1. A Critical View on Peer Reviews
Anni Koubek
FH JOANNEUM

2. Experiences with Peer Reviews
Institutional reviews of the university
External Study Programme reviews

3. Mechanism of Peer Review
Self-evaluation report
Review-Team composed of
Expert from professional field
Pedagogical expert
Expert from Higher Education in corresponding field

4. Critical Remarks on Peer Reviews
Peer Review is based on self-evaluation report:
The art of designing review reports
The danger of honesty and self-critical statments

5. Critical Remarks on Peer Reviews
On-site visits:
Visits Last 1 to 3 days (depending whether institutional or programme evaluation)
How to prepare your team for the evaluation process?
Do you know the review team members well enough?

6. Critical Remarks on Peer Reviews
Review Report:
Review results cannot be objective and comparable between institutions
Amount of improvement potential will strongly depend on self-criticality of the team
Summative results, based on process are dangerous
Missing culture of formative evaluation procedures

7. How to make peer review more effective?
Scenario 1 – Formative Evaluation Process
Cut summative elements
Strictly quality improving view, to support institution
Do not base accreditation decisions on peer review process
Critics: depends on will of institution: as often good institutions will use instrument well

8. How to make peer review more effective?
Scenario 2 – Comparability
Base evaluation on clearly formalised and measureable quality criteria
Define regulations that quality criteria are defined the same precise way in all institutions
Critics: Over-regulation, limiting institutional autonomy

9. How to make peer review more effective?
Scenario 3 – Evaluate Quality System
Review whether Quality system of institution comprises necessary elements
Check whether improvement cycles are in place
Critics:
No common understanding of QA-elements and standards
Only applicable to mature organisations