This website stores cookies on your computer. These cookies are used to collect information about how you interact with our website and allow us to remember your browser. We use this information to improve and customize your browsing experience, for analytics and metrics about our visitors both on this website and other media, and for marketing purposes. By using this website, you accept and agree to be bound by UVic’s Terms of Use for web and social media privacy.  If you do not agree to the above, you can configure your browser’s setting to “do not track.”

Skip to main content
People Departments Maps Buildings Rooms A-Z
University
of Victoria
Apply Library
Sign in Online tools Sign out
Learning & Teaching Innovation

Peer review of teaching guide

Peer review of teaching can support reflection, strengthen teaching practice and contribute to student learning. Peer review is also a formal component of tenure and promotion processes established through the University of Victoria Faculty Association Collective Agreement.

Start here

Are you interested in becoming a peer reviewer?

  1. Understand the purpose and types of peer review by reading this page.
  2. Enroll in peer review training (you will get access to an accompanying Brightspace course with resources).
  3. Undertake a formal review – review the relevant Collective Agreement provisions, faculty-specific requirements and your academic unit’s procedures.
  4. Use our template to support the process.
Email us for further assistance

Types of peer review

Peer review may be formative or summative. Although both approaches can follow a similar process, their purposes and uses are different.

Comparison between formative and summative peer review of teaching approaches.
Formative approach Summative approach

Informal and designed to provide feedback that is not evaluative in nature.

The purpose is to:

  • identify areas for improvement
  • offer suggestions, new approaches and advice to enhance practice
  • formats include: formal discussions, draft reviews and feedback on early ideas

Has an evaluative focus and is used for decision making purposes: e.g., for tenure and promotion.

The purpose is to:

  • provide an overall assessment of an instructor
  • include strengths and areas for improvement
  • follow procedures articulated in a faculty's respective academic unit

 

Both types of peer review of teaching can be valuable in improving the quality of instruction and help faculty to grow and develop in their field. 

Principles that inform process

Regardless of the type of review conducted, it is important that peer review of teaching follows the following principles:

  1. Accuracy and credibility – ensuring the evaluation is based on factual evidence and expert knowledge. Consistent implementation of the process, trained reviewers and consideration of all relevant facets of teaching are crucial in producing a comprehensive and reliable assessment.
  2. Integrity – criteria for effective teaching should be established to ensure integrity. This includes the use of multiple reviewers, an arms-length approach, confidentiality and ethical conduct.
  3. Transparency – includes clear policies and procedures and evidence that is well documented.
  4. Pedagogy - effective peer review of teaching also attends to disciplinary context, accessibility, inclusive teaching practices and different ways of knowing and teaching

Planning considerations

As a department, consider how to arrange the peer review process, including any administrative requirements, communication with faculty about the purpose and process of peer review of teaching and how confidentiality will be maintained. If any issues arise, consult with your Chair.

Faculty and instructors preparing for a formal peer review should consult their Chair, Director or academic unit about the applicable process, including how reviewers are selected.

Roles and stages of a summative peer review

There are two main roles:
  • the reviewer (a faculty member assigned to conduct the review)
  • the instructor (a faculty member who is being reviewed) 

There are four main stages in a comprehensive peer review of teaching process.

The reviewer and instructor establish a shared understanding of the review process, including its purpose, scope, timeline and expectations. This stage may also include reviewing relevant course materials and discussing the teaching context.

The reviewer gathers evidence of teaching and learning through an agreed-upon observation activity. Depending on the course context, this may involve reviewing a class session, lab, tutorial, seminar, studio, online learning environment or another teaching activity.

Following the observation, the reviewer and instructor meet to discuss insights, observations and questions that emerged during the review. This conversation supports reflection on teaching practices and student learning.

The review is summarized in accordance with the purpose of the review and any applicable unit requirements. The instructor and reviewer may also identify key takeaways, future goals and opportunities for ongoing development.

Support with peer review of teaching

Email us for peer reviewer training, resources and guidance on the review process. For formal reviews, consult your Chair, Director or academic unit about reviewer selection and applicable requirements.

Further resources

References

  1. Arreola, R. A. (2007). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: A guide to designing, building, and operating large-scale faculty evaluation systems (3rd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
  2. Hubball, H., & Clarke, A. (2011). Scholarly approaches to peer-review of teaching: Emergent frameworks and outcomes in a research-intensive university. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 4(3), 1-32.
  3. Chism, N. (2007). Peer Review of Teaching: A Sourcebook (2nd edition). Bolton, MA; Anker Publishing.
  4. Thomas, S., Chie, QT., Abraham, M, Raj, S., & Beh, LS. (2014). A qualitative review of literature on peer review of teaching in higher education: An application of the SWOT framework. Review of Educational Research 84: 112-159.