Peer Evaluation and its Blurred Boundaries: Results from a Meta-evaluation in Initial Vocational Education and Training

Abstract

Peer evaluation has proved to be a popular approach with both peers and the evaluated, but there has been considerable variation in the ways in which peer evaluations have been implemented. There are different forms, purposes and ways of organizing peer evaluation. Peer evaluations are also not uniform and links to other evaluations can be made. After providing a general overview of different kinds of peer evaluation, this article focuses on the results from a meta-evaluation of peer evaluation in Initial Vocational Education and Training (IVET). This meta-evaluation was partly inspired by existing evaluation standards and covered fifteen peer-review pilots in eight European countries. First, the scope of the peer team and the underlying evaluative framework are discussed. Second, the nuances of implementation and the conflicts that exist are highlighted. The article concludes that, under certain conditions, peer evaluation and self-evaluation provide a powerful tandem to produce empirically grounded, context-sensitive information to support school improvement.

Teacher Evaluation Feedback and Instructional Practice Self-Efficacy in Secondary School Teachers

“…Multifaceted teacher evaluation systems further support teacher quality by having a greater ability to address specific areas of instruction (Kane et al, 2011; Rockoff & Speroni, 2010). Adding subjective components to teacher evaluation systems, such as classroom observations or peer evaluation, can better inform professional development decisions and focus teacher instructional practice improvement in specific areas (Arnodah, 2013, Rockoff & Speroni, 2010; Speer, 2010). The rigor of a teacher evaluation system can be increased by adding a variety of criteria, including increased number of classroom observations, student test data, student satisfaction data, and offsite-based administrators providing qualitative, subjective data (Arnodah, 2013; Lacireno-Paquet, Bocala, & Bailey, 2016; Speer, 2010).…”

Nepriklausomų ekspertų dilemos: vertybių antinomijos vertinant aukštojo mokslo institucijas

“…Tiksliau, vertinimo procedūras, kuriose dalyvavome, sudarė to kie žingsniai (žr. Speer, 2010; panašaus sąrašo 1 langelis):…”

“…More precisely, the evalua tion procedures we were involved in consisted in the following steps (see also Speer, 2010, box 1, for a similar list):…”

Organised Governmental Learning: Vocational Education and Training Practices between Peer Review and Peer Learning

“…One of the older forms of peer review is gate-keeping within scientific publishing. In modern forms of peer review, structured systems for data gathering and feedback have been developed (Speer, 2010(Speer, , 2011a. Peer review is often based on previous self-evaluations, which are the basis for defining evaluation questions and areas for further investigation by peers.…”

“…Although doubts regarding the usefulness of peer review have been raised concerning the acceptance, bias, reliability and validity of such forms of evaluation, larger international organisations regularly implement this approach. Peer review systems are based on general guidelines; however, their implementation may vary (Speer, 2010). In many policy fields, the EU has undertaken coordinated efforts for creating an environment in which information and insights are disseminated through various layers of administration.…”