Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Teaching for Learning and Learning for Teaching pp 209–225Cite as

Peer Observation as a Collaborative Vehicle for Innovation in Incorporating Educational Technology into Teaching

A Case Study

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Professional Learning ((PROFL))

Abstract

We provide a case study using peer review and observation of teaching (PRO-Teaching) as a vehicle to develop both a scholarly approach to teaching as well as providing a framework to gather data for ongoing change to facilitate scholarship of learning and teaching.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: Definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M. (2001). Supported reflective practice: A programme of peer observation and feedback for academic teaching development. International Journal for Academic Development, 6(1), 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berk, R. A. (2005). Survey of 12 strategies to measure teaching effectiveness. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 48–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (2nd ed.). Buckingham, England, Philadelphia, PA: Society for Research into Higher Education: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bligh, D. (1998). What’s the use of lectures? (5th ed.). Exeter, England: Intellect.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinko, K. T. (1993). The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: What is effective? The Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 574–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchbinder, S. B., Alt, P. M., Eskow, K., Forbes, W., Hester, E., Struck, M., & Taylor, D. (2005). Creating learning prisms with an interdisciplinary case study workshop. Innovative Higher Education, 29(4), 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, R. (2007). Perceived impact of peer observation of teaching in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 117–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drew, S., & Klopper, C. (2013). PRO-Teaching – Sharing ideas to develop capabilities. Paper presented at the International Conference on Higher Education 2013, Paris, France. Retrieved from http://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v78/v78-297.pdf

  • Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 82–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2008). University students’ approaches to learning: Rethinking the place of technology. Distance Education, 29, 141–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gudmundsdottir, S., & Shulman, L. S. (1987). Pedagogical content knowledge in social studies. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 31(2), 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K., L., Farrell, K., Bell, M., Devlin, M., & James, R. (Eds.). (2008). Peer review of teaching in australian higher education: A handbook to support institutions in developing effective policies and practices. Melbourne, Australia: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, Melbourne University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iribe, Y., Nagaoka, H., Kouichi, K., & Nitta, T. (2010). Web-based lecture system using slide sharing for classroom questions and answers. International Journal of Knowledge and Web Intelligence, 1(3), 243–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D. (2000). Action learning and action research: Improving the quality of teaching and learning. London, England: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20, 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2014). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elan, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, J. M., & Bonsanquet, A. (2014). Evaluating quality learning in higher education: Re-examining the evidence. Quality in Higher Education, 20(1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomas, L., & Nicholls, G. (2005). Enhancing teaching quality through peer review of teaching. Quality in Higher Education, 11(2), 137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Henriksen, D. (2010). The 7 trans-disciplinary habits of mind: Extending the TPACK framework towards 21st century learning. Educational Technology, 51(2), 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). E-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 129–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Race, P. (2007). The lecturer’s toolkit (3rd ed.). London, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) the development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. H. (2011). Tableau economique: Teaching economics with a tablet computer. The Journal of Economic Education, 42, 175–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, T., Koehler, M., Mishra, P., Schmidt, D., Baran, E., & Thompson, A. (2009). Changing technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) through course experiences. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009, Charleston, SC, USA. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/31309

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college : Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL; London, England: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venema, S., & Lodge, J. M. (2012). Improving first year first semester lecture engagement. 15th First Year in Higher Education (FYHE) Conference, Brisbane, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venema, S., & Lodge, J. M. (2013a). Capturing dynamic presentation: Using technology to enhance the chalk and the talk. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Venema, S., & Lodge, J. M. (2013b). A quasi-experimental comparison of assessment feedback mechanisms. Poster presentation, ASCILITE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venema, S., & Rock, A. (2014). Improving learning outcomes for first year introductory programming students. 17th First Year in Higher Education (FYHE) Conference, Darwin, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimitat, C. (2006). First year students’ perceptions of the importance of good teaching: Not all things are equal. Proceedings of HERDA 2006, 386–392.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information and Communication, Griffith University, Australia

    Sven Venema

  2. Griffith Sciences, Griffith University, Australia

    Steve Drew

  3. ARC Science of Learning Research Centre, Australia

    Jason M. Lodge

  4. Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Australia

    Jason M. Lodge

Authors
  1. Sven Venema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steve Drew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jason M. Lodge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Griffith University, Australia

    Christopher Klopper

  2. Griffith University, Australia

    Steve Drew

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Venema, S., Drew, S., Lodge, J.M. (2015). Peer Observation as a Collaborative Vehicle for Innovation in Incorporating Educational Technology into Teaching. 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_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation