{"id":21858,"date":"2015-05-21t12:25:21","date_gmt":"2015-05-21t17:25:21","guid":{"rendered":"\/\/www.imrbdigital.com\/?page_id=21858"},"modified":"2021-02-24t17:34:37","modified_gmt":"2021-02-24t22:34:37","slug":"peer-review-of-teaching","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"\/\/www.imrbdigital.com\/guides-sub-pages\/peer-review-of-teaching\/","title":{"rendered":"peer review of teaching"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n
by joe bandy<\/em><\/td>\nprint version<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
cite this guide:<\/strong> bandy, j. (2015). peer review of teaching. 瑞士vs喀麦隆走地 2022年世界杯中国小组赛积分. retrieved [todaysdate] from \/\/www.imrbdigital.com\/guides-sub-pages\/peer-review-of-teaching\/.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\n

introduction<\/h2>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n
\nin higher education, peer review stands as the prime means for ensuring that scholarship is of the highest quality, and from it flows consequential assessments that shape careers, disciplines, and entire institutions.\u00a0 while peer review is well established as a means of evaluating research across the disciplines, it is less common in the assessment of teaching.\u00a0 yet it is no less useful, since it can improve what ernest boyer has called the \u201cscholarship of teaching and learning\u201d by enhancing instructional and faculty development, by bolstering the integrity of personnel decisions, and by enabling more intentional and mutually supportive communities of scholar teachers.\u00a0 this guide is intended as an introduction to the basics of peer review, including its purposes, challenges, and common practices.\u00a0 the primary audience for this guide consists of departments, programs, or schools considering implementing peer review, although individual faculty, staff, and students are likely to find what follows interesting, as well.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/a>what is peer review?<\/h2>\n

peer review is often identified with peer observations, but it is more broadly a method of assessing a portfolio of information about the teaching of an instructor under review.\u00a0 this portfolio typically includes curricula vitae, student evaluations, self-evaluative statements, peer observations, and other evidence such as syllabi, assignments, student work, and letters solicited from former students.\u00a0 this said, peer observations will figure prominently in what follows.<\/p>\n

it is also worth noting a common distinction between two very different forms of peer review: formative and summative. \u00a0formative evaluation<\/em> typically is oriented solely towards the improvement of teaching and is part of instructional mentorship and development.\u00a0 summative evaluation<\/em>, in contrast, is that done to inform personnel decisions.\u00a0 to improve the freedom and exploration of individual faculty, formative reviews may be shielded from scrutiny for a period of years until such time that there needs to be accountability to standards of excellence for personnel decisions.\u00a0 at this point in time, summative evaluations are more common since they are tied to decisions related to reappointment, promotion, or tenure (bernstein et al. 2000).\u00a0 because the more consequential nature of summative evaluations tends to diminish the formative value of the peer review process, it is important to maintain a clear distinction between these types of evaluation and be transparent with those under review.\u00a0 it is also common to have different faculty involved in each form of assessment \u2013 mentor faculty in the formative evaluation and departmental or program administrators, such as chairs, involved in summative evaluations.<\/p>\n

<\/a>why peer review?<\/h2>\n

peer review serves many functions in the process of evaluating faculty, courses, or entire programs.<\/p>\n

what\u2019s good for research is good for teaching.<\/span><\/strong> as in peer reviews of research, it is a vital means of receiving expert assessments of one important part of scholarly practice: teaching.\u00a0 as with research, peer review ensures that faculty internalize, in the words of pat hutchings, scholarly \u201chabits of mind\u201d by identifying goals, posing questions for inquiry, exploring alternatives, taking appropriate risks, and assessing the outcomes with learned colleagues.\u00a0 when this process of scholarly engagement and deliberate improvement is part of the institutional expectations for teaching, as it is with research, it can function to support a community of scholarship around teaching (hutchings 1996).<\/p>\n

enables teaching to be a community endeavor<\/strong><\/span>.\u00a0 relatedly, too often in higher education teaching is subject to what pat hutchings has called, \u201cpedagogical isolation,\u201d but peer review provides opportunities for us to open our teaching up to a community of colleagues who can nurture improvement (pat hutchings 1996).<\/p>\n

peer review allows for less exclusive reliance on student evaluations. <\/strong><\/span>student evaluations have become institutionalized in higher education and for the most part provide extremely useful information for the purposes of evaluating faculty, courses, and even entire curricula.\u00a0 however, students may not always be the best evaluators since they often have limited disciplinary training, they can have biases against certain faculty unrelated to teaching effectiveness, and they can be less cognizant of institutional goals or values than faculty. indeed it is for these reasons that the american sociological association, along with other professional societies, have cautioned universities not to overly rely on student evaluations (see here<\/a>).<\/p>\n

greater faculty experimentation and rigor.<\/span><\/strong> just as importantly, an over-reliance on student evaluations in processes of professional review can cause faculty to become overly concerned about receiving positive student evaluations.\u00a0 in the worst of moments, this can lead faculty to adopt a consumer model of education, shaping our teaching to meet the needs of students over the needs of our disciplines or institutions (hutchings 1996).\u00a0 this, in turn, results in faculty becoming overly cautious by refusing to challenge student expectations by using conventional teaching methods, by becoming less rigorous in their standards, and at worst, by feeling a need to entertain more than educate.\u00a0 peer review, when done in formative and summative forms alongside student evaluations, can ensure both faculty and students will have a voice in their evaluation, and that faculty have greater autonomy to innovate and to teach rigorously.\u00a0 this can give faculty the opportunity to focus more intentionally on what helps students learn best, and therefore more directly focus on the quality of their teaching.<\/p>\n

allows for both formative and summative evaluation.<\/strong><\/span> when done well, peer review involves both formative and summative evaluations.\u00a0 the inclusion of greater formative evaluation allows for more significant faculty and instructional development by encouraging more critical reflection on teaching and by providing a safer, less risky, and more collegial setting for assessment.<\/p>\n

i<\/strong>mproves faculty approaches to teaching<\/strong>. <\/strong><\/span>daniel bernstein, jessica jonson, and karen smith (2000), in their examination of peer review processes found they positively impact faculty attitudes and approaches toward teaching.\u00a0 while their study did not reveal a necessary shift in faculty attitudes towards student learning and grading, it did change several important aspects of teaching practice.\u00a0 first, it dramatically impacted in-class practices, particularly the incorporation of more active and collaborative learning, and less reliance on lecturing.\u00a0 second, it improved faculty willingness to ask students to demonstrate higher order intellectual and critical thinking skills.\u00a0 third, for some faculty it increased the quality of feedback they gave to their students on assignments, and thus improved student understanding and performance.\u00a0 and lastly, they enjoyed discussing substantive disciplinary and teaching issues with their colleagues, enhancing the scholarly community in their departments and programs.\u00a0 peer review therefore shows an ability to improve faculty joy in teaching by improving the relations among faculty and students, and among faculty themselves.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/a>how to select peer reviewers<\/h2>\n

peer review may take many forms, but usually begins with the selection of peer reviewers drawn most often from within the same department or program as the instructor being reviewed.\u00a0 the reviewers typically are senior faculty, but sometimes junior faculty as well, who have significant expertise in teaching.\u00a0 these faculty may be chosen to undertake all peer teaching reviews for the department or program during a specific period, or they may be selected specifically because they share some expertise with the instructor being reviewed.\u00a0 the person under review also may be granted some choice as to whom one or more of the reviewers may be.\u00a0 the number of the reviewers may vary but usually include at least two and rarely more than four.<\/p>\n

in selecting reviewers, one must be mindful of several criteria. <\/strong><\/p>\n

institutional experience. <\/strong><\/span>it helps if reviewers are highly familiar with the department or program, school, and institutional goals, and particularly the processes of peer review itself and the criteria that form the basis of the assessment.<\/p>\n

integrity. <\/span><\/strong> peer reviews also function best when reviewers have commitments to integrity, fair-mindedness, privacy, and understanding the reasoning behind the teaching choices of the person under review.<\/p>\n

trust. <\/strong><\/span>peer reviewers, especially in formative reviews, work collaboratively with the faculty under review to establish a clear process of evaluation and reporting, therefore peer reviewers who can establish trust are particularly effective.<\/p>\n

mentorship. <\/strong><\/span>those under review are particularly vulnerable and often anxious, therefore reviewers who have grace and tact in the process of assessment, can offer feedback with integrity and support, and who can help advise on strategies for faculty development will be most helpful.<\/p>\n

thorough and practical. <\/strong><\/span>peer reviewers should be able to provide summary reports that clearly and thoroughly represent all phases of the process, and that make recommendations that are specific and practical (2022年世界杯中国小组赛积分 effectiveness, university of texas, austin).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/a>how to evaluate?<\/h2>\n

the peer evaluation itself usually focuses on several aspects of teaching through a process that usually has a series of activities. \u00a0the following list of peer evaluation activities represents a sequential, reasonably thorough, and maximal model for peer review, but not all are necessary.<\/p>\n

develop departmental standards for teaching.<\/strong><\/span> without a clear set of learning goals for all departmental programs it is difficult to assess teaching with any validity or reliability, and it can leave departments open to biases, inconsistencies, and miscommunications in peer evaluation processes.\u00a0 one of the greatest benefits of peer reviews of teaching is that it provides an occasion for departments and programs, if not entire schools and universities, to be more intentional, specific, and clear about quality teaching and learning, and the various means to achieve it.\u00a0 this may be the work of an entire department or a special teaching committee that researches disciplinary and institutional benchmarks and proposes guidelines for review.<\/p>\n

preliminary interview.<\/strong><\/span> peer review processes usually begin with a conversation, sometimes framed as an interview, between the peer reviewers and the teacher being reviewed.\u00a0 the prime purpose of this is to provide the teacher in question an understanding of the process of peer review, and to offer them the opportunity to provide their input on the process.\u00a0 the conversation also allows the peer reviewers to begin collecting information about the teaching context, particularly the courses, of the teacher being reviewed.\u00a0 this context helps to provide better understandings of the teacher\u2019s goals and teaching choices, and may be divided into several dimensions related to the design of their courses (fink 2005).<\/p>\n

logistical contexts.<\/strong><\/span> how many students?\u00a0 is the course(s) lower division, upper division, a graduate class, etcetera?\u00a0 how frequent and long are the class meetings?\u00a0 is it a distance-learning course?\u00a0 what are the physical elements of the learning environment?<\/p>\n

goals. <\/strong>ho<\/span>w have the learning goals of the course(s) been shaped by the department, college, university, or discipline?\u00a0 are the courses required or electives?\u00a0 what kinds of intellectual and skill outcomes is the focus of the course(s)?<\/p>\n

characteristics of the learners. <\/strong><\/span>what are their ages and other demographic factors that may bear upon teaching? \u00a0what is their prior experience in the subject?\u00a0 what are their interests and goals?\u00a0 what are their life situations?<\/p>\n

characteristics of the teacher. <\/strong><\/span>what expertise does he or she have in the subject areas?\u00a0 what are his or her own assessments of his\/her strengths and weaknesses?\u00a0 what models of teaching did he or she encounter as a student?\u00a0 what theoretical or practical 世界杯足球2022亚洲预选赛 ground his or her approach to teaching and learning?\u00a0 what from the teaching and learning scholarship has been influential on his\/her teaching?\u00a0 how do these influences take shape in the teaching of the instructor\u2019s different courses?<\/p>\n

class observations. <\/strong><\/span>the goal of the class observations is to collect a sample of information about the in-class practices of teaching and learning.\u00a0 they typically include two to four class visits to gain reliable data.\u00a0 if the teacher being reviewed teaches multiple courses, as they often do, the process may involve fewer observations per course (e.g., two).<\/p>\n

what to observe?<\/strong> the goal is to create a thorough inventory of instructor and student practices that define the teaching and learning environment.\u00a0 these may vary widely across discipline and teachers, and can be drawn from a broad array of pedagogies, depending on learning goals.\u00a0 this said, there are several categories of instructor and student practices to note during the observation(s).<\/p>\n

content knowledge<\/strong><\/span>
\n use of instructional materials<\/strong><\/span>
\n class organization<\/strong><\/span>
\n presentation form and substance<\/strong><\/span>
\n teacher-student interactions<\/strong><\/span>
\n student participation<\/strong><\/span>
\n assessment practices<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

how to assess teaching practices? <\/strong>in many institutions, inventories of teaching practices are combined with assumptions about what is conducive to student learning.\u00a0 it is important for the peer reviewers and the administrators who guide them to be conscious of what they regard as effective teaching and the appropriate evidence for it before committing to an observation process, lest the peer review gather invalid or unreliable data, and lest the process invite peer biases and unexamined pedagogy into the evaluation. \u00a0a reasonably representative list of teaching practices, along with more or less explicit value for learning, would include the following:<\/p>\n

content knowledge<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

– selection of class content worth knowing and appropriate to the course
\n– provided appropriate context and background
\n– mastery of class content
\n– citation of relevant scholarship
\n– presented divergent viewpoints<\/p>\n

clear and effective class organization<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

– clear statement of learning goals
\n– relationship of lesson to course goals, and past and future lessons
\n– logical sequence
\n– appropriate pace for student understanding
\n– summary<\/p>\n

varied methods for engagement, which may include\u2026<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

– in-class writing
\n– analysis of quotes, video, artifacts
\n– group discussions
\n– student-led discussions
\n– debates
\n– case studies
\n– concept maps
\n– book clubs
\n– role plays
\n– poster sessions
\n– think aloud problem solving
\n– jigsaws
\n– field trips
\n– learning logs, journals
\n– critical incident questionnaire (see brookfield<\/a>)<\/p>\n

presentation<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

– project voice
\n– varied intonation
\n– clarity of explanation
\n– eye contact
\n– listened effectively
\n– defined difficult terms, concepts, principles
\n– use of examples
\n– varied explanations for difficult material
\n– used humor appropriately<\/p>\n

teacher-student interactions<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

– effective questioning
\n– warm and welcoming rapport
\n– use of student names
\n– encouraging of questions
\n– encouraging of discussion
\n– engaged student attention
\n– answered students effectively
\n– responsive to student communications
\n– pacing appropriate for student level, activity
\n– restating questions, comments
\n– suggestion of further questions, resources
\n– concern for individual student needs
\n– emotional awareness of student interests, needs<\/p>\n

appropriateness of instructional materials<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

– content that matches course goals
\n– content that is rigorous, challenging
\n– content that is appropriate to student experience, knowledge
\n– adequate preparation required
\n– handouts and other materials are thorough and facilitated learning
\n– audio\/visual materials effective
\n– written assignments<\/p>\n

student engagement<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

– student interest
\n– enthusiasm
\n– participation
\n– student-to-student interaction<\/p>\n

support of departmental\/program\/school instructional efforts<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

– appropriate content
\n– appropriate pedagogy
\n– appropriate practice<\/p>\n

in-class, formative assessment practices<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

– background knowledge probes, muddiest point exercises, defining features matrix and other \u201cclassroom assessment techniques\u201d described in greater detail here<\/a>
\n– ungraded in-class writing exercises, such as minute papers
\n– discussions
\n– questioning<\/p>\n

out-of-class, summative assessment practices<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

– class participation
\n– in-class writing exercises, graded
\n– presentations
\n– examinations
\n– projects<\/p>\n

use of observation forms. <\/strong><\/span>to make the process more transparent, reliable, and valid, many departments and programs use observation forms, constructed from items like those listed above, to help peer evaluators track and evaluate teaching and learning practices.\u00a0 these may include nothing more than checklists of activities; they may provide rating scales (e.g., likert scales) to assist the evaluation; they may have open-ended prompts that provide space for general commentary and analysis; or, they may involve some combination of all three.\u00a0 the most thorough forms guide the observer in what exactly they should observe, and prompt them to provide some synthesis and evaluation of their observations.\u00a0 several example forms may be found with a broad online search, but\u00a0here<\/a>\u00a0is a useful example from wayne state university.<\/p>\n

evidence of student learning.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

end-of-course student work.<\/strong> to more thoroughly assess the effectiveness of instruction, peer reviewers may collect evidence of student learning in the form of examinations, written assignments, and other projects from the course of the teacher under review.\u00a0 collecting this evidence may be helpful in assessing core competencies expected from the course.<\/p>\n

student work throughout the course. <\/strong> evidence of student learning may be more thoroughly assessed by collecting examples of student work at various times during a course so as to gain perspective on student growth and development.\u00a0 to do this requires some preparation and lead-time to ensure the teacher under review is sure to collect work from students, and gain their consent for sharing it.<\/p>\n

grades. <\/strong>student grades also may be used as an indicator of student performance, if they are accompanied by contextual information such as a grade distribution, the criteria used to assign those grades, and samples of student work at a, b, c, d, and failing levels.<\/p>\n

student evaluations. <\/strong><\/span> in addition to reviewing standard end-of-course evaluations, peer reviewers may choose to solicit letters of evaluation from a sample of students, current or alumni, who have had at least one course with the teacher in question, preferably two or more.\u00a0 requesting these from graduates who have a more mature perspective on the effectiveness and impact of the teacher under review can be especially useful.\u00a0 the request for evaluation letters can be more or less specific in its prompts, but at a minimum typically introduce the importance of the evaluation process for the individual and the institution, and ask for them to assess how effective the teacher was as an instructor, what limitations he or she may have, and what impacts he or she made to their educations.<\/p>\n

engagement with centers for teaching.\u00a0<\/strong>if the person under review has attended consultations, workshops, or other programs offered by a campus 2022年世界杯中国小组赛积分 and learning, the evaluation process may consider this to be part of the analysis.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

advising activity. <\/strong><\/span>peer evaluators may wish to make note of the advising activities and load of the teacher in question, along with any special service to the teaching mission of the department, school, or institution.\u00a0 this may involve some data collection from students the teacher has advised and peers with whom the teacher has collaborated in their teaching service.\u00a0 for some faculty, this kind of teaching outside typical course structures can be a substantial contribution to the teaching mission of the department.<\/p>\n

professional publications, presentations, and recognitions.<\/strong><\/span> peer reviewers also may wish to collect evidence of the scholarly activities in teaching and learning by the teacher in question, such as professional publications, presentations, or awards\u00a0for their teaching.<\/p>\n

collaborative analysis. <\/strong><\/span>together, each of the activities above provides information that can be assembled into an overall picture of the teacher under review.\u00a0 after meetings between the peer evaluators to review the data collected, any missing information can be sought and unresolved questions can be answered.\u00a0 it is then incumbent upon the evaluators to discuss the form and substance of a final assessment and to divide the work of writing it.<\/p>\n

overall recommendation. <\/strong><\/span>typically the written evaluation includes some clarification of the process, the methods, the data collected, and of course any positive feedback and constructive criticism that is necessary, along with suggested improvements.\u00a0 this will be the substance of a formative or summative assessment by the peer evaluators, one that may be shared with the relevant administrators and the teacher under review, depending on the process adopted.\u00a0 if the evaluation is formative, this may accompany a series of suggested improvements for teaching and a plan for instructional or curricular development that could include ongoing mentorship, the use of professional development resources such as the 2022年世界杯中国小组赛积分, and further peer evaluation.\u00a0 if it is a summative evaluation, the recommendation will be used by departmental and university committees and administrators as the basis for a reappointment, promotion, or tenure decision.<\/p>\n

<\/a>possible limitations of peer review?<\/h2>\n

limitations of peer observations. <\/strong><\/span>while peer review may be a process that allows for a more rigorous evaluation of a teaching portfolio, it is worth noting that peer observations alone are often insufficient data on which to base an entire teacher\u2019s assessment.\u00a0 peer observations represent merely a snapshot of teaching, and thus must be only one component of a teaching portfolio that is subject to peer evaluation, including student evaluations, evidence of student learning, course materials, and self evaluations, just to name a few.<\/p>\n

bias. <\/strong> <\/span>surely, all methods of teaching evaluation risk biases of one form or another.\u00a0 one common criticism of peer review processes is that they may invite some bias if they involve limited or unprofessional approaches to information collection and analysis.\u00a0 this may occur because of several reasons.\u00a0 personal relationships between reviewers and those being reviewed can create either hyper- or hypo-critical approaches to evaluation.\u00a0 standards of excellence or their application can be highly subjective and individual teaching styles may vary widely, therefore evaluations can be contentious if standards are not defined in advance through rigorous research and open, collaborative processes.\u00a0 power relations in departments or programs also can unduly influence open and thorough evaluation.\u00a0 other factors may cause peer evaluator bias as well.\u00a0 therefore, to avoid the worst cases of bias, peer review must be established via processes that guarantee the greatest rigor, openness, and transparency.<\/p>\n

collegiality issues. <\/strong><\/span>under the best of circumstances, peer review can shape a dialogue about teaching that fosters a teaching community among educators and can lead to more growth-oriented forms of professional development.\u00a0 however, when it is implemented in less collaborative and more adversarial forms, or when it involves unavoidable consequences such as promotion or job security, anxieties and frustrations can be triggered for both reviewers and those being reviewed.\u00a0 therefore peer review must adhere to the highest standards of transparency, integrity, and care for the sake of those under review.<\/p>\n

time and effort. <\/strong><\/span>possibly the most common critique of peer review processes, and the reason they are not more commonly used in the academy, is that they require significant time and effort.\u00a0 departmental and campus administrators must define the process, establish standards, train and prepare reviewers, perform peer observations, review portfolios, draft assessments, and have multiple dialogues with those under review.\u00a0 each step requires preparation if it is to be fair, transparent, and professional.\u00a0 any shortcut may compromise the rigor, care, or goals of the evaluation. \u00a0however, there are\u00a0several shortcuts each with\u00a0potential costs.<\/p>\n

rely on the expertise of senior colleagues, administrators, and the 2022年世界杯中国小组赛积分.<\/strong> there are typically those on campus that my have sufficient knowledge to assist in defining departmental learning or teaching goals, in determining what data to include in a teaching portfolio, in training peer observers, in drafting assessments, etcetera.\u00a0 these sources of expertise may be helpful in streamlining the process with little cost to its integrity, as long as their suggestions may be tailored to the needs of the department or program in question.<\/p>\n

use predefined standards for teaching and learning. <\/strong>rather than spend significant time adjudicating which learning and teaching goals are appropriate, department or program leaders may decide to use existing language in university or departmental missions, course catalogs, accreditation reports, other constituting documents, or the operating principles of the 2022年世界杯中国小组赛积分.\u00a0 this may grant some efficiency with limited costs to the integrity of the peer review process.\u00a0 however, vague and imprecise learning goals that sometimes characterize constitutional documents (e.g., \u201ccritical thinking\u201d) may be of little help in benchmarking a specific set of courses or teaching strategies.\u00a0 likewise, departments and programs may have particular teaching challenges that broad standards may not take into consideration.\u00a0 both difficulties can leave departments or programs open to unclear standards, unfair or inconsistent judgments, and miscommunications.<\/p>\n

collect data judiciously. <\/strong>one of the more time consuming tasks of peer review is combing through all facets of a teaching portfolio, particularly if it includes samples of student work.\u00a0 to save time, some peer review processes rely largely upon peer observation, in addition to student evaluations of teaching, and do not collect teaching portfolios or examples of student work.\u00a0 others collect only limited samples of student work, such as grade distributions and examples of student work at a, b, c and d levels to evaluate an instructor\u2019s assessment and grading strategies.\u00a0 other data collection short cuts may be possible as well.\u00a0 however, more limited data may allow fewer contextual interpretations of a teaching career, and peer observations alone are merely in-class snapshots of instructional performance, not a more encompassing perspective on all phases of teaching.\u00a0 these may lead a department or program to make less informed and fair judgments.<\/p>\n

use templates for written peer evaluation reports. <\/strong>final written reports need not be highly expansive analyses, but may represent more of a thorough check list with brief sections of commentary on challenges and successes that become points of discussion between peer reviewers and the instructor under review.\u00a0 this form or report can save valuable time, but it also may provide limited feedback to the instructor under review, possibly affording him or her less useful guidance on where to improve his or her teaching.<\/p>\n

only summative evaluation. <\/strong>a department or program may limit peer evaluation to only summative and not formative assessments of teaching.\u00a0 this would limit opportunities for faculty development, hinder\u00a0data collection, create more tensions between reviewers and those being evaluated, and thwart the formation of collegial cultures that improve teaching for entire departments and programs. however, many departments and programs have used this shortcut to conduct peer review.<\/p>\n

<\/a>concluding thoughts<\/h2>\n

peer review of teaching, when done well, has many benefits in fostering teaching excellence, creating collegial communities of scholar teachers, and more fair and transparent cultures of professional development. \u00a0by contrast the\u00a0challenges of peer review, while not insignificant, are small by comparison. \u00a0peer review of teaching, as in research, enhances the integrity and innovation of teaching and is a practice whose institutionalization is long overdue.<\/p>\n

<\/a>bibliography<\/h2>\n