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)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    peer review of teaching; educational development; reciprocal observation;

    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.

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

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.