Whatever happened to peer review? Revitalising the contribution of tutors to course evaluation
| Published date | 01 March 2001 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880110381319 |
| Pages | 32-39 |
| Date | 01 March 2001 |
| Author | Rosie Bingham,Roger Ottewill |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Whatever happened to
peer review?
Revitalising the
contribution of tutors
to course evaluation
Rosie Bingham and
Roger Ottewill
Introduction
In recent years, there has been an increasing
tendency within UK higher education (HE)
institutions to see student feedback as the key
component of course or unit evaluation and
review. Such a trend can be explained in
terms of the drive towards greater
accountability and transparency in HE;
treating students as ``customers''; and the
recognition that successful learning depends
upon tutors and students seeing themselves as
partners in a shared enterprise.
Moves towards greater student
participation in the review process are also
reflected in the literature with considerable
attention being devoted to the different ways
in which this can be facilitated (see, for
example, Green et al., 1994; Chapple and
Murphy, 1994; Wilson et al., 1997). They are
also in keeping with the national quality
assurance mechanisms. The Subject Review
Handbook issued by the Quality Assurance
Agency for Higher Education and covering
the period October 1998 to September 2000
states categorically that:
The views of students about the quality of their
learning experience and achievements are
important evidence (QAA, 1997, p. 17).
Moreover, in the Annex which serves as an
aide memoire for the reviewers meeting with
students aspects to be considered in the
section dealing with quality management and
enhancement include:
.``ways in which student views are sought''
.``the degree to which students views are
influential, with examples''; and
.``students contribution to the self-
assessment'' on which the review visit is
based (QAA, 1997, p. 38).
Although other sources of feedback are by no
means precluded, the role of the student as
evaluator is given a high priority.
While student input is clearly desirable,
arguably the emphasis placed upon it in
certain quarters borders on the obsessive.
Consequently, there is real danger that it will
distort and, in time, undermine the credibility
of the whole review process. As has been
indicated by Clouder, student evaluation is:
...dependent upon and limited by the student's
level of intellectual development at the time of
the evaluation of the learning experience
(Clouder, 1998, p. 185).
The authors
Rosie Bingham is a Senior Lecturer at the Learning and
Teaching Institute, and Roger Ottewill is a Principal
Lecturer in the School of Business and Finance, both at
Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.
Keywords
Higher education, Evaluation, Review
Abstract
Highlights the current emphasis on student feedback in
the review and evaluation of units/modules at higher
education level for quality audit purposes. Expresses the
view that, while this is unquestionably desirable and
necessary, other stakeholder perspectives are essential to
create a balanced picture ± in particular, the professional
judgments of academic staff. Explains how the principle
of peer review informed a pilot project at Sheffield Hallam
University, in which two groups of academic staff from
different units within the same broad subject area
reviewed and evaluated each other's units. Reports on the
background and motivation for the project and on the
setting up and management of the review process.
Identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the process
based on feedback from the participants. Indicates some
of the cultural and procedural lessons learnt from the
project and suggests ways of taking the process forward.
Electronic access
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at http://www.emerald-library.com/ft
32
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 9 .Number 1 .2001 .pp. 32±39
#MCB University Press .ISSN 0968-4883
To continue reading
Request your trial