Peer Review of Teaching
|This article is a stub. You can help the UBC Community by expanding it.|
For resources on the formative peer review of teaching, please visit the Peer Review of Teaching page by CTLT, UBC.
If you have a favourite resource you would like to have added (article, website or other), please add it here or email email@example.com
|This page is part of the Teaching and Learning Resources Portal|
- Alabi, J., Huisman, R., Lacy, M., Miller, W., Snajdr, E., Trinoskey, J., & William H. Weare, W. H. (2012). By and for Us: The Development of a Program for Peer Review of Teaching by and for Pre-Tenure Librarians. Collaborative Librarianship, 4(4), 165-174.
- Bell, M. & Cooper, P. (2013). Peer observation of teaching in university departments: a framework for implementation. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(1).
- Bernstein, D. J., J. Jonson, & K. L. Smith. (2000). An examination of the implementation of peer review of teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 83(Fall), 73–86.
- Blackmore, J. (2005). A critical evaluation of peer review via teaching observation within higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 19(3), 218-232.
- Braskamp, L. (2000). Towards a more holistic approach to assessing faculty as teachers. New Directions for Institutional Research, 83(Fall), 19-33.
- Cameron, C., & Dickfos, J. (2015). Peer Review of Teaching Law to Business Students in Traditional and Flipped Lecture Environments. In Teaching for Learning and Learning for Teaching (pp. 99-116). SensePublishers.
- Carter, V. (2008). Five steps to becoming a better peer reviewer. College Teaching, 56(2), 85-88.
- Cassidy, A. & Lee, J. (2011). Peer Review: Structured, informal, confidential, helpful. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 4. 68-73.
- Cavanaugh, R. (1996). Formative and summative evaluation in the faculty peer review of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 20(4), 235-240.
- Cosh, J. (1998). Peer observation in higher education – A reflective approach. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 35(2), 171-176.
- Donnelly, R. (2007). Perceived impact of peer observation of teaching in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 117-129.
- Gosling, D. & D’Andrea (2001). Quality development: A new concept for higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 7(1), 9-17.
- Grainger, P., Bridgstock, M., Houston, T., & Drew, S. (2015). Working in triads: A case study of a peer review process. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 12(1), 3.
- Grainger, P., Crimmins, G., Burton, K., & Oprescu, F. (2016). Peer review of teaching (PRoT) in higher education–a practitioner’s reflection. Reflective Practice, 17(5), 523-534.
- Hammersley-Fletcher, L., & Orsmond, P. (2005). Reflecting on reflective practices within peer observation. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 213-224.
- Hammersley-Fletcher, L. & Orsmond, P. (2004) Evaluating our peers: is peer observation a meaningful process? Studies in Higher Education, 29(4), 213-224.
- Handal, G. (1999). Consultation using critical friends. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 79(Fall), 59-70.
- Hendry, G et al. (2014). Learning by Observing a Peer's Teaching Situation. International Journal for Academic Development, 19(4), 318-329.
- Hendry, G., & Oliver, G. (2012). Seeing is Believing: The Benefits of Peer Observation. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 9(1), 11.
- Hitchens, M. (2014). "Chapter 6 Six Questions." Sachs, Judyth, and Mitch Parsell. Peer Review of Higher Education: International Perspectives. Springer, 2014.
- Hutchings, P. (1996). The peer review of teaching: Progress, issues and prospects. Innovative Higher Education, 20(4), 221-234.
- Iqbal, I. (2013). Academics' resistance to summative peer review of teaching: questionable rewards and the importance of student evaluations. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(5), 557-569. .
- Jones, Sarah et al. (2016). Can formative peer review ease the transition for experienced new faculty? "Transformative Dialogues," 9(1), 1-16. Link here.
- Kell, C. & Annetts, S. (2009). Peer review of teaching embedded practice or policy-holding complacency? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(1), 61-70.
- Kelly, J. (2005). Development and Implementation of an External Peer-Review Process. "Journal of Healthcare Management", 50, 137-142.
- Kenny, A et. al. (2014). In Their Shoes: Exploring a Modified Approach to Peer Observation of Teaching in a University Setting. "Innovations in Education and Teaching International", 51(2), 218-229.
- La Lopa, J. M. (2012). A Scholarly Approach to a Peer Review of Teaching. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology, 10(4).
- Lomas, L. & Nicholls, G. (2005). Enhancing teaching quality through peer review of learning and teaching. Quality in Higher Education, 11(2), 137-149.
- MacAlpine, M. (2001). An attempt to evaluate teaching quality: One department’s story. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(6), 563-578.
- MacKinnon, M. M. (2001). Using observational feedback to promote academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 6(1), 21-28.
- Mignon, C., & Langsam, D. (1999). Peer review and post-tenure review. Innovative Higher Education, 24(1), 49-59.
- Nixon, S. (2010). Teaching immediacy: reflections on a peer review of teaching scheme. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(4), 491-502.
- Paulsen, M.B. (2002). Evaluating teaching performance. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2002(114), 5-18.
- Peel, D. (2006). Peer observation as a transformatory tool? Teaching in Higher Education, 10(4), 489-504.
- Pratt, D. (1997). Reconceptualizing the evaluation of teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 34, 23-44.
- Quinlan, K. & Åkerlind, G. (2000). Factors affecting departmental peer collaboration for faculty development: two cases in context. Higher Education, 40, 23-53.
- Sachs J. & Parsell, M. (Eds.). (2014). Peer Review of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: International Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
- Shortland, S. (2004). Peer observation: A tool for staff development or compliance? Journal of further and Higher Education, 28(2), 219-228.
- Swinglehurst, D., Russell, J., & Greenhalgh, T. (2008). Peer observation of teaching in the online environment: An action research approach. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(5), 383-393.
- Swinglehurt, D. (2006). Peer observation of teaching in the online environment: An action research approach. Centre for Distance Education. London: Centre for Distance Education.
- Teoh, S. L., Ming, L.C., & Khan, T. M. (2010). Faculty perceived barriers and attitudes toward peer review of classroom teaching in higher education settings. Sage Open, 6(3), 1-8.
- Toth, K. E., & McKey, C. A. (2010). Differences in faculty development needs: Implications for educational peer review program design. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 40(1), 53-68.
- Toth, K. E., & McKey, C. A. (2010). Identifying the potential organizational impact of an educational peer review program. International Journal for Academic Development, 15(1), 73-83.
- Woodman, R. & Parappilly, M. (2015). The Effectiveness of Peer Review of Teaching when performed between Early-career Academics. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practices, 12(1), 1-14.
Peer review of teaching is informed assessment, by colleagues or peers, of teaching-related activities for the purposes of fostering development and/or making personnel decisions. There are two main types of peer review: formative and summative. Both formative and summative are integral to a comprehensive evaluation of teaching.
Summative peer review of teaching is informed collegial judgment about teaching intended for evaluative purposes. Summative peer review is used to aid in making personnel decision, such as hiring, promotion, and tenure. The primary goal is to assess instructor performance relative to criteria. The information is for public inspection (I.e., by the department head or dean, and by tenure and reappointment committees) and may be more comparative in nature than formative peer review (Cassidy & Lee, 2011; Chism, 2007; Cavanagh, 1996).
The primary goal of formative peer review of teaching is to develop and enhance teaching practice. Formative peer review provides instructors with information they can use to grow professionally in their teaching. The information is confidential, constructive, and intended for an instructor's personal use. The process is usually rich in detail, ongoing, and fosters self-reflection and insights into teaching (Byrne, Brown & Challen, 2010; Chism, 2007; Gosling, 2014).
Byrne, J., Brown, H., & Challen, D. (2010). Peer development as an alternative to peer observation: A tool to enhance professional development. International Journal for Academic Development, 15(3), 215-228.
Cassidy, A. & Lee, J. (2011). Peer Review: Structured, informal, confidential, helpful. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 4. 68-73.
Cavanaugh, R. (1996). Formative and summative evaluation in the faculty peer review of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 20(4), 235-240.
Chism, N.V. (2007). Peer review of teaching: A sourcebook (2nd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker Publications.
Gosling, D. (2014). Collaborative peer-supported review of teaching. In J. Sachs & M. Parsell (Eds.), Peer Review of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. New York, NY: Springer. Professional Learning and Development in Schools and Higher Education, 9, 13-31.
- Assessing your teaching effectiveness (BCIT)
- Guidelines for peer review of teaching (Cornell University)
- How to do peer review (Macquarie University) - A comprehensive guide including print and video resources.
Help Develop This Resource
Help develop this resource! You only need to login with your CWL to edit this page.
Let us know if you found this resource helpful by filling out this short feedback form.Documentation:CTLT Resources/Peer Review of Teaching Other Resources