Smith and Welicker-Pollak (2008) report that most lecturers don’t seek any support or advice from colleagues. Since many evaluation systems are confidential and only made available to the academic involved (MacLeod, 2000), academics do not compare their feedback against appropriate norms which limits the extent student feedback can be meaningfully used for institutional purposes (MacLeod, 2000).

To engage in ‘core reflection’ (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005) requires reflection at numerous levels, from a person level, to professional identity, and activities engaged in. This can only be fully realised by engaging in supportive dialogue with colleagues and to ensuring that feedback is more than a managerial instrument used for accountability (Smith, 2005; Smith & Krumsvik, 2007).

Lecturers have to be prepared to open-up to other lecturers and to discuss student feedback (Smith & Krumsvik, 2007), to engage in pedagogic discussion between academics and with students via the feedback loop to create an open and transparent culture, and more effective development (Tucker, Jones, & Straker, 2008).

As discussed previously in this section, failure to draw on peers for assistance with interpretation or development is failure to utilise a highly valuable resource. Research has shown that when academics have opportunities to discuss their feedback with a knowledgeable colleague and/or educational consultant they are more likely to change their practice (Cohen, 1980; Irby, 1993; Marsh & Roche, 1994; Murray, 1997; Seldin, 1989; Tiberius & Billson, 1991)

Back to 5.6 Continue to Section 6 Back To Section 5