Difference between revisions of "Peer review"
DavidBeraha (Talk | contribs) (→Definition) |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | <!-- | ||
{{Tidy1}} | {{Tidy1}} | ||
| Line 6: | Line 7: | ||
{{Links}} | {{Links}} | ||
| + | --> | ||
==Definition== | ==Definition== | ||
| − | + | {{ {{PAGENAME}} }} | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
==Description== | ==Description== | ||
| Line 19: | Line 17: | ||
After having examined the self-evaluation report, the committee/commission will carry out a visit to the faculty/department for an on-site review. The visit should include interviews with professors, students and administrators, tours of teaching laboratories and facilities, and observations of student output including homework assignments, papers and examinations. Based on all this information, the committee/commission issues its conclusions if the programme has met the standards, criteria and performance indicators. | After having examined the self-evaluation report, the committee/commission will carry out a visit to the faculty/department for an on-site review. The visit should include interviews with professors, students and administrators, tours of teaching laboratories and facilities, and observations of student output including homework assignments, papers and examinations. Based on all this information, the committee/commission issues its conclusions if the programme has met the standards, criteria and performance indicators. | ||
| − | '''Source:''' [[Nuclear engineering education: A competence-based approach in curricula development]] | + | <!-- '''Source:''' [[Nuclear engineering education: A competence-based approach in curricula development]] --> |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
==Related articles== | ==Related articles== | ||
| − | [[Peer | + | [[Peer assist]] |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | [[Category: | + | [[Category:Review]] |
Latest revision as of 10:01, 21 December 2015
Definition
An examination or review of commercial, professional or academic efficiency, competence, etc., by others in the same occupation
Description
The accrediting organization will nominate a peer review committee or commission to evaluate the performance of the accredited faculty/department. The reviewers should have the competence and standing in the field to serve as an objective reviewer. In addition, the accrediting organization should seek feedback from the faculty/department regarding the reviewers to assure that they are qualified to serve in this role.
After having examined the self-evaluation report, the committee/commission will carry out a visit to the faculty/department for an on-site review. The visit should include interviews with professors, students and administrators, tours of teaching laboratories and facilities, and observations of student output including homework assignments, papers and examinations. Based on all this information, the committee/commission issues its conclusions if the programme has met the standards, criteria and performance indicators.
