1. PEER REVIEW OF
TEACHING
Prepared by Kathryn Andrus
Teaching and Learning Center
July 2009

2. PEER REVIEW: BASICS
Definitions and types
Uses
Typical forms
Optimal forms
Process of developing system

3. PEER REVIEW OF
TEACHING IS
“A fair, systematic process originating with the unit and out by an
informed colleague or colleagues who will use clearly stated
criteria for gathering a multidimensional body of evidence from
multiple sources for the purpose of evaluating the teaching
performance of a faculty member”

4. PEER REVIEW IS AT
WORK IN
Hiring Promotion and tenure
Communities of Practice Sabbatical approvals
Coaching new faculty Teaching awards
Review for merit raises Post-tenure review
Contract renewals
Assigning courses

5. SUMMATIVE REVIEW:
DATA FROM MULTIPLE
Students: FCQs, letters based upon some defined but often
undefined criteria, day-to-day, personal
Instructor: dossier with descriptive information (philosophy,
course materials, etc), collection of unmediated materials, self-
evaluation
Dept. Colleagues: mediates candidate dossier, address subject
matter expertise, appropriateness of materials, assessment
approaches, FCQs, supporting letters

6. FORMATIVE REVIEWS
FOR DEVELOPMENT
Peer-to-peer review for purpose of identification of areas for
improvement and providing safe methods for working out
teaching in preparation for summative evaluations
Voluntary -- trust is essential
Summary letter not necessarily required part of dossier -- could
be at odds with the purpose

7. PURPOSES OF TWO
KINDS OF REVIEW
Formative Summative
Individual career success Institutional stakes
Improvement Reward-oriented
Development -- creative and Accountability and standards
innovative Public -- job
Personal -- feelings Required
Voluntary Supervisory
Mentoring Notification and discussion of
Useful feedback for change decisions, options

8. TYPES OF PEER REVIEW
ACTIVITIES FOR
Classroom visits -- multiple times over long term
Class materials review (including online)
Learning outcomes and assessments used to measure
Teaching portfolios -- display of best work in all of its complexity
Review and discussion of videotaped lectures
Exchanging ideas in colloquia, workshop

9. TYPE OF ACTIVITIES
AND THE REVIEWS
Instructional support/mentoring for other faculty
Leadership activities -- curriculum development, assessment of
learning outcomes
Scholarship of Teaching -- development of project, funding,
methodologies, publication, conference presentations on teaching
Advising activities -- grad students, undergrad research
Team-teaching and co-teaching feedback

10. SMALL GROUP
INSTRUCTIONAL

11. REASONS FOR
EXPANDING PEER
Making teaching public to all constituents
Teaching as community property of unit
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Professionalism
Teaching awards criteria strengthend
Making expectations explicit for faculty success

12. MORE REASONS
Opportunity for revising/creating explicit standards for evaluation
Faculty motivation enhanced?
Accountability
Improved evaluation process to go beyond FCQs
raise teaching to the level of research by using peer review

13. PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Institutional framework for evaluation in place
Goals and objectives of teaching and learning excellence
Establish criteria and procedures (handout)
Establishing appropriate means for evaluations, with specific
instructions for faculty reviewed
Creating instruments for data gathering: rubrics (handouts)
Training for reviewers

14. RESISTENCE FOR
EXPANDING PR
How can somebody not in my field tell me how to teach?
It’s all about performance. I’m good at what I do, but I don’t
entertain.
We do it already. It works.
More stuff to do? Forgeddaboutit.
We hate each other in my department. I would get trashed.
Just another administrative hoop to jump through.

15. NON- NEGOTIABLE
ASSUMPTIONS
The institution values teaching enough to put resources toward
the process
There are evaluative criteria, standards and methods in place that
are fair, valid and reliable
There are motivating factors for the unit to participate and share
the responsibilities
Reviewers will be trained, committed to the process and their
work supported & valued

16. DEVELOPMENT OF
CRITERIA
Founded on what the unit believes is excellence in teaching --
varies among disciplines and is MOST CHALLENGING PART OF
THE PROCESS
Should be designed like assessments -- linked to goals and
objectives of unit
Start with Categories, then Tasks with specific qualifiers
Content should be treated by peers in field, but products for and
of good teaching can be assessed by non-experts

17. PEER REVIEWERS
Must be prepared with training in appropriate evaluation for the
teaching context (lecture, active learning, clinical)
Must create or be provided with rubrics based upon the
evaluation criteria decided by the unit
Must be protected from reprisal
Should be part of a group with responsibility and relative
autonomy
Can be part of a group whose findings are summarized in a single

18. FACULTY TO BE
REVIEWED
Pro-active self-interest
Regential expectation for mentoring
New areas of scholarship for P/T
Clear expectations allow for self-monitoring
Continuous collecting documention and feedback to demonstrate
development activity

19. GOAL: THE TEACHING
FACULTY WILL HAVE
Objectives: the faculty member will
Have current knowledge of the field (breadth)
Have specific [doctoral level, practical] expertise/experience in
a subfield (depth)
Demonstrate continuous updating of knowledge base through
reading, conference attendance, and supervising graduate
research in field

20. GOAL: THE TEACHING
FACULTY WILL BE AN
Objectives: The faculty will:
Encourage and maintain discussions
Keep the discussion on topic
Promote sharing among learners
Encourage participation and involvement
Encourage awareness of goup process

21. CASE-STUDIES RUBRIC

22. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chism, N. Peer Review of Teaching: a Sourcebook 2nd. Ed. Anker,
2007.
Seldin, P. Changing Practices in Evaluating Teaching. Anker, 1999.
Bernstein, D. Et al. Making Teaching and Learning Visible: Course
Portfolios and the Peer Review of Teaching. Anker, 2006.
Arreola, R. Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation
System. Anker, 2007.