Graduate Peer Review of Teaching

Peer Review of Teaching Program

What is it?

The Graduate Peer Review of Teaching Program (GPRT) coordinated by the Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology offers you the chance to participate in a cross-faculty formative peer review of teaching process. The formative program described below is open to all graduate students who teaches at UBC.

How does it work?

As a reviewee, you will select and meet with up to two volunteer peer reviewers. The reviewers are experienced in the peer review of teaching at UBC and have completed at least one workshop offered by CTLT on becoming a peer reviewer. The reviewers will learn about your teaching, observe your class, and give you formative feedback.

How will I benefit?

The Peer Review Program aims to encourage dialogue about teaching amongst graduate students at UBC. By talking with your reviewers, you will likely gain new insight into your teaching and information about different teaching strategies or ideas. You will receive written feedback that you may choose to use as evidence in your teaching portfolio, and in future course and lesson planning.

How it works

The peer review process is generally organized around a structured classroom observation. A peer reviewer will observe a participating educator (reviewee) teach a class and provide the reviewee with formative feedback based on what she or he observed during the class.

Process

Anyone interested in participating in the peer review of teaching may contact an individual reviewer listed on our website. Details of the peer review process will be worked out between the reviewer and the reviewee. For example, you will discuss “what” you want to have peer reviewed (i.e. Will it be a class observation? Would you like someone to look at some of your teaching documents, such as assignments or syllabi? Do you want feedback on the way you provide feedback to your students? etc.).

The following describes what happens before, during and after the classroom observation:

Part 1: Before the classroom observation

• The reviewee decides which course will be observed and prepares a list of classes the reviewer can choose from in scheduling an observation.
• Before the classroom observation, the reviewee should plan and prepare for the class as s/he normally would. In addition, the reviewee must also prepare to brief the peer reviewer about the course and the class they will observe. A list of pre-observation questions (PDF) (Word Document) is available to help the reviewee prepare to meet with his/her peer reviewer.
• Approximately one week before the classroom observation, the peer reviewers and reviewee meet to set goals for the peer review process and to discuss the course, the reviewee’s development goals, and his/her plans for the class to be observed.

Part 2: Classroom Observation

• The reviewee teaches his/her class while the peer reviewer observes the session. The peer reviewers’ observation may be guided by a set of classroom observation questions (PDF)(Word Document) and any goals set at the pre-observation meeting.

Part 3: After the classroom observation

• The peer reviewers will prepare a written report (PDF) (Word Document) based on the observation and the reviewee’s particular goals.
• Approximately one week after the classroom observation, the reviewee and peer reviewer will meet to discuss the classroom observation and the peer reviewer’s reports. See here for post observation discussion questions (PDF) (Word Document)
• Following the meeting the peer reviewer may revise his/her reports and send it to the reviewee. The reviewee may then choose to use the reports to guide future curriculum or professional development or, in some cases, as evidence in a teaching portfolio, tenure and promotion request.

Part 4: Feedback to reviewers

• Reviewees fill out the following electronic feedback form to reviewers

For more information, see here for a process checklist for peer review of teaching (PDF) (Word Document).

Reviewers

All peer reviewers have completed the Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology workshop: "Developing Your Skills as a Peer Reviewer: Introductory Workshop" and have completed an Isntructional Skills Workshop (ISW).

For a full description of the formative peer review process, please read the Peer Review Process section of our website.

When you email a reviewer for a request, please indicate:

• The type of peer review you would like (classroom observation, review of assignments or syllabi or other material, PBL review, other)
• A brief statement of your goal for peer review
• A time range within which you are hoping to be peer reviewed
• Your contact information

List of peer reviewers

• Katie Faulkner (PhD student, Department of Mathematics)

• Kieran Forde (PhD Candidate, Faculty of Education: Department of Curriculum & Pedagogy)

• Natalie Westwood (PhD Candidate, Zoology)

Additional information on reviewers:

• Katie Faulkner, PhD student, Department of Mathematics.

I am currently a PhD Student in the Department of Mathematics, studying mathematical biology. As a mathematical biologist, my academic career has taken me through all areas of STEM and beyond, giving me an appreciation for the similarities and unique quirks of teaching in various subject areas. I enjoy sharing my passion for math and science with others through teaching and discussing with students at all levels, whether it’s for outreach or in a course at UBC. I am also a graduate facilitator at the Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology, where I have the opportunity to help graduate students improve their teaching techniques and discover their own teaching style. As a peer reviewer, I look forward to learning from you and working with you to reflect upon and improve your teaching. I hope that I can bring a new and unique perspective to discussion of your teaching and help you to think outside of the box while we tackle your personal goals and challenges.

Email: kfaulkner@math.ubc.ca; please write “GPRT” in the subject line.

• Kieran Forde, PhD Candidate, Faculty of Education: Department of Curriculum & Pedagogy.

My experience includes teaching English as a Foreign Language (Poland, China), Academic English courses from a Canadian community college curriculum and bridging courses for Chinese students transitioning to graduate studies in the United States (China), and working as a Teaching Assistant at UBC in the Bachelor of Education program. Since 2017, I have been part of the Centre for Teaching, Learning, and Technology’s (CTLT’s) Graduate Facilitator Team, where I facilitate the Graduate Instructional Skills Workshop.

My formal education includes a BA in English and Archaeology, an MA in English Language Teaching, and an MEd in Media and Technology Studies Education. My PhD program is in Curriculum Studies where my focus is on the challenges of the persistence of digital memory and the right to be forgotten.

As a peer reviewer, I appreciate the chance to learn from reviewees and to offer my own experience and perspectives so that we can, together, focus on and develop our teaching and learning.

Email: kieran.forde@ubc.ca; please write “GPRT" in the subject line.

• Natalie Westwood, PhD Candidate, Zoology

My work surrounding my PhD focuses on Community Ecology in aquatic invertebrates along with a Public Scholars project that examines how TAs value their experiences in biology classes. My previous education includes a MSc from Université du Québec à Montréal in Biology as well as an Hon. BSc in Biology from Western University. Throughout my education I have had many opportunities to present my work at local, national, and international conferences. I have also shared my work with a diverse range of audiences, from other colleagues to the larger public, including children and teens. In addition to having been a TA in a number of biology course, I have worked as a Graduate Facilitator and as the CIRTL Program Developer at CTLT. Here I have helped to develop and facilitate workshops to support fellow graduate students in teaching and presentation skills. I have had the opportunity to work and adapt topics to a wide range of fields including Engineering, Art History, and Philosophy. I believe it centering the experience around the people I am working with and adjusting existing programming to their unique situation. I always aim to create a supportive environment where those around me feel free to experiment and honestly reflect on their experiences. As a peer reviewer of teaching, I am able to support you during any part of the process. My goal is to not only provide you my feedback but to allow you to reflect yourself on how the experience went in order to give you new tools to continue this review process after our work. Please also include information on the topic of the lesson, the date, and your teaching, reviewing and ISW experiences.

Email: westwood@zoology.ubc.ca; please write “GPRT" in the subject line.

Alumni Reviewers

• Jeff Bale (PhD, Physics and Astronomy) - 2027-2020

• Genevieve Breau (PhD, Interdisciplinary Oncology, Faculty of Medicine)

• Laura Bulk (PhD, Rehabilitation Sciences) - 2019-2023

• Tim Came (Graduate Student Facilitator - Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology) - 2007-2016

• Deb Chen (PhD, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine) - 2016-2019

• Matt Coles (PhD, Department of Mathematics)

• Sai Diwan (PhD, Asian Studies) 2019-2023

• Madeline Doering (MSc, Department of Mathematics)

• Oralia Gómez-Ramírez (PhD, Anthropology)

• Mabel Ho (PhD, Department of Sociology)

• Dhaneesh Kumar (BSc., Dept. of Physics & Astronomy)

• Sophie MacDonald (PhD, Department of Mathematics)

• Stephen Mattucci (PhD, Biomedical Engineering) - 2014-2018

• Julie McNutt (PhD, Department of Chemistry) - 2021-2023

• Annie Montague (MA, Department of Educational Studies)

• Tiera Naber (MSc, Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences) - 2022-2023

• Natasha Pestonji-Dixon (PhD, Department of Psychology)

• Philippe Sabella Garnier (PhD Candidate, Dept. of Physics)

• Emily Scribner (PhD, Earth, Ocean & Atmospheric Sciences)

• Rachel Soo (PhD, Linguistics Department) - 2021-2023

• Laura Super (PhD, Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences)

• Paisly Symenuk (MSN/MPH, School of Nursing and School of Population and Public Health)

• Grace Truong (PhD, Dept. of Psychology)

• Jens Vent-Schmidt (PhD, Experimental Medicine)

• Roselynn Verwoord (PhD, Faculty of Education)

• Cole Zmurchok (PhD, Mathematics Department) - 2017-2018

FAQs

Frequently asked questions about the Peer Review of Teaching Program

DEFINITIONS

Peer review of teaching

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

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).

Formative peer review

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).

References

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.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FORMATIVE PEER REVIEW PROGRAM

• What is the purpose of peer review of teaching?
• What is the difference between a formative and summative peer review?
• What is the benefit of having more than one person review my teaching?
• What is the benefit of selecting a reviewer from outside the faculty?
• What is the advantage of participating in this program, if there is already a departmental peer review of teaching process?
• Is this peer review summative or formative?
• Do academic rank or job classification matter in the process?
• How is confidentiality handled in the formative peer review of teaching program?
• I teach a PBL class. May I participate in the program?
• What will be done with the information about my teaching generated during the peer review?
• What control do reviewees have over and during the process?
• Who will review my teaching?
• What training do the peer reviewers receive?
• When should peer reviews take place?
• How will reviewees receive feedback?
• What is formative feedback?
• How much time will the process take?
• What form will the reviewers' reports take?

What is the purpose of the peer review of teaching?

Within the context of higher education, the peer review of teaching has two broad purposes: 1. to assist instructors enhance their teaching, and 2. to assess an instructor’s teaching as part of a formal reward system linked to the individual’s career advancement (i.e. tenure, promotion and other personnel decisions).

What is the difference between a formative and a summative peer review?

In the formative peer review of teaching process, colleagues generate information for you about your classroom teaching that you can use to improve your teaching and your students′ learning. You control the process and how the resulting information is used. For example, in the formative process, you would select the person who conducts the observation and would then decide whether the written comments—if there are any—would be kept confidential or added to your personnel file. In a summative peer review, colleagues observe you teach and report back to the department head or dean for the purpose of reappointment, promotion or tenure.

What is the benefit of having more than one person review my teaching?

Two reviewers will give you two different perspectives on your teaching. Because teaching is such a complex activity, the reviewers may focus on different aspects of your teaching and the students′ learning. Having two reviewers may give you more reliable information about your teaching.

What is the benefit of selecting a reviewer from outside the faculty?

Because they are unfamiliar with the discipline and learning environment, external reviewers are like new students encountering your class for the first time. They will be able to give you an outsider’s perspective on your class. External reviewers can provide feedback on aspects of teaching like how you structure learning activities, facilitate discussions, and communicate with students. They also will be able to share teaching ideas and strategies used in their discipline.

What is the advantage of participating in this program, if there is already a departmental peer review of teaching process?

Too often, institutional boundaries prevent colleagues interested in teaching from having sincere conversations about common educational issues and challenges. The program seeks to foster cross-faculty discussions about teaching and seeks to address the concept of advancing knowledge and understanding within and across disciplines outlined in Place and Promise: The UBC Plan.

Is this peer review summative or formative?

This program is intended to be formative. However, if you think your department would value knowing about your progress over time, then you may consider including the reviewers′ reports in your teaching portfolio, tenure and promotion request, or in your annual review.

Do academic rank or job classification matter in the process?

Professorial rank and job classification are disregarded in the program. All educators are invited to participate and learn from one another.

How is confidentiality handled in the formative peer review of teaching program?

The only people involved in the discussions will be the reviewee and the reviewers. The process is confidential, unless you decide to include reflections or documentation about the process to your teaching portfolio or personnel file.

I teach a PBL class. May I participate in the program?

Yes, because the peer review process is designed for various forms of teaching and learning.

What will be done with the information about my teaching generated during the peer review?

Reviewees receive written reports from their reviewer(s). Reviewees decide how they will use the information contained in the reports and with whom they will share the information. The aim of the program is to generate useful feedback that a reviewee may be able to use to develop and/or revise aspects of his/her teaching, to incorporate into a teaching portfolio or to bolster an argument for tenure and promotion.

What control do reviewees have over and during the process?

Each reviewee selects the peer reviewer with whom they will work, decides which class the reviewer will attend, sets the objectives and focus for the classroom observation, and decides what to do with the feedback they receive from the reviewers.

Who will review my teaching?

The list of reviewers is available on a section of this website. You will choose a reviewer among the people listed.

What training do the peer reviewers receive?

All peer reviewers complete an intensive training course run by CTLT which teaches them how to conduct peer reviews and to observe classroom teaching. All of the reviewers have also completed an Instructional Skills Workshop.

When should peer reviews take place?

The peer review can happen any time deemed suitable for you and your reviewer. Each reviewee may decide when to schedule the classroom observations. Scheduling them earlier or towards the middle of the term will give you timely and relevant feedback that may be useful in the later stages of your course. Also keep in mind that reviewers will be busy towards the end of semester with their own teaching.

How will reviewees receive feedback?

Reviewees will receive verbal and written feedback. Reviewees will meet with their reviewers after the classroom observation and engage in a friendly, collegial dialogue about the class that the reviewer observed. The reviewers will also summarize their feedback and suggestions in a written report.

What is formative feedback?

Formative feedback is information that is intended to support an educator′s growth towards becoming a better teacher. The feedback aims to be non-evaluative and is not intended to be a snapshot or final judgement of an educator′s fitness or competence. Rather the goal is to provide information that can help you reflect on your teaching and plan changes for the future. Formative peer review aims to help you better understand how you approach the task of university teaching, and who you are as a teacher.

How much time will the process take?

The process will take approximately three to five hours to complete.

What form will the reviewers′ reports take?

The report consists of the following materials:

1. Notes from the pre-observation meeting. This may include notes taken by the reviewer during the meeting, a summary that the reviewer writes after the meeting, emailed or written answers that the reviewee wrote (if they wish to submit them to the report), or similar kind of notes.
2. Notes that the reviewer takes during the classroom observation, or a summary they write immediately after. It may take the form of prose, a chart or other similar kinds of notes.
3. Notes taken during the post-observation meeting. This may include notes or a summary that the reviewer may take during the conversation and notes that summarize the conversation between the reviewer and the reviewee.

These notes/summaries make up the report, which is shared with the reviewee during the post-observation meeting and left with them at the end of the meeting.

Workshop

Developing Your Skills as a Peer Reviewer of Teaching: Introductory Workshop

Description: The peer review of teaching process introduced in this experiential workshop is intended primarily as a form of formative (and developmental) feedback.

By the end of this workshop participants will be able to:

• Describe the peer review of teaching process
• Provide constructive feedback for the person being reviewed
• Conduct appropriate Pre- and Post-observation interviews
• Respond to various peer review of teaching situations
• Write a relevant and concise report to be discussed in the post-observation meeting

This workshop is open to all graduate students who teach at UBC.