Abstract
Some form of appraisal at the point of delivery is of value in a
university context, and where it does not exist is likely to be required
by external agencies. Argues that a non‐managerial style of appraisal,
such as the “buddy‐buddy” system, may be more acceptable in a university
context than the “line manager” approach. The virtue of the approach
includes the recognition that peers possess the technical expertise to
assess classroom skills, that having some input into the selection of
appraiser gives enhanced confidence in the activity, and that there can
exist a real sense of ownership of the process by the staff involved in
its implementation.
Reference5 articles.
1. Elton, L. and Partington, P.A. (1993), Teaching Standards and Excellence
in Higher Education, Committee of Vice‐Chancellors and Principals Staff
Development Unit, October.
2. Gold, J. (1993), “Academic Staff Appraisal: Do‐it‐Yourself”,
Education + Training, Vol. 35 No. 2.
3. Gourlay, A.R. (1976), “An Algorithm for Reducing the Moment of Inertia of
a System Interaction Matrix”, Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol.
1, December.
4. Hansen, J. (1993), “Observing Classroom Teaching in Higher
Education”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 26‐30.
5. Redman, T. and McElwee, G. (1993), “Upward Appraisal of Lecturers:
Lessons from Industry”, Education + Training, Vol. 35 No. 2.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献