Abstract
The university-wide initiative PRO-Teaching explored the potential for the peer review of teaching to enhance teaching practice and the learning outcomes of students to address the perceived need to improve teaching quality (teaching for learning), provide opportunities for academic staff to improve their understanding of effective teaching (learning for teaching) and enact a scholarship of learning and teaching.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Askew, S. (2004). Feedback for learning. London, England: Routledge.
Bamber, V., & Anderson, S. (2011). Enhancement themes, theories of change, changing practices. Paper presented at the Enhancement Themes Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Barnard, A., Croft, W., Irons, R., Cuffe, N., Bandara, W., & Rowntree, P. (2011). Peer partnership to enhance scholarship of teaching: A case study. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(4), 435–448.
Bennett, S., & Santy, J. (2009). A window on our teaching practice: Enhancing individual online teaching quality though online peer observation and support: A UK case study. Nurse Education in Practice, 9(6), 403–406.
Biggs, J. (2001). The reflective institution: Assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. Higher education, 41(3), 221–238.
Boud, D. (1999). Situating academic development in professional work: Using peer learning. The International Journal for Academic Development, 4(1), 3–10.
Cameron, M., Cockcroft, A., Waichigo, G. W., Marokoane, N., Laetsang, D., & Andersson, N. (2014). From knowledge to action: Participant stories of a population health intervention to reduce gender violence and HIV in three southern African countries. AIDS Care, (ahead-of-print), 1–7.
Chamberlain, J. M., D’Artrey, M., & Rowe, D.-A. (2011). Peer observation of teaching: A decoupled process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(3), 189–201.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational researcher, 19(5), 2–14.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dart, J., & Davies, R. (2003). A dialogical, story-based evaluation tool: The most significant change technique. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(2), 137–155.
Davies, R., & Dart, J. (2005). The ‘most significant change’ (MSC) technique: A guide to its use. Melbourne, Australia: MandE.
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user friendly guide for social scientists. London, England: Routledge.
Durkin, M., & McKenna, S. (2011). Informing the marketing of higher education to younger people. Irish Marketing Review, 21(1), 41–47.
Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2007). Educational research: An introduction. NJ: Pearson Education.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York, NY: Basic books.
Ginns, P., Kitay, J., & Prosser, M. (2010). Transfer of academic staff learning in a research-intensive university. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(3), 235–246.
Healey, M. (2000). Developing the scholarship of teaching in higher education: A discipline-based approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(2), 169–189.
Jahangiri, L., Mucciolo, T. W., Choi, M., & Spielman, A. I. (2008). Assessment of teaching effectiveness in US dental schools and the value of triangulation. Journal of dental education, 72(6), 707–718.
Kidd, S. A., & Kral, M. J. (2005). Practicing participatory action research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 187.
Lomas, L., & Nicholls, G. (2005). Enhancing teaching quality through peer review of teaching. Quality in Higher Education, 11(2), 137–149.
McTaggart, R. (1997). Participatory action research: International contexts and consequences. New York, NY: SUNY Press.
Nygaard, C., & Belluigi, D. Z. (2011). A proposed methodology for contextualised evaluation in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(6), 657–671.
Olney, C. A. (2005). Using evaluation to adapt health information outreach to the complex environments of community-based organizations. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93(4 Suppl.), S57.
Shah, M., & Nair, C. S. (2012). The changing nature of teaching and unit evaluations in Australian universities. Quality Assurance in Education, 20(3), 274–288.
Smith, C. (2008). Building effectiveness in teaching through targeted evaluation and response: Connecting evaluation to teaching improvement in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 517–533.
Swinglehurst, D., Russell, J., & Greenhalgh, T. (2008). Peer observation of teaching in the online environment: An action research approach. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(5), 383–393.
Willetts, J., & Crawford, P. (2007). The most significant lessons about the most significant change technique. Development in Practice, 17(3), 367–379.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Klopper, C., Drew, S. (2015). Using Most Significant Change to Evaluate Impact of the Pro-Teaching Project. 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_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-289-9_15
Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam
Online ISBN: 978-94-6300-289-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)