Conference, reviews and conservations about improving engineering education

Jolly, L; Keith, KW; Tibbits, G; Anne, AG

Conference, reviews and conservations about improving engineering education

Jolly, L Keith, KW Tibbits, G Anne, AG

Permalink

Publication Type:: Conference Proceeding
Citation:: Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011, REES 2011, 2011, pp. 834 - 840
Issue Date:: 2011-12-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download full textAdobe PDF (320.07 kB)

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Jolly, L	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Keith, KW	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Tibbits, G	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Anne, AG https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2764-591X	en_US
dc.date.issued	2011-12-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011, REES 2011, 2011, pp. 834 - 840	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	9781627481847	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/19220
dc.description.abstract	Peer reviews are supposed to ensure the quality of published work and are also applied to conference papers with the same aim. But numerous studies have demonstrated that reviews cannot be considered objective or reliable. Even if they were they do not provide the opportunity to refine and develop ideas that conferences such as REES promote. We began by examining how well reviews of papers submitted to the 2010 conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education helped authors to improve and found them to be often inadequate. The literature reveals that this is true for peer review generally. We conclude with some suggestions for how ideas might be shared, developed and disseminated through scholarly conversation while avoiding most of the pitfalls of the review process.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011, REES 2011	en_US
dc.title	Conference, reviews and conservations about improving engineering education	en_US
dc.type	Conference Proceeding
utslib.for	0999 Other Engineering	en_US
dc.location.activity	Madrid, Spain	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CRIN - Realtime Information Networks
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US

Abstract:

Peer reviews are supposed to ensure the quality of published work and are also applied to conference papers with the same aim. But numerous studies have demonstrated that reviews cannot be considered objective or reliable. Even if they were they do not provide the opportunity to refine and develop ideas that conferences such as REES promote. We began by examining how well reviews of papers submitted to the 2010 conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education helped authors to improve and found them to be often inadequate. The literature reveals that this is true for peer review generally. We conclude with some suggestions for how ideas might be shared, developed and disseminated through scholarly conversation while avoiding most of the pitfalls of the review process.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/19220