Frequently asked questions about the Peer Review of Teaching (PRT) and the PRT Program at CTLT. Please see below the definitions.

Definitions

Peer review of teaching

Peer review of teaching (PRT) involves colleagues reviewing teaching practices, course materials, and related activities with the goal of enhancing teaching and learning. PRT can be formative, fostering reflection and professional development, or summative, informing decisions such as promotion, tenure, or merit. Both are essential components of a holistic approach to evaluating teaching (Zeng, 2020).

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 (Godbout-Kinney & Watson, 2022).

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 (Gosling, 2014; Hendry & Oliver, 2012).

References

Godbout-Kinney, K., & Watson, G. P. (2022). Institutional approaches to evaluate teaching effectiveness: The role of summative peer review of teaching for promotion and tenure. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, (201), 2-14.

Hendry, G. D., & Oliver, G. R. (2012). Seeing is believing: The benefits of peer observation. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 9(1), 1-11.

Zeng, L. M. (2020). Peer review of teaching in higher education: A systematic review of its impact on the professional development of university teachers from the teaching expertise perspective. Educational Research Review, 31, 100333.

Frequently asked questions about the Formative Peer Review Program

• What is the purpose of the peer review of teaching?
• What is the difference between a formative and a 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 my faculty?
• What is the advantage of participating in the CTLT formative PRT program, if we already have a departmental peer review of teaching process?
• Is the CTLT formative PRT program summative or formative?
• Do academic rank or job classification matter in formative PRT?
• How is confidentiality handled in the CTLT formative PRT program?
• I don’t teach in a “typical” classroom setting. May I participate in the program?
• How do reviewees shape the formative PRT process?
• Who will review my teaching?
• What training do the peer reviewers (in the CTLT formative PRT program) receive?
• When should peer reviews take place?
• How will reviewees receive feedback?
• What is formative feedback?
• What is implicit bias and what does it have to do with peer review of teaching?
• How much time will the process take?
• Will I get written feedback from my reviewer?

What is the purpose of the peer review of teaching?

Within higher education, the peer review of teaching has two broad purposes: 1. to assist instructors in enhancing 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 my Faculty?

Because they are unfamiliar with your discipline and learning environment, external reviewers (those from outside your department or Faculty) experience your class much like new students encountering it for the first time. This fresh perspective allows them to offer feedback on how you structure learning activities, facilitate discussions, and communicate with students. They can also share teaching strategies and ideas from their own disciplines that may inspire new approaches in your course.

What is the advantage of participating in the CTLT formative PRT program, if we already have 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 CTLT formative PRT program seeks to foster cross-faculty discussions about teaching and learning.

Is the CTLT formative PRT program summative or formative?

This reviews conducted as part of the CTLT formative PRT program are 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. If you wish to include the reviewer’s report, you need to ask their permission.

Do academic rank or job classification matter in formative PRT?

All educators are invited to participate and learn from one another. In this program, reviewers may be at the same or different rank from the reviewee.

How is confidentiality handled in the CTLT formative PRT program?

The only people involved in the discussions will be the reviewee and the reviewers. The process is confidential, unless the reviewee decides to include reflections or documentation about the process in their teaching portfolio or personnel file (in which case, they need to discuss that with the reviewer and get their permission).

I don’t teach in a “typical” classroom setting. May I participate in the program?

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

How do reviewees shape the formative PRT process?

In CTLT’s formative peer review of teaching, reviewees play an active role in shaping the process. As a reviewee, you get to choose:

• Who your peer reviewer will be
• Which class the reviewer will attend and/or what materials they will review
• What focus areas or objectives you want feedback on
• How to use the feedback you receive. Please note that if you wish to share the written notes provided to you by the reviewer, you should discuss this early on with your reviewer (for a variety of reasons, they may or may not agree).

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 (in the CTLT formative PRT program) receive?

All peer reviewers complete an intensive training course run by the CTLT which teaches them how to conduct peer reviews and to observe classroom teaching. Many of the reviewers have also completed the UBC Faculty Certificate Program on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, the Instructional Skills Workshop, or a graduate degree in Higher or Adult Education.

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.

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 supportive, collegial dialogue about the class (and/or materials) 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.

What is implicit bias and what does it have to do with peer review of teaching?

Implicit biases (sometimes called unconscious biases) refer to our unconscious associations linked to race, sex, age, and other identity markers that influence our evaluative thoughts and attitudes toward others (e.g., instructor’s favorable attitude toward certain students, reviewer’s negative assessment of an instructor’s teaching effectiveness based on a stereotype of the instructor’s social group). Because implicit biases are unconscious and automatic, it takes time to unlearn or control them. However, becoming aware of your own implicit biases can help you better regulate them.

It is important for both you and your reviewer to be cognizant of the implicit biases that both parties inevitably bring into the classroom. You (and your reviewer if possible) can take the Implicit Association Test (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html) and discuss what you learned from the results.

How much time will the process take?

The process normally takes a minimum of five hours to complete.

Will I get written feedback from my reviewer?

We hope so!

Ideally, the reviewer will provide the instructor being reviewed with notes or a report. This will help you, the reviewee, process the information and reflect on it.

The written documentation may 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.

Important: If you are a reviewee and want to share the written information provided to you by your reviewer (i.e., in your dossier, in an annual report, etc), please discuss this with your reviewer early on in the process.