Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Reluctance of Scientists to Engage in Peer Review of Teaching

Finding the Way Forward

  • Chapter
Teaching for Learning and Learning for Teaching

Part of the book series: Professional Learning ((PROFL))

Abstract

Over the last two decades universities globally have responded to a growing demand for higher education and hence the number and diversity of university students has increased dramatically (Bradley, Noonan, Nugent, & Scales, 2008; Universities Australia, 2013). At the same time publicly funded universities have faced decreasing budgets leading to radical changes in the delivery of education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Alderman, L., Towers, S., & Bannah, S. (2012). Student feedback systems in higher education: A focussed literature review and environmental scan. Quality in Higher Education, 18(3), 261–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atwood, C. H., Taylor, J. W., & Hutchings, P. A. (2000). Why are chemists and other scientists afraid of the peer review of teaching? Journal of Chemical Education, 77(2), 239–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beleche, T., Fairris, D., & Marks, M. (2012). Do course evaluations truly reflect student learning? Evidence from an objectively graded post-test. Economics of Education Review, 31(5), 709–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berk, R. (2014). Should student outcomes be used to evaluate teaching? Journal of Faculty Development, 28(2), 87–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackmore, J. A. (2005). A critical evaluation of peer review via teaching observation within higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(3), 218–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian higher education: Final report. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calkins, S., & Micari, M. (2010, Fall). Less-than-perfect judges: Evaluating students evaluations. The NEA Higher Education Journal, 26, 7–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H. (2010). Defining and monitoring academic standards in Australian higher education. Higher Education Management and Policy, 22(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M., Hirschberg, J., Lye, J., Johnston, C., & McDonald, I. (2007). Systematic influences on teaching evaluations: The case for caution. Australian Economic Papers, 46, 18–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drew, S., & Klopper, C. (2013). PRO-teaching – Sharing ideas to develop capabilities. World Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 78, 1717–1725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drew, S., & Klopper, C. (2014). Evaluating faculty pedagogic practices to inform strategic academic professional development: A case of cases. Higher Education, 67, 349–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gormally, C., Evans, M., & Brickman, P. (2014). Feedback about teaching in higher education: Neglected opportunities to promote change. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(2), 187–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K.-L., Farrell, K., Bell, M., Devlin, M., & James, R. (2008). Peer review of teaching in Australian higher education: Resources to support institutions in developing and embedding effective policies and practices (Final Project Report). Melbourne, Australia: Australian Learning and Teaching Council Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, L., & Williams, J. (2010). Impact of quality assurance on student learning, 1995–2010. Paper presented at EAIR 32nd annual forum in Valencia, Spain, 1–4 September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings, P. (1994). Peer review of teaching: From idea to prototype. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, 44, 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karagiannis, S. (2009). The conflicts between science research and teaching in higher education: An academic’s perspective. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(1), 75–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Kell, K., & Annetts, S. (2009). Peer review of teaching embedded practice or policy-holding complacency? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(1), 61–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kezar, A. (2006). Redesigning for collaboration in learning initiatives: An exmaination of four highly collaborative campuses. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 804–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klopper, C., & Drew, S. (in press). Teaching for learning, learning for teaching: Triangulating perspectives of teaching quality through peer observation and student evaluation. In C. Hygaard, N. Courtney, & P. Bartholomew (Eds.), Quality enhancement of university teaching and learning: Thoughts and cases. England: Libri Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, K. L., Barrie, S., Scott, G. (with Sachs, J., & Probert, B.) (2012). Mapping learning and teaching standards in Australian higher education: An issues and options paper. Paper presented at the Higher Education Evaluation Roundtable 2012, New South Wales, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, J. A. (2001). Student ratings: Validity, utility and controversy. In M. Theall, P. C. Abrami, & L. A. Mets (Eds.), The student ratings debate: Are they valid? How can we best use them? New directions for institutional research (Vol. 109, pp. 9–25). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Boss.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomas, L., & Nicholls, G. (2005). Enhancing teaching quality through peer review of teaching. Quality in Higher Education, 11(2), 137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magno, C. (2012). Assessing higher education teachers through peer assistance and review. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 9(2), 104–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, T., Barrett, T., & O’Neill, G. (2007). Using observation of teaching to improve quality: Finding your way through the muddle of competing conceptions, confusion of practice and mutually exclusive intentions. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 499–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, J. (2002). Views from below: Academics coping with quality. Quality in Higher Education, 8(1), 39–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, R. (2014). Peer review of teaching: Collegial support to develop instructional skills, in transformative, innovative and engaging. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 30–31 January, 2014. Perth, Australia: The University of Western Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodin, M., & Rodiin, B. (1972). Student evaluations of teachers. Science, 177, 1164–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, G. (2013). Student evaluations, grade inflation and pluralistic teaching: Moving from customer satisfaction to student learning and critical thinking. Forum for Social Economics, 42(1), 122–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shortland, S. (2004). Peer observation: A tool for staff development or compliance? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(2), 219–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stes, A., DeMaeyer, S., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). Instructional development for teachers in higher education: Effects on students’ learning outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(3), 295–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramanya, S. R. (2014). Towards a more effective and useful end-of-course evaluation scheme. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 7(1), 143–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, P. B., Buckle, A, Nicky, G., & Atkinson, S. H. (2012). Peer observation of teaching as a faculty development tool. BMC Medical Education, 12(26). Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/12/26

  • TEQSA. (2011). Higher education standards framework. Melbourne, Australia: Tertiary education quality and standards agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, S., Chie, Q. T., Abraham, M., Raj, S. J., & Beh, L. (2014). A qualitative review of literature on peer review of teaching in higher education: An application of the SWOT framework. Review of Educational Research, 84(1), 112–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, S. (2013, March 1). The unnecessary agony of student evaluations. The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Conversation. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/author/sthompson/Universities Australia’s board and Vice-Chancellors of member Universities. Universities Australia: An agenda for Australian higher education 2013–2016. Retrieved from http://universitiesaustralia.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Universities-Australia-A-Smarter-Australia.pdf

  • Walker, J. D., Cotner, S. H., Baepler, P. M., & Decker, M. D. (2008). A delicate balance: Integrating active learning into a large lecture course. CBE Life Science Education, 7, 361–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, J., Pinnegar, S., & Esplin, P. (2010). When learning and change collide: Examining student claims to have “learned nothing.” Journal of General Education, 59(2), 124–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, K., Boehm, E., & Chester, A. (2014). Predicting academic’s willingness to participate in peer review of teaching: A quantitative investigation. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(2), 372–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Natural Sciences, Griffith University, Australia

    Sarah L. Cresswell

  2. School of Natural Sciences, Griffith University, Australia

    Sarah-Jane Gregory

  3. School of Natural Sciences, Griffith University, Australia

    Dianne J. Watters

Authors
  1. Sarah L. Cresswell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah-Jane Gregory
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dianne J. Watters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Griffith University, Australia

    Christopher Klopper

  2. Griffith University, Australia

    Steve Drew

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cresswell, S.L., Gregory, SJ., Watters, D.J. (2015). The Reluctance of Scientists to Engage in Peer Review of Teaching. In: Klopper, C., Drew, S. (eds) Teaching for Learning and Learning for Teaching. Professional Learning. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-289-9_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation