1,721,540 research outputs found
England, Wellcome Foundation -- 1959-61 -- OPV Production, International -- letter, 1961-07-12
No full textLetter from Godfrey, D. to Sabin, Albert B. dated 1961-07-12.Sabin Collection Fair Use Policy</a
England, Wellcome Foundation -- 1959-61 -- OPV Production, International -- letter, 1961-08-15
No full textLetter from Godfrey, D. to Sabin, Albert B. dated 1961-08-15.Sabin Collection Fair Use Policy</a
Evaluation Theory and Peer Review. Practice, Policy and Research Implications
No full textThis chapter compares and contrasts ten models of peer review and six countries described in the earlier chapters of this book, using a conceptual framework that looks at use, methodology and values underlying their evaluation theories. Following this analysis, the chapter outlines how peer review plays a particularly strong role in the leadership development of those who participate in them. The issue of trust as a mediating factor for peer review participation and success is explored. The ability of peer review cooperation to build collective efficacy and therefore increase student attainment is also briefly outlined. Finally, different network level configurations that surround peer reviews, and the effects of these variations, are explored. The findings have implications for policy makers; school leaders and researchers working in this field
From External Evaluation, to School Self-evaluation, to Peer Review
Full text linkMost modern systems of school education around the world now have highly developed evaluation processes. Following quickly in the wake of external evaluation policies have followed calls for schools to develop their own capacities for self-review. An OECD report (2013) describes a number of ways in which developing school evaluation capacity should be a priority for school improvement. Among the report’s suggestions are promoting peer learning among schools (pp. 469–470). This chapter describes the research on external evaluation, internal evaluation and the relationship between these two. It then moves on to define and describes peer review and chart its growth. The accountability dimension of peer review is also explored. Finally the existing evidence on peer review is presented from the vocational and schools sectors to show key findings so far, and key conditions for effective peer review are described
Research-Informed Peer Review
No full textThis chapter aims to outline a process of school collaboration with peer review at its heart, conceived at UCL Institute of Education by David Godfrey and piloted by the authors for the first time in 2016/17 in London. We outline some of the learning that has resulted for participating school staff and reflect on what we have learned as facilitators and evaluators of Research-informed Peer Review (RiPR). The chapter looks at the principles and theories that underpin RiPR and its relationship to other research-practice models. We present findings from follow up surveys two years since completing the first RiPR cycle, and apply additional learning from its implementation and adaptation in Chile (see also Chap. 7). Finally we look at how evaluation theory is linked to evaluation policy in this model and on the potential impact of RiPR on teacher collective efficacy
Case Study of a Cluster in the National Association of Head Teachers’ ‘Instead’ Peer Review in England
No full textThis chapter examines a case study of a cluster of three primary schools involved in the ‘Instead’ peer review programme, run by the National Association of Headteachers (NAHT). Interviews of the Headteachers and other school teaching staff were conducted and analysed alongside documentary evidence. We looked at the impact of the peer review network on participating Headteachers, their schools and on other local networks that the schools belonged to. We also examined the interplay between the peer review, the self-evaluation and school inspections. At school level a number of improvements were described to quality assurance, leadership development and other areas. Inspections were found to be a double-edged sword; on the one hand, they motivated schools to engage in peer review, as they would do so to prepare for inspections. On the other hand, inspections motivated a school-based focus instead of supporting schools to develop collective capacity
Evidence use, research-engaged schools and the concept of an ecosystem
Full text linkThis chapter analyses different levels of the school ecosystem. It outlines the ecosystem concept of the research-engaged school. The chapter proposes theoretical frameworks to understand the ecological conditions for a research-engaged school system. It explains how research can be integrated into the lives of teachers and school leaders as part of the structures and cultures of the organisation. Research-engaged schools promote enquiry stances by teachers, and the use of published research and other school evidence; they are outward looking and connect to the research community. The chapter shows that thinking about theoretical lenses that can be used to understand and research ecosystems, applying these to research-engaged schools. It focuses on how an ecosystem can be enhanced or enriched through research engagement. The chapter examines the basic ecosystem concept for the school system. This is informed by work published elsewhere, where it is argued that it is helpful to understand research-engaged schools as operating within an ecosystem
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
