IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uts/wpaper/154.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Piloting a Peer Feedback Program in the Faculty of Business at UTS

Author

Abstract

This paper outlines the trial and development of a peer review program for teaching improvement in the Faculty of Business at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS). It first explores some of the key issues in the purpose and design of peer review schemes. It agrees with a strong theme in the peer review literature that peer review is most effective when used for quality enhancement rather than quality assurance in the sense used by Lomas and Nicholls (2005). It also recognises the possibility of resistance from academic staff to the idea of peer review and scepticism about its usefulness. A methodology for the conduct of a pilot peer review scheme is outlined drawing on the work of Bingham and Ottewill (2001) and Puget and Schubert (2008) in which peer review is voluntary, confidential and reciprocal involving a mutual arrangement with a trusted colleague to observe each other’s teaching and to offer private constructive feedback within agreed parameters. The experience of participants in the pilot scheme is reported and observations made about both the process of peer review itself and of attempting to establish a peer review program in a Faculty not previously used to such methods of professional and educational development.

Suggested Citation

  • Gordon Menzies & Jonathan Pratt & Susan Thorp & Peter Docherty, 2008. "Piloting a Peer Feedback Program in the Faculty of Business at UTS," Working Paper Series 154, Finance Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney.
    • Handle: RePEc:uts:wpaper:154
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.finance.uts.edu.au/research/wpapers/wp154.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William B. Walstad, 2001. "Improving Assessment in University Economics," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 281-294, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ishuan Li & Robert Simonson, 2016. "Capstone senior research course in economics," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(2), pages 161-167, April.
    2. Caroline Elliott & Vudayagi Balasubramanyam, 2016. "Assessing students: Real-world analyses underpinned by economic theory," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1151171-115, December.
    3. Nilss Olekalns, 2002. "The Teaching of First Year Economics in Australian Universities," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 848, The University of Melbourne.
    4. Sheryl B. Ball & Catherine Eckel & Christian Rojas, 2006. "Technology Improves Learning in Large Principles of Economics Classes: Using Our WITS," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 442-446, May.
    5. Lourdes Espinoza & Carlos Gustavo Machicado & Katia Makhlouf, 2007. "La Enseñanza de Economía en Bolivia y Chile," Development Research Working Paper Series 10/2007, Institute for Advanced Development Studies.
    6. S. Cook & C. Elliott, 2016. "Innovations in Economics Education: An Introduction to Economic and Econometric Tools for Teaching and Learning," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1180038-118, December.
    7. David H. Dean & Robert C. Dolan, 2011. "Curricular and Co-curricular Aspects of the Economics Major at Highly Ranked Schools," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 69, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Hart Hodges & Yvonne Durham & Steve Henson, 2018. "Economic Education Production Functions for the Principles of Macroeconomics and the Principles of Microeconomics: Is There a Difference?," Journal for Economic Educators, Middle Tennessee State University, Business and Economic Research Center, vol. 18(2), pages 22-41, Fall.
    9. Steven C. Myers & Michael A. Nelson & Richard W. Stratton, 2009. "Assessing An Economics Programme: Hansen Proficiencies, ePortfolio, and Undergraduate Research," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 8(1), pages 87-105.
    10. Kuhn, Christiane & Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, Olga & Brückner, Sebastian & Saas, Hannes, 2018. "A new video-based tool to enhance teaching economics," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 24-33.
    11. Yvonne Durham & Thomas Mckinnon & Craig Schulman, 2007. "Classroom Experiments: Not Just Fun And Games," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(1), pages 162-178, January.
    12. Carlos Asarta & Ken Rebeck, 2011. "Measurement Techniques of Student Performance and Literacy: College and High School," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 29, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Elizabeth Knowles & Glenn Knowles, 2012. "Lessons Learned from a Course-Embedded Assessment Process: Foreign Exchange Markets in Principles of Economics," Journal for Economic Educators, Middle Tennessee State University, Business and Economic Research Center, vol. 12(1), pages 26-37, Fall.
    14. Steve Onyeiwu & Hoa Nguyen, 2018. "Incorporating Field Trips into the Teaching of Business and Economics: Method and Evaluation," Journal for Economic Educators, Middle Tennessee State University, Business and Economic Research Center, vol. 18(2), pages 60-80, Fall.
    15. James Staveley-O'Carroll II, 2023. "Microeconomics for Business: Writing Assignments on Porter’s Five Competitive Forces," Journal of Economics Teaching, Journal of Economics Teaching, vol. 8(3), pages 158-172, October.
    16. Oskar Harmon & James Lambrinos & Judy Buffolino, 2008. "Is the Cheating Risk Always Higher in Online Instruction Compared to Face-to-Face Instruction?," Working papers 2008-14, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics, revised Sep 2010.
    17. Walstad, William B. & Bosshardt, William, 2020. "Using Matrix Puzzles to Assess Student Understanding in Economics," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).
    18. Costas Siriopoulos & Gerasimos Pomonis, 2009. "Selecting Strategies to Foster Economists' Critical Thinking Skills: A Quantile Regression Approach," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 8(1), pages 106-131.
    19. Ken Rebeck & Carlos Asarta, 2011. "Methods of Assessment in the College Economics Course," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Helmy, Heba E., 2016. "A lottery on the first day of classes! An innovative structured steps assignment on a partially randomly selected topic," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 41-47.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    peer review of teaching; educational development; reciprocal observation;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uts:wpaper:154. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Duncan Ford (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfutsau.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.