Debbi Weaver

Peer assessment as a method of improving student engagement

To encourage increased student attendance and engagement in a third-year economics unit, the curriculum was redesigned to incorporate continuous assessment throughout the semester. A component of group project marks were allocated to peer assessment, in an attempt to address concerns about free-riding colleagues sharing a common mark. This study investigated the consistency of marks awarded to peers within teams, and the acceptance by students of marks awarded by peers. Students were asked to provide ratings and explanatory comments for each of their group peers. Focus groups were conducted to determine students’ acceptance of this strategy. Eighty student ratings were compared to determine consistency of assessment. Within groups, students who received higher marks from their peers generally awarded marks to their peers across a wider range, whereas students who received lower average grades often awarded the same mark to all team members. These results might indicate that students who were attending class regularly and/or contributing at a higher level were more discriminating in the marks awarded to their peers. Similarly, non-contributors (as identified by their peers) assigned the same or similar grades to each of their peers, possibly due to a lack of knowledge about their peers’ contributions.

Collaborative scholarship as a means of improving both university teaching practice and research capability

The literature suggests generic workshops on the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) rarely have a lasting impact on teaching. Seeking an alternative approach, academic developers designed a four-stage Collaborative Scholarship Model where they provided individualised SoTL mentoring to academics implementing a teaching innovation. Project outcomes included sustained change to teaching, openness to new ideas, scholarly contributions and peer recognition (through awards, publications or invited presentations). This model had a sustained impact on participants’ teaching and increased research productivity. Although few individuals can be mentored at one time in this labour-intensive model, long-term benefits may still outweigh limitations in scalability.

Demystifying the publication process – a structured writing program to facilitate dissemination of teaching and learning scholarship

This paper reports on a writing program to support academic staff to publish in peer-refereed journals. Nine participants completed a 12-week program, which involved regular meetings, set writing tasks, and peer feedback on drafts. A pre- and post-survey and follow-up interviews were used to gather feedback. Participants especially valued the discipline of weekly sessions and peer feedback. They reported increased skills and confidence in their writing, greater knowledge of the publication process, and intention to continue writing. Although five papers were published, a 12-month follow-up revealed that original writing intentions were not sustained. Thus, while a structured writing program can be effective, the pressures academic staff experience trying to meet conflicting requirements of teaching, administration, and research, must also be addressed.