Peer review of teaching: External review of course content

External peer review of course content is described. Content is an important component of courses that most peer review models exclude. General suggestions on the development of models are provided to assist in creating a local model. A detailed content review model developed at the author's institution is included.David J. Malik received his Ph.D. degree in Chemistry from the University of California at San Diego and both an M.S. in Applied Mathematics and a B.S. in Chemistry from California State University at Hayward. He is currently Professor and Chair of the Department of Chemistry at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis. His research interests are theoretical chemistry and chemical physics. In recent years, he has been actively developing programs in teaching evaluation and improvement and has published work in developing techniques and practices for effective departmental administration.     

Peer teaching in higher education: A review

In the last decade, peer teaching has gained momentum in higher education. Socio-psychological, pedagogical, economical and political considerations have all contributed to this recent interest. A number of peer-teaching models including discussion groups led by undergraduate students, proctoring (PSI), student learning groups, the learning cell, and student counseling of students (parrainage) have evolved. Several issues and problems may confront the instructor who wants to use undergraduates as teachers: selection of student partner, functions of student teacher, cooperation vs. competition, the structure of the learning situation, preparation of the student teachers, benefits of peer teaching, the role of the professor, financial aspects and instructional facilities. The evidence reviewed suggests that peer teaching, best used in conjunction with other teaching and learning methods, has great potentials for both student teacher and student learner, especially if one seeks to enhance active participation and develop skills in cooperation and social interaction. A student's colleagues often represent the least recognized, least used and possibly the most important of all the resources available to him. (Mackenzie et al., 1970).Portions of this paper have been presented by the second author at the International Symposium on Ingenieurpädagogik '75, 14–16 April, 1975, in Klagenfurt, Austria and at the International Conference on Improving University Teaching, 9–11 May, 1975, in Heidelberg, Germany.     

Peer review of laboratory reports for engineering students

ABSTRACT

Here, we present a module to introduce student peer review of laboratory reports to engineering students. Our findings show that students were positive and felt that they had learnt quite a lot from this experience. The most important part of the module was the classification scheme. The scheme was constructed to mimic the way an expert would argue when making a fair judgement of a laboratory report. Hence, our results may suggest that the success of the module design comes from actively engaging students in work that is more related to ‘arguing like an expert’ than to only supply feedback to peers, which in such a case would implicate a somewhat new direction for feedback research. For practitioners, our study suggests that important issues to consider in the design are (i) a clear and understandable evaluation framework, (ii) anonymity in the peer-review process and (iii) a small external motivation.     

Peer review improves the quality of MCQ examinations

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the introduction of peer review processes on the quality of multiple-choice examinations in the first three years of an Australian medical course. The impact of the peer review process and overall quality assurance (QA) processes were evaluated by comparing the examination data generated in earlier years (2008) with those held under the new QA regime (2009 and 2010) from the same blueprint. Statistical analysis and comparisons of overall examination performance were made by year. Regarding multiple-choice questions (MCQs), item analysis was used to compare the proportion of difficult and discriminating items and functional distractors on summative examinations in 2008 (pre-implementation of peer review) and 2009 and 2010 (post-implementation). The impact of peer review processes resulted in a decrease in the number of items with negative discrimination; increases in reliability, appropriate item difficulty, and numbers of items with significant discrimination. There was an associated improvement in the effectiveness of distractors for the MCQ items. The trend of overall improvement in the quality of MCQ items continued in 2009 and 2010. The introduction of QA processes, specifically peer review of MCQ items has resulted in a sustained improvement in the quality of MCQ items within our examinations.     

Peer assessment in university teaching: evaluating seven course designs

Peer assessment is understood to be an arrangement with students assessing the quality of their fellow students’ writings and giving feedback to each other. This multiple‐case study of seven designs of peer assessment focuses on the contribution of peer assessment to the acquisition of undergraduates’ writing skills. Its aim is to arrive at an optimal design of peer assessment. Factors included in this study are: the quality of peer assessment activities, the interaction between students in oral peer feedback, students’ learning outcomes, and their evaluation of peer assessment. Most students took assessing the work of their fellow students seriously, and included the peer feedback in the revision of their work. In most conversations, students provided feedback in an evaluative manner. In others, the interaction was more exploratory. For peer assessment, we recommend a combination of written and oral peer feedback.     

Peer partnership to enhance scholarship of teaching: a case study

This paper reports on the outcomes of a peer partnership program trialled at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Australia. The program was designed based on a community of practice methodology to bring together academic staff for the purpose of advancing teaching practice. The program encouraged professional and supportive environments for the purpose of critical reflection and personal development. The belief was that quality teaching is core business and vital to university organisational goals. Peer partnership programs support improvement in teaching and learning. Participants in the program reported the program enhanced their commitment and insight into teaching and that there is willingness to be involved if supported by colleagues and an organisation. Feedback from participants in the program was positive and outcomes arising from the QUT Peer Partnership Project were the development of an online peer partner tool-kit, staff development training, an instructional DVD and integration of the project goals within QUT staff development programs.     

Peer teaching: Academic achievement of teacher-led versus student-led discussion groups

Problem-based small-group discussions are the cornerstone of health sciences education at the University of Limburg (The Netherlands). In each of three courses, fifteen discussion groups of about eight students were randomly assigned a staff-tutor (control condition) or student-tutor (experimental condition).In two of the courses no significant differences in cognitive test achievement between the two conditions were found. In one course students tutored by staff-tutors performed significantly better than students tutored by student-tutors. However, no significant differences in test performance were found between students tutored by high-achieving versus average-achieving student-tutors. These findings contradict the congruence hypothesis from information processing theory. Several other explanations are explored.     

Peer teaching and higher level cognitive learning outcomes in problem-based learning

Law education at the University of Limburg (Maastricht, The Netherlands) features small-group tutorials alternating with periods of independent study. Every group of 10 students was tutored by a staff member or an undergraduate student from the third or fourth year. Students guided by a staff member scored significantly higher on a test designed to measure higher order cognitive skills than students guided by a student tutor. Student tutors were rated no differently from staff tutors with respect to the way they stimulated learning processes, directed the discussion content and monitored the discussion process. It seems that in a quantitative way, staff tutors and student tutors behave more or less the same. Qualitatively, however, there may be differences in their behavior which the tutor functioning questionnaire is unable to tap. Interventions of staff tutors may be more to the point than those of student tutors due to the fact that they are experts in their fields.     

高中英语过程写作教学框架下的同伴互评

现阶段大部分高中英语写作课堂中都采取结果性教学的传统方式,沿用单一的教师评改的评价模式。随着过程教学法、合作学习、多元评价主体的提出与推崇,学生参与评价越来越得到提倡。本文论述了与其对立出现的作为过程教学法框架下的同伴评价模式,进一步提出了同伴互评在英语写作课堂实践的相关步骤及其优势与局限。     

关于“生成性教学”的研究综述

新课改进入深水区的今天,生成性教学已逐渐被人们所熟知,国内外关于生成性教学也进行了很多理论和实践方面不同的探索。但对于这些研究,仍然存在着研究不深入,多停留在理论层面;陷入研究误区,产生大量误解;本质"泛化",内容"窄化"等问题。关于生成性教学的研究前景,应该突破理论"重围",登上实践"舞台";抓住本质,扩大视野;紧抓新课改的时代背景,消除误解,走进课堂。