What Is Peer Review?

Peer review in teaching extends beyond classroom observations, encompassing a broad assessment of an instructor’s teaching portfolio. This portfolio may include:

• Curricula vitae
• Student evaluations
• Self-reflective statements
• Peer observation reports
• Syllabi, assignments, and student work
• Letters from former students or alumni

Peer review generally takes two forms:

• Formative Evaluation: Focused on instructional development, formative reviews provide constructive feedback in a collegial and low-stakes environment. At ETSU, the Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE) has a formative teaching evaluation service you can learn more about by seeing “Teaching and Learning Consultations” on the CTE website.
• Summative Evaluation: Used for personnel decisions such as promotion, tenure, or reappointment, summative reviews assess whether teaching meets departmental or institutional standards.

Maintaining a clear distinction between formative and summative evaluations is essential. Transparency in the purpose and process of peer review helps ensure fairness and supports both individual growth and institutional accountability.

Why Peer Review?

1. Elevating Teaching to the Level of Research
   Just as peer review in research fosters scholarly rigor, peer review in teaching encourages faculty to engage with teaching as a scholarly practice. It promotes deliberate reflection on teaching goals, methods, and outcomes.
2. Building a Community of Practice
   Teaching is often an isolating endeavor. Peer review provides opportunities for instructors to engage with colleagues, share innovative practices, and develop a collective commitment to excellence in teaching.
3. Balancing Student Evaluations
   While student evaluations are valuable, they can be influenced by factors unrelated to teaching quality, including bias against instructors based on gender, race, or other characteristics. Peer review offers a complementary perspective that grounds teaching assessments in disciplinary expertise.
4. Encouraging Innovation and Rigor
   An overreliance on student evaluations can lead instructors to adopt a consumer-oriented approach to teaching, potentially compromising academic rigor. Peer review supports experimentation and high standards by evaluating teaching through a broader, more holistic lens.
5. Promoting Faculty Development
   Formative peer review offers faculty constructive feedback, encouraging self-reflection and professional growth. Research shows that peer review can improve teaching practices, increase the use of active learning, and enhance the quality of feedback given to students.

Key Elements of Peer Review

1. Selection of Peer Reviewers
   Effective peer review begins with the thoughtful selection of reviewers. Key criteria include:
   • Institutional Knowledge: Reviewers should understand departmental and institutional teaching goals.
   • Integrity: Reviewers must approach the process with fairness, respect, and a commitment to confidentiality.
   • Trust and Mentorship: Reviewers should foster a supportive environment and provide constructive, actionable feedback.
2. Evaluation Framework
   A robust peer review process typically involves:
   • Departmental Standards: Clear criteria for teaching excellence, aligned with institutional goals.
   • Preliminary Interview: Conversations with the instructor to understand their teaching context, goals, and challenges.
   • Classroom Observations: Multiple observations to gather reliable data on teaching practices.
   • Review of Student Work: Assessing assignments and exams to evaluate learning outcomes.
   • Self-Reflection: Instructors’ own evaluations of their teaching, goals, and challenges.
3. Feedback and Reporting
   The peer review process culminates in a detailed report that:
   • Summarizes observations and findings.
   • Highlights strengths and identifies areas for improvement.
   • Provides actionable recommendations for instructional development.
4. Integration with Other Measures
   Peer review works best as part of a multifaceted evaluation system, alongside student evaluations, learning outcomes, and self-assessments.

Core Dimensions of Evaluation

In many institutions, assessing teaching practices often involves inventories combined with assumptions about what promotes effective student learning. Peer reviewers and administrators must be intentional and reflective about what they consider effective teaching, ensuring that the observation process is guided by clear, evidence-based standards. This prevents the evaluation from relying on unexamined pedagogical assumptions or introducing biases.

Below is an updated and representative list of teaching practices to consider during evaluations, aligned with the broader themes of this guide.

Content Knowledge

• Selection of Relevant Content: Ensures material is worth knowing, aligns with course objectives, and is appropriate for the level of the course.
• Context and Background: Provides sufficient context and foundational knowledge to support student understanding.
• Mastery and Expertise: Demonstrates depth of understanding and the ability to connect material to broader disciplinary or real-world contexts.
• Inclusion of Diverse Perspectives: Cites relevant scholarship and presents divergent or underrepresented viewpoints.

Class Organization

• Clear Learning Goals: Outlines learning outcomes for each class session and their connection to course objectives.
• Logical Structure: Maintains a logical sequence in lessons, relating material to prior and future classes.
• Pacing: Adjusts delivery speed to accommodate student understanding while covering necessary material.
• Clarity and Summary: Concludes sessions with a synthesis of key points to solidify learning.

Methods of Engagement

Varied teaching methods enrich the learning experience and cater to diverse learning styles. These might include:

• Collaborative activities like group discussions, jigsaws, and debates.
• Reflective practices such as learning logs, minute papers, or muddiest point exercises.
• Interactive strategies like role-plays, think-aloud problem-solving, and concept mapping.
• Project-based or experiential methods, including field trips, community-engaged learning (CEL), and poster sessions.
• Digital tools, such as social annotation platforms or AI-based brainstorming aids, to promote interaction and critical analysis.

Presentation Skills

• Clear Communication: Uses varied intonation, strong voice projection, and clear explanations.
• Effective Use of Examples: Provides relevant and varied illustrations of complex concepts.
• Engagement and Humor: Incorporates humor or stories appropriately to maintain interest.
• Responsiveness: Adjusts explanations based on student feedback and questions in real time.

Teacher-Student Interactions

• Inclusive Practices: Uses student names and encourages questions to build rapport.
• Dynamic Questioning: Poses open-ended and scaffolded questions to stimulate critical thinking.
• Equity Awareness: Addresses the needs of all students, including first-generation and underserved learners.
• Emotional Intelligence: Demonstrates sensitivity to student interests, anxieties, and well-being.

Instructional Materials

• Alignment with Goals: Ensures materials support course outcomes and are challenging yet accessible.
• Inclusivity: Reflects diverse voices, perspectives, and formats in materials.
• Effective Design: Uses well-organized handouts, slides, or audio/visual aids to enhance understanding.

Student Engagement

• Active Participation: Encourages students to interact with the material, each other, and the instructor.
• Student-Generated Content: Involves students in creating or critiquing material, fostering ownership of their learning.
• Critical Thinking: Guides students to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information.

Assessment Practices

In-Class Formative Assessment

• Quick Assessments: Use techniques like background knowledge probes or muddiest point exercises to gauge understanding.
• Ungraded Writing: Incorporate short, low-stakes writing assignments such as reflective journals or summaries.
• Discussions: Facilitate dialogue that connects student ideas to course concepts.

Out-of-Class Summative Assessment

• Projects and Papers: Design assignments that demonstrate applied knowledge and synthesis of concepts.
• Examinations: Ensure tests are aligned with learning goals and require higher-order thinking.
• Peer and Self-Assessments: Engage students in evaluating their own or peers’ work to deepen metacognitive skills.

Aligning Evaluation Practices with Course Objectives

When assessing teaching, reviewers should ensure alignment between observed practices and stated course objectives. Transparency in expectations and mutual understanding between reviewers and instructors strengthen the peer review process.

Using a combination of these dimensions to evaluate teaching not only ensures a fair and comprehensive process but also fosters a culture of continuous improvement and innovation in teaching practices.

Challenges and Limitations

1. Bias
   Personal relationships, disciplinary differences, and power dynamics can introduce bias into the peer review process. Clear standards, training, and transparency can mitigate these risks.
2. Time and Effort
   Peer review requires significant time for preparation, observation, and reporting. Streamlining processes—such as using structured observation forms or focusing on specific teaching elements—can make peer review more manageable.
3. Collegial Tensions
   When poorly implemented, peer review can strain relationships among faculty. Establishing a culture of trust and professionalism is essential for successful reviews.

Concluding Thoughts

Peer review of teaching is a powerful tool for enhancing instructional quality, fostering professional growth, and building academic communities. While it requires time and effort, its benefits far outweigh the challenges. When implemented thoughtfully, peer review strengthens teaching practices, supports faculty development, and elevates the role of teaching in higher education. By integrating peer review into a comprehensive system of teaching evaluation, institutions can ensure more fair, rigorous, and meaningful assessments of instructional effectiveness.

Bibliography

• Bernstein, Daniel J. 2008. “Peer Review and Evaluation of the Intellectual Work of Teaching.” Change. March/April.
• Bernstein, Daniel J., Jessica Jonson, and Karen Smith. 2000. “An Examination of the Implementation of Peer Review of Teaching.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 83: 73-86
• Bernstein, Daniel., A.N. Burnett, A. Goodburn and P Savory. 2006. Making Teaching and Learning Visible: Course Portfolios and the Peer Review of Teaching. Anker.
• Center for Teaching Effectiveness. “Preparing for Peer Observation: A Guidebook.” University of Texas, Austin.
• Chism, Nancy V. 2007. Peer Review of Teaching: A Sourcebook. 2nd Edition. Anker.
• Glassick, C. M. T. Huber, and G. Maeroff. 1997. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. Jossey-Bass.
• Hutchings, Pat. 1995. From Idea to Prototype: The Peer Review of Teaching. Stylus
• Hutchings, Pat. 1996. “The Peer Collaboration and Review of Teaching.” ACLS Occasional Paper No 33.
• Hutchings, Pat. 1996. Making Teaching Community Property: A Menu for Peer Collaboration and Peer Review. Stylus
• Hutchings, Pat. 1998. The Course Portfolio. Stylus
• Perlman, Baron and Lee I. McCann. 1998. “Peer Review of Teaching: An Overview.” Office of Teaching Resources in Psychology and Department of Psychology, Georgia Southern University.
• Seldin, P. 1997. The Teaching Portfolio. 2nd Edition. Anker.
• Seldin, P. 1999. Changing Practices in Evaluating Teaching: A Practical Guide to Improved Faculty Performance and Promotion/Tenure Decisions. Jossey-Bass.
• Shulman, Lee S. 2004. Teaching as Community Property: Essays on Higher Education. Jossey-Bass.