This page imagines four departments, each of which makes different choices about their peer review policies (for example, by differently defining who a peer is, by establishing peer review committees, by electing to adopt TEP’s peer review template or selecting a published, validated instrument, etc.). For the first two of these examples, the guide fully imagines units’ responses to the Office of the Provost’s Peer Review of Teaching Policy template and provides supporting documents.
As you read the examples, you might also consider whether and how they address some of the challenges with peer review identified by members of the Provost's Teaching Academy and if the solutions they proposed might work with or improve the policies. To see the ideas, visit the page on Improving peer review of teaching: Challenges and possible solutions.
Key decisions in developing a policy
Substance of reviews
- What teaching practices are peer reviewers seeking evidence for related to or beyond Professional, Inclusive, Engaged, and Research-Informed (PIERs)?
- Which observation instrument to use? Which report form?
- Are adaptations to the instrument needed?
- Scope: What does a reviewer actually review?
Personnel
- Management: Who keeps track of administrative details?
- Who serves as reviewers?
- Is there a Peer Review Committee that does all the reviews?
- Are there restrictions on the relative ranks of reviewer/reviewee?
- Within unit or beyond?
- Reviewer assignment: Who chooses the reviewer?
Example 1: A Basic Policy
The Department of Y’s reviews address the professional, inclusive, engaged, and research-informed aspects of teaching defined by the University and do not add any discipline-specific criteria. They use TEP’s Peer Review Template without modification, and gather the information required to fill it out from an Instructor Questions form, by reviewing the course syllabus and LMS site, and by performing a class observation. There is no special Peer Review committee; any faculty member of equivalent or higher rank than the reviewee can perform the review, though the unit has decided that junior faculty should not perform reviews. A non-faculty administrative professional in the department, the Peer Review Manager, keeps track of the review schedule and archives review reports.
- Answers to the key questions
-
Substance of reviews
- Criteria: Professional, Inclusive, Engaged, and Research-Informed criteria with no additions.
- Instrument/report: TEP’s Peer Review Template
- Adaptations: None
- Scope: Instructor questions, syllabus, LMS site, class observation.
Personnel
- Management: Administrative professional with title, Peer Review Manager
- Who serves as reviewers?
- Peer Review Committee: No
- Relative ranks: Reviewer holds equivalent or higher rank. Junior faculty do not serve as reviewers.
- Inter-unit cooperation: No
- Reviewer assignment: Peer Review Manager
- Basic example: Detailed policy documents
-
Peer Review of Teaching Policy - Basic example
Supporting Materials:
- TEP Peer Review - Instructor Questions
- TEP Peer Review Template (version with checkable boxes, accessible version)
Example 2: Focus on Inclusive Teaching
The Department of X defined a student achievement goal that includes increasing the equity index in their courses, so they are putting special emphasis on Inclusive teaching in their peer reviews. Accordingly, they decided to use the published, validated Protocol for Advancing Inclusive Teaching Efforts (PAITE) in their observations. The instrument requires some practice to use, so the “peers” conducting the reviews will be members of a Peer Review committee (which counts toward the faculty member’s service) whose membership is drawn from within the department. The department has decided that committee members must be mid- or senior-level faculty (already promoted), but no special relationship is required between the ranks of the reviewer and reviewee. Thus, all faculty may benefit from, for example, career faculty members’ extensive teaching experience and expertise.
- Answers to the key questions
-
Substance of reviews
- Criteria: Professional, Inclusive, Engaged, and Research-Informed criteria; special focus on inclusive teaching.
- Instrument/report: PAITE / Department-developed report form
- Adaptations: Add instruction to note professional, inclusive, and research-informed practices during observation.
- Scope: Instructor questions, UO Teaching Practices Inventory, syllabus, LMS site, class observation.
Personnel
- Management: Chair of Peer Review Committee
- Who serves as reviewers?
- Peer Review Committee: Yes; no junior faculty
- Relative ranks: No restrictions
- Inter-unit cooperation: No
- Reviewer assignment: Peer Review Committee
- Inclusive focus example: Detailed policy documents
-
Peer Review of Teaching Policy - Inclusive focus
Supporting materials:
Example 3: Special Disciplinary Criteria
The Math department* has some special disciplinary teaching moves to include in a peer review, for example how an instructor incorporates model development into their teaching. They have decided to use a discipline-specific observation instrument, the Mathematics Classroom Observation Protocol for Practices (MCOP2), to help them look for those practices. They will also look for PIERs during the observation, in course materials, the LMS site, and in pre- and post-observation questions. Because the review has discipline-specific criteria, reviewers must be drawn from within the department and will be members of a Peer Review committee. Serving on the committee will count toward the faculty member’s service. The department has decided that committee members must have had at least one promotion, and that reviewers should hold equivalent or higher rank than the reviewees.
*Note that this is NOT the UO Math Department’s actual policy. It is just an example.
- Answers to the key questions
-
Substance of reviews
- Criteria: PIERs + disciplinary teaching moves
- Instrument/report: MCOP2 / TEP Peer Review Template
- Adaptations: Modify Peer Review Template to include disciplinary moves
- Scope: Observation, course materials, Instructor Questions, CWSEI Teaching Practices Inventory, and LMS site.
Personnel
- Management: Administrative professional with title "Peer Review Manager"
- Who serves as reviewers?
- Peer Review Committee: No
- Relative ranks: Reviewer holds equivalent or higher rank. Junior faculty do not serve as reviewers.
- Inter-unit cooperation: No
- Reviewer assignment: Peer Review Manager
Example 4: Departments Working Together
A trio of language departments in the same Academic Support Unit (ASU) work together to do peer reviews. They have some language-teaching-specific criteria they’re looking for, and modify TEP’s Peer Review template to include them. Evidence about teaching is gathered from a pre-observation meeting, a class observation and the course’s LMS site. Once a draft report is complete, the reviewer/reviewee pair meets to discuss the review, identify one or two areas to work on, and finalize the report. An administrative professional from the ASU notifies reviewees of the need for a review and archives completed reviews. The reviewee chooses the reviewer, who must be a faculty member from one of the partner departments. Reviewers must have been promoted at least once, but may hold lower rank than the reviewee (e.g. a Senior Instructor I could review a full Professor. Reviewing others counts toward engaged teaching in the reviewer’s own teaching evaluation.
- Answers to the key questions
-
Substance of reviews
- Criteria: PIERs + language-teaching-specific criteria the departments have in common.
- Instrument/report: TEP Peer Review Template
- Adaptations: Add sections about language-teaching-specific practices.
- Scope: Pre-observation meeting, a class observation and the course’s LMS site
Personnel
- Management: Administrative professional from the ASU
- Who serves as reviewers?
- Peer Review Committee: No
- Relative ranks: No restrictions. Junior faculty do not serve as reviewers.
- Inter-unit cooperation: Yes
- Reviewer assignment: Reviewee chooses a member of a partner department who holds mid- or senior-level rank.