Aarhus University Seal

Peer mentoring: Debriefing in teacher team

Debriefing involves several teachers participating in a facilitated discussion about shared teaching. The purpose of this method is to collectively process a sequence of events and learn from both effective and less effective aspects of their skills and behaviour. Debriefing offers a great opportunity to bring together members of the teacher team, who are involved in the teaching (including planning, supervision, and exams).

Debriefing is a common practice in professions such as emergency medicine, crisis psychology, and simulation training. Yet, the idea behind debriefing and its approach is also suitable for peer mentoring among teachers, especially when multiple teachers are involved in a lesson plan where each teacher holds different roles and responsibilities. For example, debriefing is a suitable method for evaluating and learning from experiences among a course leader, several teachers, and instructors sharing a lesson plan for the same students.

Additionally, debriefing allows teachers to become aware of the emotional aspects of the teaching, and it provides the opportunity for them to articulate their thoughts in this context (Høyer, 2009). Usually, debriefing consists of three phases (Ross, 2021) where participants first review the course of events (phase 1), then analyse the event from different perspectives (phase 2), and finally discuss what they have learned during the debriefing (phase 3).

However, debriefing is a skill and collective practice that needs to be facilitated and trained (Coggins et al., 2021). The role of the debriefing facilitator is to guide participants to reflect and analyse an event while ensuring that everyone contributes to the different phases of the debriefing. With training and repeated use of the method, debriefings can become an effective peer mentoring process with multiple participants at once, thereby optimizing time usage.

The duration of a debriefing varies but could last anywhere from 10 minutes to 1 hour, depending on the time and location of the session, the number of participants involved, and the topic being discussed. As an example, a course leader may invite teachers and instructors to a 45-minute debriefing session both halfway through and at the end of a semester-long lesson plan


Phases

Focus

The facilitator encourages everyone to contribute to each of the five focus areas


Phase 1: Walk-through 

Facts 

What happened?


Phase 2: Analysis 

Thoughts 

Emotions

Action 

What did we do well?

How did we experience what happened?

What could we do better?


Phase 3: Application 

Development

What have we learned?


How to act as a debriefing facilitator?

The most important responsibility of the facilitator is to create a learning environment within the group, where the participants can speak freely. An encouraging atmosphere, where participants’ feelings and experiences are acknowledged and their competencies are respected, must be established. To get the most benefit from debriefing, no one should feel disrespected and defensiveness must be avoided.

The facilitator must under no circumstances lecture or reprimand anyone (Høyer, 2009). It is recommended that the debriefing facilitator receives appropriate training on how to facilitate a debriefing session, either beforehand or during the session. To achieve this, the facilitator could arrange for a colleague to provide peer mentoring, either by directly observing the facilitator during a debriefing session or by reviewing a recording of the session.

Literature

  • Coggins, A., Zaklama, R., Szabo, R. A., Diaz-Navarro, C., Scalese, R. J., Krogh, K., & Eppich, W. (2021). Twelve tips for facilitating and implementing clinical debriefing programmes. Medical Teacher, 43(5), 509-517. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1817349
  • Høyer, C. S. (2009). Feedback og debriefing. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift, 3(6), 3-9.

  • Ross, S. (2021). Twelve tips for effective simulation debriefing: A research-based approach. Medical Teacher, 43(6), 642-645. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1831689