving from age and experience. This finding indicates
a tendency for these senior academics to judge their junior peers’ teaching based on
their own assumed superiority of knowledge and experience (Gosling, 2014). It
appears that these seniors perceived the peers in POT must be a teaching model
from whom they could learn effective teaching ideas, so it became challenging because
different observers had very different ideas about effective teaching, as Gosling (2014)
found and the peer partnership seemed beneficial for only the juniors, as reported in
this study.
Although the participants had the freedom to select their peers, these academics thought
they would need a compatible peer for more critical feedback. Some of them said:
The peers that are similar in experience or age would make sharing teaching ideas easier.
(Binh – INT). My peer is too young and lacks experience in teaching . . . If my peer had been
an experienced one, I would have learnt much from her feedback. (An – INT) so for it to be
effective, I may need a peer who is as experienced as I am. (Nga – INT)

Another interesting finding is that one pair, Giang and Phung, also involving a senior-
junior relationship, was found to be different from the above pairs because they reported
that they were close friends despite distance deriving from age and experience. They both
received critical feedback from each other (RJ), even though it has been argued that
closeness can bring about uncritical acceptance of peer feedback as peers may not be
truthful about each other’s weaknesses for fear of hurting each other (Carroll &
O’Loughlin, 2014). However, Schuck et al. (2008) argued these challenges may exist in
any partnership and can be overcome when the relationship is strong. Both Giang and
Phung that they were truthful with each other, and their friendship was close. This
robustness in the relationship may encourage more critical feedback, though it was
456 V. P. NGUYEN AND T. H. PHAM

absent for one pair of the same age and with similar teaching experience, as dicussed
below.

Uncritical feedback from peers without closeness

Dieu-En were a pair that can be classified as equal colleagues as regards age and
experience. However, they expressed the following this reservation:
I think I may have weaknesses to improve, but others may have been afraid of bringing me
bad feelings or damaging a harmonious relationship and may not have told me fully their
critical feedback. (En-INT)

It is not uncommon that peers may be hesitant to give straightforward critical feedback for
fear of hurting the other. (Dieu-INT)

There seems to be a fear that judgments may be made, although the peers had worked
together closely (Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2005), so they just gave compliments
to their peer to avoid criticism and to save face (Borton, 2000; Nguyen et al., 2005) – a way
the Vietnamese academic maintaina a harmonious relationship with a peer. While in
individualist cultures direct feedback is often welcomed for one’s performance improve­
ment (Hofstede, 1998), in collectivist cultures such as Vietnam people consider saving face
and maintaining harmonious relationships as more important than the quality of feedback
(Truong, 2013). This may prevent peers from fully engaging in rich, open conversations
(Schuck et al., 2008; Yiend et al., 2014). Our finding supports Hofstede’s (1998) argument
that ‘in collectivist countries . . . direct feedback destroys the harmony which is expected to
govern interpersonal relationships’ (pp.17–18).
It turns out that in a country with Confucian values such as Vietnam, the freedom to
select a pair may not guarantee the success of the collaborative model. It seems that at
University A, during the pilot POT project, one essential condition for pairing was the
closeness of the pairs. The closeness of a friendship can compensate for distance in age
and experience. This is confirmed with the last pair, Dang-Khoa, who were close friends
and had similar teaching experience and age.
I trust Khoa. She is so nice. (Dang – INT)

Dang is out-going. I felt pleased to do POT with her. Dang’s feedback was helpful:
constructive and formative. She gave precise feedback on teaching. (Khoa – INT)

They were open and enthusiastic about discussing and asking thought-provoking ques­
tions about each other’s practice (RJ).

Perceived lack of sensitivity in giving feedback

Another challenge was found, associated with sensitivity in giving feedback. Four parti­
cipants experienced negative feelings about the peer feedback, perceiving it as discoura­
ging or judgmental. Giving only negative comments on peer teaching can be
discouraging. For example, Phung said: ‘Giang gave only negative comments on my
teaching. I felt discouraged but I thought she was truthful about it and accepted them as
an opportunity to improve teaching’ (Phung – INT). This may have caused Phung to
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 457

experience a bad feeling, although she dealt with it. Another participant perceived the
peer’s embarrassment with her negative comments: ‘When I gave a straightforward
comment on Hang’s teaching aspects that needed improving, I realised that she was
embarrassed’ (Nga-INT).
As MacKinnon (2001) found, giving just negative comments can be discouraging and
produce a negative feeling: being disheartened or frustrated by the lack of recognition of
the peer’s strengths. Giving critical constructive feedback is a demanding skill that needs
practice (Cosh, 1998).
Besides, both Binh and An perceived each other’s feedback as judgmental, resulting in
bad feelings and disagreement about peer feedback.
but An said I did this and that was wrong. Meanwhile, my students told me that they caught
up with the lesson well. Nothing right or wrong here. So, I became irritated. (Binh – INT)

Binh criticized that I scolded the students; this is not true. Early-career academics like her
will not, I think, probably have an ability to give feedback on my teaching. (An – INT)

Additionally, Binh perceived An as showing off her superior experience during the post-
POT dialogue, which prevented her from giving further feedback. She explained:
How could I dare to give feedback to her [An] when she meant I lack experience, and I am
too young [for her to learn something]? (Binh – INT)

Hence, defensive or bad feelings arise as a result of the emerging criticism. It is

argued POT needs to be well implemented in a way that creates a non-threatening
environment (Donnelly, 2007). Perceiving judgments made feedback sessions inef­
fective (Barnard et al., 2011) and may bring academics into disrepute (Hammersley-
Fletcher & Orsmond, 2005). Thus, the challenge appeared to depend on whether
feedback may be differently interpreted as discouragingly critical instead of construc­
tively critical, as intended (Shortland, 2010). Because both academics perceived their
peer’s feedback as criticism rather than as constructively intended, tensions arose.
Vietnamese academic participants in Truong’s (2013) study found it difficult to give
‘candid feedback’ (p. 180) and had to use ‘well-chosen words’ (p. 143) in giving
negative feedback to avoid hurting their peer’s feeling and self-esteem. If the feed­
back was ‘too blunt’ or ‘too candid’, the peer could lose face (Truong, 2013, p. 180).
This means that constructive feedback should be indirect and must show due respect
for others’ feelings and to save their face. In the Vietnamese context, saving face or
showing respect is key for a harmonious relationship (Borton, 2000; Truong, 2013);
direct blunt feedback may be viewed as criticism which may be interpreted as
humiliation and is a sensitive aspect to be considered in post-POT dialogue.

Perceived limited time for the POT project

Heavy workloads resulting in limited time available appeared to be a barrier for four
academics to fully engage in POT and to make changes.
even though I know POT was effective for improving teaching. I felt tired with a heavy
workload. (Giang – INT)

I was under pressure, so I just performed perfunctory teaching. (Binh – INT)

458 V. P. NGUYEN AND T. H. PHAM

It was difficult to arrange pre- and post-observation meetings that suited both peers (RJ),
as was also found by Vo and Nguyen (2010). These academics had less time to engage in
teaching and research due to heavy workloads and working part time (Pham, 2014). They
had to compete for time for POT, as Barnard et al. (2011) found.
Additionally, the time frame for POT was viewed as insufficient for changes. Four
academics thought that one semester was too short for them to make changes and
suggested that any POT project should be scheduled for at least two semesters. Hang
and Phung recommended:

A semester is not sufficient for my preparation and changes after POT. POT conducted for
two semesters would be useful. (Hang-INT)

The time span between two POTs should be longer so that teaching can be improved in the
subsequent POT. I just had time to examine what should be done to improve teaching but
did not have enough time for the changes. (Phung-INT)

As Engin and Priest (2014) stressed, POT is not a one-off activity and may not bring
about immediate changes, because development is an ongoing process of observing,
reflecting and learning. Due to time constraints, academics may continue their previous
practice or adopt ineffective practice. More time may be necessary for academics to
process peer feedback, reflect on, and deal with particular aspects of teaching that need
improvement, as found by Donnelly (2007).

Implications
Perceived POT challenges in this study include limited learning from observing the
junior peer’s teaching and from the junior peer’s feedback, uncritical feedback from
peers without closeness, perceived lack of sensitivity in giving feedback, and limited time
for POT. First of all, the findings suggest that in a country with Confucian values such as
Vietnam, choice in selecting a peer may not ensure a successful collaborative POT, and
there should be a strong peer relationship for open productive collaboration to work out
systematic critical reflection and initiatives for teaching improvement. In addition, the
two themes found in this study appear to show an interesting contrast. On one hand,
some peers without closeness were uncritical, as they did not want to embarrass others.
On the other hand, peers who were close seemed not to be sensitive about providing
direct, blunt feedback that could be disheartening even for their close friend. It is
suggested that the pairs should be close friends for critical feedback, and peer critical
feedback should be indirect with well-chosen words for saving face. This finding also
suggests that knowing how to give indirect and sensitive feedback possibly works for
peers who are not close. Training on how to give feedback culturally is necessary for
collaborative POT. Therefore, appropriate pairing and training could be an initial step to
develop a supportive and constructive collegial culture that values this kind of scholar­
ship of teaching.
Supporting academics to collaborate in POT is also necessary. Being open to chal­
lenges from either side (Gosling, 2014), balancing negative feedback and recognition
(MacKinnon, 2001), showing respect for each other’s teaching (Schuck et al., 2008), and
avoiding giving direct blunt feedback (Truong, 2013) are possible strategies to avoid
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 459

causing negative feelings as demonstrated by the experiences of four academics in this

study. For example, to deal with direct comments that may sound like criticism and cause
humiliation, coaching sessions may introduce a simulated teaching session where parti­
cipants are encouraged to try different ways of providing feedback.
Finally, the time frame for POTs should be realistic and sufficient for changes
(Gosling, 2014). Academics should have the flexibility to establish their agendas and
design steps in the intervention to suit their schedule, and be given ownership of POT
(Bennett & Barp, 2008). External motivators such as personal encouragement, rewards,
and incentives, were absent in this study but would show academics that their institution
recognises and values their participation (Gosling, 2014).

Concluding remarks
In the Vietnamese Confucian heritage culture, academics’ awareness of their position in
relation to peers regarding social connections, age, and experience, affected their interpreta­
tion of POT. Therefore, it is necessary to take into account peers’ interpersonal relationships
and status relative to each other, and train them how to give feedback appropriately. The
atmosphere between peers depends on the nature of the relationship and the manner in
which they communicated with each other. Another consideration when implementing
POT is providing academics with an understanding of the sensitivities involved (such as
harmony, shame, and face) thus offering them appropriate support and institutional pre­
paration for POT. Providing guidelines for POT in the context of Vietnamese culture that
emphasise cultural principles for peer communication can make it an appealing professional
development process and a rewarding experience for academics. Future research may need
to explore cultural aspects for academics to address in communication for effective POT,
whether training can help peers without closeness to collaborate effectively during POT, and
whether more time for POT could promote academics’ improved practice.

Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their very useful feedback and suggestions, which
helped us considerably in improving this article. We are also grateful to University of Economics
and Law, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam for support to conduct the study. The authors acknowledge
the academics’ contribution to this study through sharing their experiences.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Phuong Vu Nguyen (PhD) is Director of the Office for Educational Testing and Quality Assurance,
University of Economics and Law, Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City. His research
background spans the fields of teachers’ professional learning and development through an
evidence-based approach (teachers’ reflection and reflective practice, beliefs, knowledge and
pedagogy), student evaluation of teaching, and quality assurance in higher education.
460 V. P. NGUYEN AND T. H. PHAM

Huong Thi Pham is Director of the Research Centre for Educational Evaluation and Accreditation
and International Relations, Institute for Education Research, Ho Chi Minh City University of
Education, Vietnam. Her areas of research interest include internal and external quality assurance,
quality culture in higher education, programme development and evaluation, internationalisation
in education, higher education management and governance and competence-based assessment.

ORCID
Phuong Vu Nguyen http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3818-184X

References
Ashwill, M. A., & Thai, N. D. (2005). Vietnamese today: A guide to a nation at a crossroads.
Intercultural Press.
Barnard, A., Croft, W., Irons, R., Cuffe, N., Bandara, W., & Rowntree, P. (2011). Peer partnership
to enhance scholarship of teaching: A case study. Higher Education Research & Development, 30
(4), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.518953
Bell, A., & Mladenovic, R. (2008). The benefits of peer observation of teaching for tutor
development. Higher Education, 55(6), 735–752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9093-1
Bell, M. (2001). Supported reflective practice: A program of peer observation and feedback for
academic teaching development. International Journal for Academic Development, 6(1), 29–39.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13601440110033643
Bell, M. (2005). Peer observation partnerships in higher education. Higher Education Research and
Development Society of Australasia.
Bell, M., & Cooper, P. (2013). Peer observation of teaching in university departments:
A framework for implementation. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(1),
60–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2011.633753
Bennett, S., & Barp, D. (2008). Peer observation: A case for doing it online. Teaching In Higher
Education, 13(5), 559–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510802334871
Borton, L. (2000). Working in a Vietnamese voice. Academy of Management Executive, 14(4),
20–29. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4165682
Byrne, J., Brown, H., & Challen, D. (2010). Peer development as an alternative to peer observation:
A tool to enhance professional development. International Journal for Academic Development,
15(3), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2010.497685
Carroll, C., & O’Loughlin, D. (2014). Peer observation of teaching: Enhancing academic engage­
ment for new participants. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(4),
446–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.778067
Chamberlain, J. M., D’Artrey, M., & Rowe, D.-A. (2011). Peer observation of teaching:
A decoupled process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(3), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1469787411415083
Cosh, J. (1998). Peer observation in higher education: A reflective approach. Innovations in
Education and Training International, 35(2), 171–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1355800980350211
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into
practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
Do, T. P. T. (2012). Beginning teachers’ observation of peers – The values, limitations, and
suggestions from the perspectives of the insiders. (Master of Arts Thesis), Hanoi University of
Languages and International Studies, Vietnam.
Donnelly, R. (2007). Perceived impact of peer observation of teaching in higher education.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 117–129. http://
www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT 461

Engin, M., & Priest, B. (2014). Observing teaching: A lens for self-reflection. Journal of Perspectives
in Applied Academic Practice, 2(2), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v2i2.90
Fletcher, J. A. (2017). Peer observation of teaching: A practical tool in higher education. Journal of
Faculty Development, 32(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19455.82084
Gosling, D. (2014). Collaborative peer-supported review of teaching. J. Sachs & M. Parsell Eds.,
Peer review of learning and teaching in higher education: International perspectives. Vol.
Professional learning and development in schools and higher education (13–32). Springer.
Grünbaum, N. N. (2007). Identification of ambiguity in the case study research typology: What is
a unit of analysis? Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 10(1), 78–97. https://
doi.org/10.1108/13522750710720413
Hammersley-Fletcher, L., & Orsmond, P. (2005). Reflecting on reflective practices within peer
observation. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03075070500043358
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1998). Think locally, act globally: Cultural constraints in personnel management.
Management International Review, 38(2), 7–26. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40228480
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and orga­
nisations across nations. Sage.
MacKinnon, M. M. (2001). Using observational feedback to promote academic development.
International Journal for Academic Development, 6(1), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13601440110033689
Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice, 13(6), 522–525. https://
doi.org/10.1093/fampra/13.6.522
Martin, G. A., & Double, J. M. (1998). Developing higher education teaching skills through peer
observation and collaborative reflection. Innovations in Education and Training International,
35(2), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/1355800980350210
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interative approach (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.).
Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd
ed.). SAGE.
Ministry of Education and Training. (2018). Decision on promulgating the regulation on profes­
sional training on academics’ pedagogy. (05/VBHN-BGDĐT). Hanoi.
Motallebzadeh, K., Hosseinnia, M., & Domskey, J. G. H. (2017). Peer observation: A key factor to
improve Iranian EFL teachers’ professional development. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1–12. https://
doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1277456
National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. 2019. Law on Education No. 43/2019/
QH14 of the National Assembly. https://english.luatvietnam.vn/law-on-education-no-43-2019-
tt-qh14-of-the-national-assembly-175003-Doc1.html
Nguyen, P. M., Terlouw, C., & Pilot, A. (2005). Cooperative learning vs Confucian heritage
culture’s collectivism: Confrontation to reveal some cultural conflicts and mismatch. Asia
Europe Journal, 3(3), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-005-0008-4
Nguyen, T. M. H. (2008). Mentoring beginning EFL teachers at tertiary level in Vietnam. The
Asian EFL Journal, 10(1), 111–132. http://www.asian-efl-journal.com
Nguyen, T. M. H. (2013). Peer mentoring: A way forward for supporting preservice EFL teachers
psychosocially during the practicum. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(7), 31–44.
https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n7.3
Pham, T. H. (2014). Quality culture in Vietnamese universities: A multiple case study of quality
assurance and quality culture of business English undergraduate programmes at three universities
in Vietnam. (PhD Thesis), Victoria University of Wellington.
Pressick-Kilborn, K., & Te Riele, K. (2008). Learning from reciprocal peer observation:
A collaborative self-study. Studying Teacher Education: A journal of self-study of teacher educa­
tion practices, 4(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425960801976354
462 V. P. NGUYEN AND T. H. PHAM

Qian, H., Walker, A., & Yang, X. (2017). Building and leading a learning culture among teachers:
A case study of a Shanghai primary school. Educational Management, Administration &
Leadership, 45(1), 101–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215623785
Santos, L. M. D. (2017). How do teachers make sense of peer observation professional develop­
ment in an urban school. International Education Studies, 10(1), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.
5539/ies.v10n1p255
Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., & Buchanan, J. (2008). Enhancing teacher education practice through
professional learning conversations. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31(2), 215–227.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619760802000297
Shortland, S. (2010). Feedback within peer observation: Continuing professional development and
unexpected consequences. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(3),
295–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2010.498181
Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple Case Study Analysis. The Guilford Press.
Truong, D. T. (2013). Confucian values and school leadership in Vietnam. (PhD Thesis), Victoria
University of Wellington.
Vo, T. L., & Nguyen, T. M. H. (2010). Critical friends group for EFL teacher professional
development. ELT Journal, 64(2), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp025
Yiend, J., Weller, S., & Kinchin, I. (2014). Peer observation of teaching: The interaction between
peer review and developmental models of practice. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38
(4), 465–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2012.726967