Skip to main content
Teaching and Learning Center

Peer Review of Teaching

Peer Review of Teaching is a valuable practice for growth and reflection. There are two common approaches to the Peer Review of Teaching: 1) a formative, development-focused review of teaching between peers; and 2) the summative review of teaching as part of one’s annual performance evaluation. As a best practice, there should be separate procedures for formative and summative evaluation of teaching, where the “two approaches should dovetail… creating a comprehensive approach” (Chism, 2007, p. 70).

Typical Components of a Peer Review of Teaching

  1. Pre-Conference:
    A meeting between the reviewer and the person receiving the review. During this meeting, the goals, purpose and motivation for the review are discussed. The reviewer and the person receiving the review look through the Teaching Artifacts together and discuss.
  2. Teaching Artifacts:
    Samples from your teaching that you believe will help the reviewer gain a full picture of your teaching practice. Examples include: syllabus with policies, course schedule, reading list, directions and materials for major projects or exams, rubrics, examples of completed work from students (with names omitted), examples of feedback provided to students (with names omitted), screenshots of assignments/activities from your eCampus/SOLE course or other web-based course repository.
  3. Observation:
    The observation of an in-person class session or observation of an online, synchronous class session (live or recorded). In a fully online, asynchronous course, the observation may also be asynchronous and include access to the course within eCampus/SOLE. (Access to the course should exclude access to the Gradebook. The level of access to eCampus/SOLE should be similar to the level of access one would expect to have when observing an in-person class session.)
  4. Compose the Review:
    Using notes and information gathered, thoughtfully compose a review with comments.
  5. Post-Conference and transfer of all review artifacts:
    A meeting between the reviewer and the person receiving the review. At this time, the review materials and review artifacts are transferred to the person receiving the review. (Note: Formative, Development-Focused Reviews should be considered confidential. Do not distribute the results of the formative review you’ve conducted to others.)

Summative Evaluation of Teaching ▼

Formative, Development-Focused Reviews ▼

A faculty member may seek out a Peer Review of Teaching for formative, development-focused purposes as a method of reflection, growth, and continuous improvement. The faculty pair can go about this in a number of ways:

  • Genuine Peers: Non-hierarchal faculty peers
  • Mentor/Mentee: When used as part of teaching mentorship (formal mentoring appointments or informal mentoring)
  • Near Peers: A faculty member whose primary role is teaching and a faculty support staff member who also teaches, but their primary role is supporting teaching at the university (e.g., Educational Developer, Instructional Designer, Librarian)
  • Reciprocal Reviewers: A faculty pair (Genuine Peers, Mentor and Mentee, or Faculty and Near Peer) will review one another’s courses at the same time.

If your small group would like support in giving and receiving a Development-Focused Peer Review of Teaching, please contact Sarah McCorkle.

Ethical Considerations ▼

Those responsible for the Summative Evaluation of Teaching should, ideally, not be involved in the Formative, Development-Focused Peer Review of Teaching.

Confidentiality should be of the utmost importance during a Formative, Development-Focused peer review. Do not discuss, disclose, or share the resulting artifacts from the review without the consent of the other faculty member. (Do not forward another faculty member’s development-focused review to a dean, chair, program head, instructional support staff, etc.)

Avoid conflict of interest. If a conflict of interest should arise, both peers should pause and discuss how to proceed. (For example, a mentor providing a development-focused review was recently appointed to a promotion and tenure committee and will soon be responsible for the Summative Evaluation of Teaching.)

Approach any Peer Review of Teaching – formative or summative – as supportive and growth oriented.

References and Resources

  • Chism, N.V.N. (2007). Peer review of teaching: A sourcebook (2nd ed). Anker Publishing, A Wiley Imprint. ISBN: 978-1-933-37121-4
  • POD Network. (n.d.). Ethical Guidelines for Educational Developers. https://podnetwork.org/about/ethical-guidelines


Would you like to provide input on the continuous improvement of this resource collection? Please contact Sarah McCorkle.