Teaching and learning research in higher education, often referred to as the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), is still relatively novel in many academic contexts compared to the mainstay of disciplinary research. One indication of this is the challenges those who engage in SoTL report in terms of how this work is valued or considered credible amongst disciplinary colleagues and in the face of institutional policies and practices. This paper moves beyond the literature that describes these specific challenges to investigate how 23 experienced SoTL researchers from five different countries understood the notion of credibility in relationship to their SoTL research and how they went about developing credibility for their work. Semistructured interviews were facilitated and analyzed using inductive analysis. Findings indicate that notions of credibility encompassed putting SoTL research into action and building capacity and community around research findings, as well as gaining external validation through traditional indicators such as publishing. SoTL researchers reported a variety of strategies and approaches they were using, both formal and informal, to develop credibility for their work. The direct focus of this paper on credibility of SoTL work as perceived by experienced SoTL researchers, and how they go about developing credibility, is a distinct contribution to the discussions about the valuing of SoTL work.

This article takes a dual focus on the theme of student formative peer assessment. On the one hand it offers a thorough literature review in this field, while on the other it unpacks a case study of curriculum design where peer assessment has been adopted. The practical example draws on recent changes made to a third-and final-year undergraduate research dissertation course in a UK architectural school. Although peer assessment worked quite well in this small setting, similar findings might be uncovered when scaled up to larger cohorts, as well as other disciplines and year groups. The research findings are certainly relevant for other contexts. Qualitative research from a focus group with six students on the course informs the empirical body of the paper. Through engaging with students' reflections, as well as the relevant literature, and reflexively looking at the curriculum changes, this paper discusses some of the benefits and drawbacks that can arise from peer assessment in this context. Peer assessment is not without its challenges and hiccups, but, despite these, the benefit to autonomous critical thinking cannot be understated. And arguably peer assessment is especially germane for final-year undergraduates as they embark on employment or more advanced studies. IntroductionA main discourse in educational research makes the case that students must take an active role in their education -to do so is to move towards deep learning. This is crucial for undergraduates in their final year for which postgraduate research may be the next step, but equally this will help build critical skills necessary for a thriving career. This article argues that formative peer assessment can play a key role in the final year of the undergraduate education, giving students the skills to be critical, autonomous thinkers. To make this argument, changes are highlighted that were recently implemented in a small final-year undergraduate course at a UK researchintensive university, in which, in its most recent iteration, eight students spent eight months researching and writing an independent dissertation. The main way in which peer assessment has been designed into the course is through regular review of draft submissions and subsequent small three-person tutorials between tutor, student assessor and student assessee.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract