PeterSmith: Portfolio

Quantitative Feedback

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:23:07 +1300

The results of systematically collected student evaluation undertaken by the department or faculty (2003 onwards) table{text-align:center}. |_. Course|_. Year|_. Number of students|_. Number of responses|_. Overall effectiveness|_. Faculty average| |<. Integrating Strategy|2005|24|24|8.02|8.07| |<. Integrating Strategy|2003|12|12|8.50|8.08| |<. MBA Research Project|2006|26|7|6.71|NA (1,2)| |<. Strategy|2006|11|8|9.06|NA (1)| |<. Business Policy & Strategy| 2004|38|30|8.17|8.39| |<. Business Policy & Strategy|2003|40|16|8.01|7.54| |<. Business Policy & Strategy|2003|70|55|8.01|7.54| |<^. Organisation & Management|2004|50|24|8.95|8.45| (1) The new feedback system does not report faculty averages to lecturers (2) Unfortunately, the other lecturer needed to relinquish supervision of 50% of the students. Reading the qualitative feedback it is apparently that this one fact alone negatively influenced my own scores, as the forms were sent to the whole class and not just the students I supervised.

From Alistair Baxter

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:11:32 +1300

The research course for The Auckland MBA took 6 months to complete. During that time Peter was teaching the class, leading us through the research course. Peter was also involved in other aspects of The Auckland MBA throughout the year. I recall a discussion with Peter during a break from a lecture early in quarter two, we were discussing over coffee how I could feel the MBA programme was loading us up with more work than I thought could be completed in the time available. We discussed how as a class we were learning more than just the course content we were also learning how to achieve more through team work and collaboration, essential skills as you put the MBA to real work in the business world. That involvement from Peter and his help in making sense of the entire years content for the Auckland MBA was different to the type of help I received during the Diploma classes. The teaching style during the Diploma was much more about the specific course content, the linkages between the courses were not strong and as a student I had to make my own pathway through the Diploma to then apply for The Auckland MBA. The content of the research course that Peter lead had everything that it needed. Peter was very good at managing the pace and time, which quickly ran out. Peter was consistent and reliable which became very important when appointments needed to be met. Peter outlined the requirements of the research and set for me the direction and then set the expectation that I would go and do the work and that we would be meeting again soon to discuss progress. Peter had made his expectations clear and was frank in telling me when he thought I could do better. There was much more to completing the research than just the content of the lectures and following along the text book, Peter also needed to manage us as a class that during the same six months completed two other courses and managed complex personal lives and most students like myself were still working full time. Peter recognised that we were people too and made himself available to talk to us. Another example of Peters' leadership style I recall is the first class after we returned from International Business, where three or four students turned up. I said I was there because I needed to re-engage into the research and even though I had carried the books to Argentina and back I had not opened them for the past three weeks. My two or three other classmates were feeling the same, so Peter let us share stories and photographs from the trip and we finished early. I then went to Library until 9.00 pm feeling engaged, motivated and ready to carry on and finish the research. The impact of Peters' teaching and leadership during the year and specifically the research project, has been for me to recognise the value in a strong peer group for discussion and the power in having specific goals and expectations set which are reviewed as well as the important aspects of the emotional requirements when managing people to perform while they are under pressure.

From Rakesh Patel

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:07:09 +1300

I would rank the quality and impact of your teaching as very high from a personal perspective. Positives - # Willing to understand students individual experience and translate academic value to that environment # Ability to understand various industry to translate where academic input can be of value # Timely in response to queries # Able to commit time and individual attention, recognising the pressures of the work/study balance # Vastly experienced in the areas of academic research and able to direct a students thinking on particular topics to current material, or able to understand that material in a logical manner and able to direct attention in order to explain the value of the academic research process # Friendly and respectful. # Firm and able to motivate the delivery of results I would have limited negative points, particularly considering the challenges you faced last year, and I think its unfair to conclude on your group teaching ability, when the topic was 'academic research', so really all the value gained from interaction from you was from your one-on-one involvement. ... What I can say is that the facilitation that you provided throughout the process I underwent has impacted on my life. Hence the "what I learnt" had significant impact to the positive so hence I could only conclude that you were very successful in making an extended change to my business practice through the process of my learning facilitated by your teaching.

From Winston Fong

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:01:49 +1300

Below are my comments in regards to your teaching of the MBA Research Project: The overall quality of the teaching was very good. This is examined against my personal criteria defined below (along with comments): * The level and quality of guidance/support provided ** This was excellent. The teaching felt personalised and questions asked were answered to ensure every student was moving forward. Each session was well structured with advanced notice and follow up information. In contrast, many other papers were quite generalised and anything outside of the teaching curriculum was ignored. * How approachable the teacher is ** The teacher was very approachable and had a true open door policy where students were always welcome. I always felt comfortable to ask any questions and could communicate by phone/email or direct. It was certainly shown that Peter wanted the students to succeed, unlike some teachers who just wanted to get the teaching done. * How well the teaching is tailored for the audience ** I found the teaching level appropriate. Peter was quite dynamic in his ability to get a feel of where the class was at and to ensure that we were getting the right information. In many other situations (other papers) the teaching level was too basic however the teacher never adjusted the level and just stuck with what they had planned. * How challenging and interesting are the topics presented/taught ** I felt that the class outline was designed well. It was structured to guide the students and provided them the necessary knowledge and tools at the right times. * Quality and usefulness of material and presentation media ** Good combination of slides/articles/whiteboard was used. Generally most classes throughout post grad and MBA provided good course material. * The overall value/impact the teaching created for me personally ** Peter was very motivating and supportive. I was encouraged to do well and he showed great interest in my progress and what I was actually doing. I saw this as an additional level of feedback which enabled my research project to free flow and advance. I feel that this was certainly not provided with other papers and that the majority of the feedback was from assignment/exam grades. Overall, I felt that the teaching provided me with the tools to professionally perform research and the confidence to present a professional research report.

Using peer reviews

Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:27:04 +1300

Peer Reviews Today I was hosted by "ISOM":http://www.isom.auckland.ac.nz/ to talk about they ways in which I have used the "Peer Review" feature of "TurnItIn":http://wwwturnitin.com/. This is a brief summary of my talk. I've been using the Peer Review feature of "TurnItIn":http://www.turnitin.com/ for the past two years in my stage III course _Business Policy & Strategy_. The approach I have used consists of students submitting their assignments to TurnItIn, reviewing three of their peers' assignments (and in turn having their own assignment reviewed three times), and then revising their assignment (hopefully based on the feedback they have received). The process takes a number of weeks. Usually, I make the assignment due in about week eight. I then allow the students one week to do three peer reviews. I then give them a further two weeks to revise their assignment. This means the final version of the assignment is handed in during week eleven -- giving me just enough time to mark it before any final examination. When the timing of other assignments are taken into account, scheduling of peer reviews is not a trivial matter. "TurnItIn":http://www.turnitin.com/ allows the feedback to be structured in two ways. Firstly, the students can answer questions about the assignment they are reviewing; for example, "In what way could the introduction to this essay be improved?" Secondly, Likert like scales can be used; e.g. "On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is not effective at all, and 5 is very effective, how effective was the essay's introduction?" Finally, the student can be permitted to allocate a grade to the essay. Overall, I have been very impressed at the quality of the feedback given by the students. In generally, the feedback provided, if used by the student, would lift the assignment by at least a whole grade (e.g. from a C to a B). Of course, there are some students who don't give such high quality feedback. However, I hope that the combination of each student receiving three sets of feedback and having seen three other essays (have reviewed them themselves) should compensate for the occasional weak reviewer. There are three ways by which "TurnItIn":http://www.turnitin.com/ allows reviewers to be allocated. I’ve tended to use random allocation for all three reviewers. However, it is possible to allow people to choose who they review, or for the instructor to explicitly allocate reviewers. "TurnItIn":http://www.turnitin.com/ is flexible enough to allow any combination of these approaches. For example, it is possible to allocate three reviewers and allow the student to pick a third essay to review them self. However, I like to keep the reviewers (and "reviewees") anonymous as I think that leads to more open and frank feedback. In my experience, the single largest concern students have about the peer review process is "What if someone steals my good idea?" I’ve not seen any evidence of this happening (and I have looked for it), but this observation does little to quell the students’ concerns. So, I tend to fall back on the policy for plagiarism as a deterrent (especially as "TurnItIn":http:/www.turnitin.com/ should catch any replication). Despite that concern, I think that the students like peer review. Why they like it is a little less clear to me. Is it because they get two bites of the cherry (and are able to check out if their assignment is on the 'right track')? Is it because they get more feedback about their assignment than I can reasonably give? Is it because the process of peer review gives them more time to think about their assignment? I don't know. Perhaps some students will comment on this. How do I encourage students to actively participate? How do I stop them from handing in trivial "drafts" or failing to properly review others' work? My starting point is that I assume the student will "do the right thing" They will hand in a completed piece of work and they will be diligent in doing the reviews. Consequently, I don't give them marks for either of these parts of the class. Rather, I punish those who don’t "do the right thing"--by penalising them up to 30% of the value of final assignment. This is part of my view that often we reward (bribe) students with marks to motivate them for things they should do as a matter of course. i.e. there is no substantive pedagogical reason for some of the marks I've seen given to students (and I've done that as well). There are a number of advantages to peer feedback. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, it gives students a lot more feedback than they would normally receive. I accept that some (small portion) of the feedback may be of dubious quality. But I think the students can recognise that.

From Kelly Begg

Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:18:38 +1300

... I just want to say thanks for taking MGMT 301 this semester, and congratulations on your new role [as Deputy Director of the Auckland MBA]. I think that the paper will definitly be less without your skills (and stirring spoon!), but that MGMT 301's loss is the MBA's gain... something for when I finally manage to get back to university! Anyway, thanks again for helping make this paper the most enjoyable one I've done in my degree

Fourth Annual Teaching And Learning Showcase

Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:28:53 +1300

Each year, the "Centre for Professional Development":http://www.auckland.ac.nz/ at the "University of Auckland":http://www.auckland.ac.nz/, holds the Teaching and Learning Showcase, where staff get together in order to share _The art of excellent teaching_. As part of this year's showcase, "Lisa Callagher":http://staff.business.auckland.ac.nz/lcallagher and I presented the initial results of our work on developing greater academic honesty amongst students.

TestGraf

Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:29:30 +1300

For _MGMT 302 - Business Policy & Strategy_, students are assessed each week using a bank of multiple choice questions. These questions are delivered to students in-class using "Cecil":http:/www.cecil.edu/. Having written over 600 questions there is, nevertheless, the lingering question, "Do they work?". This is where I have adopted "TestGraf":http://www.psych.mcgill.ca/faculty/ramsay/TestGraf.html to carry out statistical analysis of the questions. This analysis allows me to diagnose problems with whole tests, individual questions, and items with a question. Consequently, I have strong evidence of the quality, in terms of discrimination and validity, of questionnaires I have written. My use of TestGraf has been so successful, that "Cecil":http://www.cecil.edu/ have incorporated TestGraf's main functionality into Cecil's _test engine_.

On-line auctions

Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:22:23 +1300

In 2003, as part of _MGMT 301 - Management Theory & Practice_, we (the teaching team) wanted to have an experiential exercise for the students based on 'virtuality'. It was decided the classic 'Dollar Auction' exercise would be moved into the virtual world. And so, I wrote a small web application that would allow the 'Dollar Auction' to take place in real-time and on-line. Subsequently, we used the exercise with a class of about 80 students. The experience was quiet different to the face-to-face version, and provided rich experiences that we were able to successfully debrief. Since then, we have also used the exercise as part of a short course in Virutality.

On-line student evaluations

Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:17:46 +1300

Traditionally, evaluation of staff by students has been done using “pen & paper” through "CPD":http://www2.auckland.ac.nz/cpd/. In the second semester of 2004 I trialled the new on-line system provided in conjunction with CPD and "Cecil":http:/www.cecil.edu/. This system allowed quicker feedback from students about their concerns, and thus I was able to make adjustments in my teaching to address those concerns. Prior to using this system, time delays meant that adjustments could only be made for subsequent classes and not the current class.

From Jane Primrose

Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:11:48 +1300

Peter's teaching style is quietly coaxing the best out of his students. This style is highly unique to Peter in our University environment, and helps all students in their important final year to find their stance on important theoretical issues. For me, Peter's teaching allowed me to find my voice which was a little to quiet to speak up, and helped me to gain the confidence I needed. His help out of the classroom has also been unparalleled, and he has offered me a significant amount of guidance in my final year of study.

From Dr Brigid Carroll

Mon, 01 Nov 2004 11:14:28 +1300

Peter Smith has been a colleague for the last five years. Peter has taken a pedagogical lead in many activities, discussions and initiatives in our department and others and that has meant he has made a real impact in the teaching and learning of this department. He has a passion for effective, student-centred, stimulating learning and that zeal has galvanised many of us to work at our own teaching development. Peter continually seeks new ideas to enthuse, extend and galvanise students. He is truly innovative, creative and original in his planning of learning experiences. He engineers role-plays, develops simulations and games, and seeks out new business cases in order to produce fresh challenges for his students. Peter is the true reflective educational practitioner to the extent he thinks about and evaluates each learning occasion. Perhaps the biggest impact Peter has had on his colleagues lies in his willingness to embrace and foster new technologies, curriculum and assessment tools. Time after time Peter has volunteered to be in teams to rewrite and create new programmes and instruments of learning. He has taken a lead in trailing new plagarism instruments such as Turnitin, writing new student assessment descriptors and working out new ways of involving interactive technologies. He is always generous in supporting others in their uptake of new teaching techniques and has taken a real leadership role in this. Peter is an energetic, knowledgeable and greatly skilled teaching colleague who continually inspires us to improve our own teaching performance. I can not think of a worthier candidate for such an award.

Academic Honesty Assistance

Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:47:41 +1300

I led the development of the Academic Honesty Assistance tutorial, also known as "AHA":http://qa.cecil.auckland.ac.nz:8000/ with Lisa Callagher and Lynne Mitchell. This tutorial provides about four to six hours of instruction and assessment on Academic Honesty. Many tutorials on plagiarism focus on what 'must' be done, and the penalties for non-compliance. This tutorial is different, because it develops an understanding of knowledge building culture of the University and so it focuses on 'why' it is necessary to be academically honest. The tutorial then provides tools and strategies to assist the student with that goal. The tutorial has been tested with a large stage I class (900+ students), and has been found to have a positive impact on increasing the level of academic honesty, and thus reducing the level of activities such as plagiarism. The development of AHA was funded by a $10,000 Teaching Improvement Grant. Currently, other departments and faculties are looking at adopting AHA.

Information Literacy Program

Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:47:11 +1300

In the BBIM, as part of the core management papers, an Information Literacy programme was put in place with Lynne Mitchell of the library. Besides being delivered in-person and on-line by library staff, this collaboration entailed customising a program of learning so that it directly related to the management material being taught and was explicitly linked to subsequent assessments.

Turn It In

Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:45:36 +1300

Having attended a seminar in Melbourne on plagiarism I was luckily enough to meet with John Barry, the founder and CEO of "iParadigms":http://www.iparadigms.com/. One of the products that iParadigms produces is "Turn It In":http:/www.turnitin.com/, a tool that checks the originality of students' work. Since then I have be actively promoting the use of similar products and routinely use Turn It In in all my classes. Besides running teaching seminars on the subject I have provided advice to the university's Quality Office. I have also provided advice and support to a number of departments outside of Business & Economics, e.g. Theology, Engineering, and Philosophy