Valuing Evaluation: A Case Study of Professional Development to
Support Academic Engagement in Online Evaluation Processes
and Outcomes
Dr. Diana Quinn, Senior Lecturer: Professional Development
Learning Connection, Magill Campus, University of South Australia,
[email protected]
Abstract: Governments and Universities are adopting student evaluation data as a definitive measure of
teaching and learning quality. Online evaluations are a time- and financially-efficient way of enhancing the
capacity of academics to respond to student feedback and implement course improvements. Planned
strategies for instituting online evaluations produce the strongest response rates and therefore the most
accurate information on which to base course development. This case study describes the strategy and
outcomes of a professional development project in The Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences at the
University of South Australia, that aimed to support academics attempting to improve student engagement
with online evaluations of course and teaching quality. A choice theory-informed approach to professional
development was adopted that employed collation and sharing of best practice and modelling of preferred
behaviour. An improvement in response rate over the entire Division of 16.6% was achieved during the test
period. A survey of staff found that those strategies to improve response rates to online surveys that aimed at
both improving student’s understanding of the power of the evaluation process as well as access to online
survey instruments were the most successful. Strong support for the professional development approach
adopted was reported by participating staff in a survey. Although learning outcomes were strong for the
academics surveyed, continuing support in the use of the internet, as an interactive teaching and learning
tool, was identified as an area for development.
Keywords: online evaluation; response rates, professional development, case study, Choice theory
Introduction
Professional development (PD) is required to help university educators better value the role of
evaluation as a mechanism to facilitate scholarly improvement in teaching and learning. At the
University of South Australia (UniSA), this task is addressed through induction and mandatory
teaching programs that have been recently extended to include selected sessional staff. However,
there still exists a large group of continuing and sessional academics that have incomplete
understandings about evaluation as a tool to improve student learning outcomes. This group’s PD
needs are negotiated annually as projects, on a service agreement between academic divisions and
the central unit for supporting teaching and learning at UniSA, the Flexible Learning Centre (FLC).
This paper describes one component of the project called Valuing Evaluation, that was formulated
as part of the Division of Education, Arts and Social Science (EASS) FLC 2003 service agreement,
and the selection, application and evaluation of the PD approach used to support it.
An important question to ask, however, is why do so many continuing and sessional university
teaching staff have a limited understanding of the role of evaluation in improving teaching and
learning? Why is it that they value evaluation so lowly? One answer is that most of these teachers
have gleaned their working knowledge about teaching from their experiences as learners. In
analysing the nature of a teacher’s learning experiences; we may then understand how, in many
instances, one-way perspectives about evaluation have developed. Teachers, as learners, may have
participated in evaluation, but it is unlikely that they have experienced, personally, the end results
of effective evaluation. They might never have had the feeling of power that a learner experiences
when their feedback impacts future teaching and learning activities. It would also be unlikely that
they would have an appreciation of how evaluation data is collated and interpreted, prior to its use.
Without such experiences, it is unrealistic to expect that teachers would understand the evaluation
process as a method of promoting continuing improvement in teaching and learning.
From each cohort of learners, the next generation of teachers emulates. But given a common
perception that providing feedback about teaching and courses is futile, many of tomorrow’s
teachers are likely to carry a negative attitude towards the processes associated with evaluation, if
not the outcome. University policy requires yesterday’s students to, now as teachers, collect
feedback from today’s students. The techniques used to obtain responses to paper surveys must, to
some extent, be based on their own experiences. Thus, they often rely on ‘capture methods’, where
students are not allowed to leave a class until the survey has been completed and returned.
However, without the knowledge of what to do with the data, the completed surveys often would
sit in piles in the bottom drawer of filing cabinets, gathering dust.
University policy, as well as proposed government policy, has meant that academics need to
engage with evaluation. UniSA’s policy A35A says that every course must be evaluated in some
way, every time it is taught. The University has developed standardised evaluation tools, the
Course Evaluation Instrument (CEI) and Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET), that have been
described elsewhere (Reid 2001). Collated student feedback from these surveys is required for
Program review, as well as evidence to support academic promotion and scholarly teaching award
applications. Currently, the CEI and SET allow for online, or paper delivery methods. Although the
paper method has significant human resource implications, it has often been preferred. The
University has decreed that by 2005, the option to use paper-based CEI and SET surveys will no
longer be available unless in exceptional circumstances, as they relate to particular students.
Therefore, a need existed to help academics identify ways to improve students’ engagement with
evaluation delivered in an online format. In a similar way to student-centred learning, academiccentred professional development (ACPD) was required to meet the needs of this group of
academic staff. This process starts with understanding where the learners current conceptions about
the topic are, and then selecting an approach that will help to satisfy their distinct learning needs.
Choosing a professional development approach to bring about change
The next task was to determine the appropriate PD approach. A recent article provides some
insights about what academics require as motivation in order for them to comply with institutional
effectiveness activities. It is based on data gathered by a survey of 386 ‘faculty’, from 168
American higher education institutions (Welsh and Metcalfe 2003). The surveyed academics
indicated that their primary motivation for complying with institutional programs was if they
understood how the change would improve the institution, its programs and services. Secondly,
they were much more likely to support university-wide programs ‘if they, and their colleagues led,
owned and participated in the process’ (p 40). Thirdly, they would support programs that were
outcomes-orientated, indicating they valued evidence of ‘real results arising from instructions and
efforts to improve’ (p41). An additional finding was effective communication of the process and
results was a critical feature for academics to support institutional wide campaigns.
This data by Welsh and Metclf (2003) supports the recommendations of others. For example,
Rogers 1983 framework for implementation of innovation suggested several factors that influence
whether or not faculty will choose to adopt a new practice: access to models, trial without
commitment, observing best practice, support for the task, and compatibility with their current
practice (Rogers 1983; cited in McLoughlin 2000). David Boud (1999) was influenced by
Knowles’ adult learning theory when he recommended using peer learning within local working
environments as an ideal form of PD for Australian universities. Peer learning was recommended
as it allowed informal collaboration, critique, visibility of scholarly practice and the building of an
academic’s self-esteem within local contexts. Boud wrote,
Academic development has been successful when it has drawn on a deep understanding of
the ethos of higher education institutions, their cultural practices and the discourse of
academia (Boud 1999; p 10).
This process was also supported by Ryan et al. (2000) who recommended PD that was ‘lightly
formalised’, to allow the development of local communities of practice. Ryan noticed that his
approach was responsive to academic needs, enhanced the visibility of exemplars, and integrated
local and centralised support systems. However, the time required for building relationships of trust
between PD staff and academics, lack of visible structure, and hard to measure outcomes were
identified as limitations of this approach.
Using this information, it is possible to piece together a strategy for ACPD to facilitate a change in
behaviour in relation to evaluation. But academics are people too. Why do we need a separate
system of understanding human behaviour just for academics, or even adults? Surely we are all
humans with brains that work the same way? Would psychological human behaviour literature
offer more, or different information, to help understand how people make choices in life to change
their practice or behaviour? Using Boyer’s scholarship of integration, which encourages crossdiscipline investigations (Boyer 1990, p18-21), a psychological framework for planning a ACPD
approach, was explored.
Exploring the use of Choice theory to formulate ACPD approaches
The role of PD is often about facilitating change. The decision to change however, ultimately rests
with the individual, it is their choice. This concept has been developed into a psychological theory
describing human behaviour by William Glasser, called Choice theory (Glasser 1999) that has been
extensively applied to education and work settings (Glasser 1999, Glasser 1998, Piltz 2002).
Although complex, this relationship-based theory can be used to offer insights into designing
effective student-centred learning activities for all people (Glasser 1998) and has some parallel
with current theories of teaching and learning.
Glasser argues that we all see the same world differently (Glasser 1998, p 44). Individuals filter
incoming information from the ‘real world’ based on their current knowledge and values. If
information passes through these ‘filters’ it will become part of their Perceived World (Figure 1).
Only the information in a person’s Perceived World will be analysed. This aligns well with studentcentred learning approaches that commence with efforts to find out what the learner’s current
conceptions of a topic are before teaching starts (Moore & Patrick 2000; Biggs 1999, p18). For, if
the learner is not receptive to incoming information, they will not engage, and the information will
not be considered.
Belonging
Power
Quality
Perceived
World
World
Freedom
Fun
Needs
Comparison
V
a
l
u
e
s
F
i
l
t
e
r
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
F
i
l
t
e
r
The
Real
World
Behaviour Choices
Figure 1: Diagrammatic representation of how people choose to behave based on
Choice theory (Glasser 1999; cartoon based on that http://www.sctboces.org/choicetheory/theory.htm; 13/10/2003)
Another component of Glasser’s theory is that each person has individual needs; including a
physiological need for survival, but also four distinct psychological needs for belonging, power,
freedom and fun, required in different amounts for each individual. These needs provide
individuals with the motivation for what they do in their lives (Glasser 1998). This concept
parallels the extrinsic, social, achievement and intrinsic motivation drivers, features of the
‘presage’ that impact on learning (Biggs 1999, p 59-60).
Information that enters an individual’s Perceived World is then compared with their current
conception of their ideal or Quality World. The Quality World is full of images of the people,
things and activities that mean the most to that person. When the incoming information in the
Perceived World conflicts with the images stored in the Quality World, frustration is experienced
and a change in behaviour is considered. Glasser proposes that all behaviour is purposeful and that
people will chose to behave in a way they believe will satisfy their needs and re-establish an
equilibrium between their Perceived and Quality Worlds. He describes behaviour as having four
components, that of thought, action, feeling and physiology, and although most people are only
aware of one or two components of their behaviour, each component is occurring to make Total
behaviour (Glasser 1998). When learning activities encourage awareness of the ‘affective domain’,
through emotion-rich techniques such as role play, transformational learning occurs, with the result
being a change in the way the learner sees and behaves in the world (Di Biase 1998). This parallels
the awareness of Total behaviour that Glasser encourages to bring about change (Glasser 1998).
In this project, Choice theory has been interpreted within the field of ACPD to support evaluation.
Choice theory advocates a cooperative system that aims to develop strong trusting relationships
between the leaders of teaching and learning in Divisions and Schools, PD staff and academics,
satisfying individuals’ needs for belonging. A focal topic about evaluation was selected such that it
was likely to be perceived by EASS academics as being relevant to them, allowing the information
about evaluation to pass into their Perceived World. The techniques of valuing input, sharing best
practice, and modelling expectations were used to support academics’ needs for belonging, power
and freedom. Similarly, academics needs for power and freedom were respected by ensuring they
remained in control of monitoring the quality of their teaching, and became aware that quality
comes from a process that is centred around continual improvement (Glasser 1998, p 291).
Method
Determining academics’ current conceptions about online evaluation
To commence ACPD, it was important to ascertain current learners’ conceptions of online
evaluation. Information gleaned from EASS teaching and learning meetings indicated that many
academics’ current conceptions were related to response rates to online surveys and the potential
ramifications for promotion and teaching awards (images in their Quality World). Other thoughts
were that students had ‘evaluation overload’ and therefore did not want to engage in evaluation.
Using Glasser’s model it is possible to predict that information couched in relation to improving
response rates would be more likely to be accepted into the Perceived World of an academic at that
particular time, with that particular group of academics. Thus, the topic of Strategies to improve
response rates to online evaluation was the preferred starting place for this project that aimed to
improve academics’ understanding of evaluation and commitment to engaging in its processes.
Analysis of gross Divisional changes in number of responses to online CEIs
To determine engagement of students in anonymous and non-compulsory course evaluation
processes, the CEI database was queried to determine the number of CEIs published in EASS in
semester 1, 2002, semester 2, 2002 and semester 1, 2003 as well as the total number of responses
returned in each of these time periods.
Applying Choice theory to ACPD: sharing and modelling best practice
To collect current understandings of best practice in motivating students to participate in online
CEI surveys, CEI reports from semester 2, 2002 were reviewed by the Dean Teaching and
Learning in EASS to identify those academics achieving good response rates compared to the
number of students enrolled. PD staff interviewed these academics in early semester 1, 2003, to
identify strategies they believed were contributing to their strong response rates to online
evaluations, and then collated their responses.
To share the understandings of best practice, PD staff emailed, to all academic staff in EASS, the
collated recommendations to improve online CEI response rates, in week 6 of semester 1, 2003.
The brief email indicated that the strategies were recommendations by their peers of ways, they
might consider, to improve response rates to online surveys.
To model best practice, PD staff sent an email in week 10 (of 13) in semester 1, 2003 to academic
staff in EASS. The communication contained 2 examples of email messages that could be used to
encourage students to participate in online course evaluation (based on previous recommendations
of their peers).
Evaluating ACPD
To evaluate the effectiveness of the ACPD approach used, academic staff in EASS were surveyed
in week 16 of semester 1, 2003 using an online TellUs2 survey. Academics were asked if an
improvement in response rate was detected in semester 1, 2003. Opinions were also sought about
the effectiveness of the ACPD strategies that had been informed by Choice theory.
Results
Changes in the number of CEI responses returned
The CEI database was queried to determine if there had been a change in the number of responses
received in semester 1, 2003 compared to semester 1, 2002 within EASS. The absolute number of
CEI surveys published in EASS did not change greatly, with a 4.3% increase noted (350 in
semester 1, 2002 compared to 365 in semester 1, 2003). In contrast, the absolute number of
responses experienced a 16.6% increase in the same time period (5591 in semester 1, 2002; 6522 in
semester 1, 2003) (see Figure 2). The average number of student responses returned increased from
15.97 to 17.86 per CEI survey.
An anonymous survey of academic staff in the Division of EASS was conducted. In total 16
responses were received from 7 of the 8 schools in the Division. All but one of the respondents
gave their permission for their responses to be used as a part of a research publication. Respondents
were asked if their response rates to online CEIs increased in semester 1, 2003. Sixty percent
agreed (n=9 of 15) and 6% disagreed (n=1 of 15).
7000
6000
5000
number if CEIs
published in
EASS
4000
number of
responses
received in
EASS
3000
2000
1000
20
03
es
te
r1
20
02
Se
m
es
te
r2
Se
m
Se
m
es
te
r1
20
02
0
Figure 2. A comparison of the number of Course Evaluation Instrument surveys
published and absolute number of responses received in the period semester 1 2002 to
semester 1 2003 within the Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences.
Collating best practice
To determine best practice in encouraging students to respond to online CEIs, telephone interviews
were conducted with 7 academics who had been identified as having strong response rates in
semester 2, 2002 online CEI surveys, to ascertain the strategies they had used to motivate student
participation. These strategies were classified into categories, those that improve students’ access
to and familiarity with the online environment, which could be implemented in the short term, or
those that improve understanding of evaluation such that students value the evaluation process,
which were longer term strategies. The list of recommendations was circulated by email to
academic staff in EASS and then published as a Teaching Guide on UniSA’s Learning Connection
web site (Learning Connection 2003).
Assessing the effectiveness of Choice theory-informed PD strategy
To determine if the type of PD employed in the Valuing evaluation project, had impacted positively
on learning outcomes for academic staff, respondents were asked to respond to seven Likert items
on a survey. The resulting data is presented in Table 1. The sharing and modelling aspects of
Choice theory were well received (87% agreement) and 66% of respondents agreed that their
learning outcomes (they can ‘continue to maximise response rates’ and they had an ‘improved
understanding of online evaluation’) had been achieved.
Table 1. Summary of responses from EASS academics about the use of Choice theoryinformed professional development strategies
Item
Number of respondents
(n=15)
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
13
1
1
8
6
0
13
1
0
1
5
9
I think I can continue to maximise response rates by applying these
strategies
9
6
0
Compared to last year I have improved my understanding of online
evaluation
9
6
0
Compared to last year, I feel more confident about using online
techniques for evaluation
7
6
2
I thought that collating and sharing successful strategies from EASS
academics to improve response rates was a useful way to conduct
professional development
I trusted these strategies as I knew they had worked for my peers
I appreciated being sent the model emails suggesting how I could
communicate with students about the CEI
The model emails were inappropriate for use with my students
Discussion
ACPD to support the understanding of evaluation is essential to improve the quality of teaching
and learning. For non-education trained academics, particularly those who graduated at a time
when evaluation was less essential to professional survival, it can be a complete mystery about
what happens to student feedback surveys about teaching and learning, beyond the collection of the
data. As they do not understand, they therefore have little chance of valuing and implementing
effective evaluation processes. New continuing academics and selected sessional staff at UniSA are
engaging in teaching programs that will help raise awareness about evaluation. The purpose of the
Valuing Evaluation project was to break the cycle of superficial understandings about evaluation at
UniSA in the large remaining group of continuing and sessional academics who may never have
been exposed, or have chosen to avoid, information relating to evaluation and its impact on
teaching and learning quality.
Proposed government, and current university policies, have created an environment in Australian
universities that require academics to engage with evaluation. By using ‘capture techniques’ with
paper surveys, many academics have enjoyed a high response rate for student evaluations. The
validity of data collected by such standover techniques should be questioned. The reality for UniSA
academics is however, that CEI and SET will only be able to be administered online from 2005.
Online surveys offer an anonymous environment for students who choose to provide feedback
about courses and teachers. Compared to paper surveys, online evaluations provide significant
efficiencies in the cost and time spent processing data. However, the online dimension of surveys
of student feedback also creates hurdles for academic staff and students. Only 12.5% of
respondents to the survey indicated they were teaching interactively online (data not shown). If
many academic staff are not using online teaching techniques, then how can they expect to
communicate to their students how to participate in online evaluation? It is this group of academics
who feel most vulnerable (loss of power and freedom) by the types of edicts announced by the
University, that all surveys will be online by 2005.
In this case study, the PD approach was informed by Choice theory, which can act as a window
into understanding student-centred learning, or its equivalent, ACPD. Moore and Patrick (2000)
wrote that student-centred learning requires a conceptual shift for the teacher, from ‘I will tell you
this and therefore you will learn’, to ‘I want to help you in ways which are effective for you and
match your needs’. Similarly, ACPD aims to put the academic at the centre of the learning process.
It was demonstrated in this case study that Choice theory can be used a framework for the selection
of an approach most suited to a particular group of learners. Techniques that aimed to build trust,
foster a sense of belonging and protect learner power and freedom, were used.
The collaboratively produced document, about strategies to improve response rates to online
evaluation, was assembled by PD staff following interviews with EASS staff identified as having
good response rates to online CEIs. Embedded within this document, was all the information that
was required for an academic to make an informed choice about how to change their teaching
practice to value evaluation. In essence, a guise had been used to increase the likelihood that
information about the value of evaluation could pass from the real world, to the Perceived World of
many academics within EASS. Once in, this information would be compared to images within their
Quality World (possibly containing images of promotion, teaching awards and an enjoyable
working environment) and analysed against their needs profile, for action.
Staff responding to an anonymous survey, indicated that they were satisfied with the PD approach
used in this case study (Table 1). Unsolicited email communication, received following
dissemination of the Strategies Teaching guide, also strongly supported the approach.
I can’t thank you enough for this – it really helped the penny drop for me as far as online
evaluation was concerned (personal communication, 2003).
An increase in response rates to an online survey was identified in EASS during the period
semester 1, 2002 to semester 1, 2003. Although the PD approach used may have contributed to this
process, there are other factors that may have impacted, such as better advertising of the evaluation
tool to students by central mechanisms, and improved access to online environments for students.
According to Glasser’s description of needs, all people have 5 basic needs (Glasser, 1999). The
first, survival, is common to everyone, but the remaining four, belonging, power, freedom and fun,
are needed in different amounts by different people. Appreciating that learner’s needs are diverse is
an important consideration for ACPD. It also helps explain why, in the survey, not all respondents
showed enthusiasm for sharing the best practice of their peers (differing needs for belonging and
power).
The main theme of this paper is an analysis of what is the most effective way to influence someone
to change their practice. A literature review of recommendations to change behaviour, reveals a
relationship between these recommendations and the human behaviour model of Choice theory
(Table 2). The basic needs identified by Glasser of belonging, power and freedom could be
matched, however the literature was noticeably devoid of references to the impact of fun on
learning. Fun and humour are different. Ramsden found that humour ranked low in a list of
learners’ needs from their teachers at university (Ramsden 1992, p90) yet making material
interesting and engaging ranked the highest. Making learning fun can certainly foster interest and
engagement. Using Glasser’s model however, it is possible to predict that efforts to incorporate fun
into the learning environment for ACPD would also help some academics make the choice to
change as it would help them satisfy this basic need.
The process used in this case study, of collating and sharing best practice in relation to strategies to
improve online response rates and modelling required behaviour, was designed in response to the
evidence available and may not be directly applicable to other environments. The approach
however, of using ACPD guided by Choice theory, is transferable.
Table 2: A comparison of recommendations for influencing academics to change their practices
Glasser’s Choice theory, interpreted for ACPD
Walsh (2003)
Ryan (2000)
Boud (1999)
Information needs to pass through the current knowledge and values filters to
be perceived.
People will comply if the
recommendation is
compatible with their
current practice
Academic-centred professional development (ACPD) needs to recognise
learners current conceptions, accurate or not.
Everyone has a basic need for belonging; but this need may be greater in some
compared to others. ACPD approaches need to work at building collaborative
professional teams.
Process lightly
formalised to develop
local communities of
practice
This can be done through sharing local best practice and fostering peer
learning.
Honest and open communication also develops the sense of trust necessary to
help individuals work collaboratively.
Better communication at
all levels of the process
Everyone has basic need for power; but this need may be greater in some
compared to others. ACPD approaches need to respect this need for power.
Academics led, owned
and participated in the
process
This can be done through involving academics in the decision making process,
modelling what it is that academics need to do, demonstrate that they will get
the outcomes for the effort, ensuring the materials and support to do the
requested task are available, and reinforcing that what they will do will help
make their institution, and therefore themselves, more powerful.
Rogers (1983)
Evidence that results will
be achieved (outcomes
orientation)
Peer learning in local
environment for
collaboration, critique
Observing best practice
Visibility of scholarly
practice
Access to models
Trust needed, but time
consuming to develop
Visible exemplars
Integration of local
and centralised
support systems
Support for the task
Emphasise how it will
improve the institution
Everyone has basic need for freedom; but this need may be greater in some
compared to others. ACPD approaches need to respect this need for freedom.
This can be done through various ways including allowing academics to
explore processes without commitment, and providing models and examples
for them to utilise, or ignore.
Everyone has basic need for fun; but this need may be greater in some
compared to others. ACPD approaches would aim to make learning fun.
Building of
academics’ self
esteem
Trial without
commitment
Conclusion
Choice theory, when used as a window to understand ACPD, may well assist PD staff in leading
academics towards complying with institutionally desired goals. This process first requires
determination of academics’ current conceptions of the topic held within their Perceived world.
And, secondly, in the provision of useful and pertinent information presented in such a way as to
emphasise how adopting a new practice or behaviour will satisfy their basic needs of belonging
power, freedom and fun.
References
Biggs, J 1999. Teaching for Quality Learning at University, The Society for Research into Higher
Education, Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.
Boud, D 1999. ‘Situating academic development in professional work: using peer learning’,
International Journal of academic development vol. 4 no. 1, pp. 3-10.
Boyer, E 1990. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities for the professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation
for the Advancement of Teaching. Jossey-Bass, New York.
Di Biase, W 1998. ‘Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning with implications for science
teacher educators’ International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in
Science, Charolette, USA, viewed 7 Nov. 2003,
<http://www.ed.psu.edu/CI/Journals/1998AETS/s2_1_dibiase.rtf>.
Glasser, W 1999. Choice theory, Harper Perennial, New York.
Glasser, W 1998. Choice theory in the classroom, Harper Perennial, New York.
Reid, I 2001. ‘Strategic collaboration for online delivery’ Electronic proceedings from Educause in
Australia, 2001, viewed 7 Nov. 2003,
<http://www.gu.edu.au/conference/educause2001/papers/Ian_Reid.doc>.
Learning Connection, 2003. ‘Evaluation: Strategies to maximise online evaluation response rates’
Teaching Guide, University of South Australia, Adelaide., viewed 7 Nov. 2003,
<http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learningconnection/teachg/evaluation_strategies.doc>.
McLoughlin, C 2000. ‘Creating partnerships for generative learning and systemic change:
redefining academic roles and relationships in support of learning’, The International Journal for
Academic Development vol. 5 no. 2, pp. 116-128.
Moore, K & Patrick, K 2000. Student centred learning. Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology,
Teaching and Learning web site, viewed 7 Nov. 2003,
<http://www.teaching.rmit.edu.au/progimprov/sclearn.html>.
Piltz, W 2002. ‘Applying Choice theory and reflection to enhance student outcomes in Group
Dynamics’. Australian Institute of Sport Conference, viewed 7 Nov. 2003,
<http://www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2002/achper/Piltz2.pdf>.
Ramsden, P 1992. Learning to teach in higher education. Routledge, London.
Ryan, M, Hanrahan M & Duncan, M 2000. ‘The professional engagement model of academic
induction into online teaching’. Electronic proceedings from The Australian Association for
Research into Education , viewed 7 Nov. 2003, <http://www.aare.edu.au/00pap/han00419.htm>.
Welsh, JF & Metcalfe, J 2003. ‘Cultivating faculty support for institutional effectiveness activities:
benchmarking best practices’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education vol. 28 no. 1, pp. 3345.
© Diana Quinn, University of South Australia 2003. Link to presentation.