Sharing Active Learning Practices to Improve Teaching: Peer Observation of Active Teaching in a School of Engineering

  • Stefano GhidoniEmail author
  • Monica Fedeli
  • Massimiliano Barolo
Part of the Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning book series (IAKM, volume 8)


Promoting faculty development in a School of Engineering is quite unusual within the Italian academic context. Engineering education is strongly content-oriented, and the assumption that—in essence—effective teaching amounts to delivering maximum content is deeply rooted in most engineering instructors. Stated differently, one common assumption among instructors is that whenever one educator masters the content of a course, no need for improvement in teaching is needed or even possible. Under this perspective, a class is seen as the way to feed the students with new content, thus making learning an almost entirely self-guided process to be activated by each student individually outside the classroom.

To overcome this instructor-centered educational model and promote modernization of the teaching practice, in 2016 the School of Engineering of the University of Padova (UniPD) pioneered for Italy a faculty development program named Teaching for Learning (T4L). The program kicked off with a two-and-a-half-day retreat workshop for engineering instructors recruited on a voluntary basis. The principles of active learning were introduced and practiced during the workshop under the guidance of national and international experts in adult learning and teaching in higher education. The retreat involved thirty instructors and was extremely successful, to the point that the T4L workshop experience rapidly spread across UniPD, engaging a tenfold greater number of instructors across all disciplines in the subsequent 2 years.

The T4L@Engineering program continued in the two following years with the objective of sharing active teaching/learning practices both among the retreat participants and among other engineering instructors who did not participate in the residential retreat. Several half-day workshops were organized, including some dealing with the use of digital technologies to promote active learning. Paralleling these activities was a “peer observation of active teaching” (POAT) process, which was conceptualized, designed, and tested in a small group, and finally proposed to the entire community of engineering instructors through a call for volunteers.

This chapter presents how the POAT process was developed and put into practice, and discusses some lessons that were learnt after 1 year of experimentation.


Active learning Faculty development Engineering education Peer observation 


  1. Adams, S. R., & Mix, E. K. (2014). Taking the lead in faculty development: Teacher educators changing the culture of university faculty development through collaboration. AILACTE, 11, 37–56.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, D. L. (2016). Organization development. The process of leading organizational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  3. Fedeli, M. (2016). Coinvolgere gli studenti nelle pratiche didattiche: potere, dialogo e partecipazione. In M. Fedeli, V. Grion, & D. Frison (Eds.), Coinvolgere per apprendere. Metodi e tecniche partecipative per la formazione (pp. 113–142). Lecce: Pensa Multimedia.Google Scholar
  4. Fedeli, M., & Taylor, E. W. (2016). Exploring the impact of a teacher study group in an Italian University. Formazione & Insegnamento, XIV(3), 2279–7505.Google Scholar
  5. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2016). Teaching and learning STEM. A practical guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  6. Gosling, D. (2014). Collaborative peer-supported review of teaching. In J. Sachs & M. Parsell (Eds.), Peer review of learning and teaching in higher education (Professional learning and development in schools and higher education 9). Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  7. Jensen, K., & Aiyegbayo, O. (2011). Peer observation of teaching: Exploring the experiences of academic staff at the University of Huddersfiel. Working paper. University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield.Google Scholar
  8. Kahut, G. F., Burnap, C., & Yon, M. G. (2007). Peer observation of teaching: Perception of the observer and the observed. College Teaching, 55(1), 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McGrath, D., & Monsen, S. (2015). Peer observation of teaching. A discussion paper prepared for the peer observation of teaching colloquium 27 March 2015. Institute for teaching and learning innovation.Google Scholar
  10. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  11. Taylor, E. W. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the empirical research (1999–2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26(2), 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Wenger, E. C., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Ghidoni
    • 1
    Email author
  • Monica Fedeli
    • 1
  • Massimiliano Barolo
    • 1
  1. 1.University of PadovaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations