Peer review versus student evaluation

Being an academic is more then just walking into a classroom to teach and share your experience. There are other processes involved to ensure that what you are saying is understood and measured at the end of the day.

One needs to have the right skill set and temperament to survive in academia. For example, you have to grow a thick skin if you are working for an academic institution which conducts anonymous student evaluation every semester. Some feedback from students will challenge greatly your integrity and academic credibility.

Students demand quality since they pay so much to access the services and programs an institution offers. This makes what they say on their evaluation forms very important in the quality process.

This is imperative since we are trying to move from a teacher centered to a student centered learning style. The student learning experience and understanding of what the particular academic is doing in the unit is a pivotal part of the shift. 

In our discussion today, in the Academic Benchmarking Workshop in the National University of Samoa. A Fijian colleague talked about the type of peer review that they undergo in their university.  She said, senior academics sit in class and at the end of the day outline areas that one needs to improve and the strengths and weaknesses of what they do in class.

Comparing what they go through with our experience at DWU. I am of the opinion that to confirm what students say on their anonymous evaluation, it will be good if we can conduct peer reviewing.

Based on personal reflection, I find that some students have a limited understanding of what an academic is doing in a unit and the amount of effort we put into teaching and learning.

They also do not understand technical areas like the use of Bloom’s taxonomy in our learning outcomes. The learning outcomes determine the type of assessments we give and the content we share with them.

For example, this leads to students complaining about group assessments in their evaluation because of one lazy group member. What they fail to understand is that this particular assessment is design in such a way to measure their learning and to develop a certain graduate attribute like social interaction.

Also team work is an industry requirement as highlighted in the many job vacancy advertisements. Since some of our programs do not take on board the advise of stakeholders or industry advisory boards in comparison to other universities in the Pacific, the classified sections in our dailies is a good evidence to support the use of group assessments.

Furthermore, some teaching and learning strategies like the use of social media is in line with certain university directives and policies. Some students have a poor knowledge of the university’s strategic direction leading to them being negative about the use of social media in their evaluation.

Students also become ambitious in their comments by suggesting the need to recruit more staff in a particular area. This is something that is out of context and a management issue which students can bring up during department meetings and student forums.

Some students also use the evaluation to attack a particular lecturer’s level of educational attainment and race. These are issues that can be mitigated if students are advised of the ground rules of evaluating a unit.   

As such, it will be good if we have senior academics to peer review their colleagues. In that way they can validate what students are saying in the unit evaluation.

It is also important to understand what the academic is doing in a particular unit from a peer point of view, instead of from a student point of view via the anonymous online student evaluation.

Senior colleagues have a strong understanding of what is happening in relation to the strategic plan and direction. They also understand the technicalities of teaching thus have a much informed view in comparison to students.

What I am saying is, if we at DWU continue conducting anonymous online student evaluations and also add peer reviewing, this will help to improve the quality of teaching and learning.

Also peer reviewing will provide a strong evidence to support an academic’s application for increment or promotion.

Peer reviewing will be vital in our new endeavour to give yearly awards for teaching excellence. Apart from the criteria used, peer reviews from senior academics will support or not support the nomination made by students to avoid biasness.

Hence, it is a good topic for debate as we anticipate what we will be doing in the coming academic year.

The need for quality in all higher education providers is not only the job of the vice president for quality assurance, the academic quality assurance committee or the faculty curriculum and assessment committees but is the business of all staff whether you are an academic or professional staff.