Evaluating our peers: is peer observation a meaningful process?

By Linda Hammersley‐Fletcher *, Paul Orsmond. 2004

205 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/aa036a6dd043e10dc3997c4b7b98bc09b9630c4f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

1. Deborah C. Peel
2. J. Byrne
3. R. Mladenovic
4. H. Brown
5. D. Challen
6. Amani Bell

Citations in the corpus

• Evaluating and enhancing quality in higher education teaching practice: a meta- review (2020, background): “…practice, the reliance on key seminal pieces of research (e.g. Atwood, Taylor, and Hutchings 2000; Bell 2005; Crisp et al. 2009; Chism 2007; Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond 2004; Harris et al. 2008) was notable across the reviews (McKenzie and Parker 2011; Chalmers and Hunt 2016; Crisp et…”
• Peer Observation of Teaching: Perceptions of the Observer and the Observed (2007, unknown): “One way to overcome such problems and give peer review the credibility it deserves is by developing a network of shared experiences among academic institutions and understanding both the breadth and depth of the process (Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond 2004).”
• The benefits of peer observation of teaching for tutor development (2008, background): “Further, while peer observation of teaching may contribute to individual development, it is not always seen as enhancing wider developmental initiatives ( Hammersley-Fletcher and Orsmond 2004 ).”
• Peer observation as a transformatory tool?1 (2005, background): “There is a related body of critical literature with respect to improving performance (Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2004 ).”
• Peer development as an alternative to peer observation: a tool to enhance professional development (2010, methodology): “For the success of such groups, professional dialogue in the form of learning conversations is considered essential (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2004).”
• A Qualitative Review of Literature on Peer Review of Teaching in Higher Education (2014, background): “Thus, the development of validated PRT instruments may not receive the needed attention, although qualitative researchers may argue that PRT is subjective and requires regular updating to remain relevant (Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2004).”