U of A Peer Review: Overview and Resources
Research on the evaluation of teaching highlights the value of peer review in higher education, noting its ability to foster reflective teaching practices, encourage collaboration, and cultivate a supportive academic culture (Bell & Cooper, 2013; Gosling, 2005). The benefits of peer review extend far beyond individual classrooms. By participating in peer review of teaching, instructors demonstrate their commitment to providing high-quality education, contributing to a dynamic academic community, and advancing institutional excellence. Peer review fosters a culture of continuous improvement, inspires innovation, and reinforces the shared mission of promoting student success.
Request a peer review of teaching orientation for your department or faculty
Enhance your faculty or department teaching practices with a peer review of teaching orientation. Discover strategies for giving constructive feedback, sharing insights, and supporting colleagues using flexible peer review templates in two streams: course materials and classroom observation. Request a customized session.
Peer Review Streams and Resources
Peer reviews may focus on course materials, classroom teaching or both. Starting with one area, applying feedback, and later reviewing the other can support ongoing growth. For a well-rounded perspective, consider engaging in both streams over time—for example, reviewing course materials one year and then teaching in the classroom the next. This phased approach encourages reflection and continuous improvement.| Course materials review focus | Classroom observation focus |
|
A peer reviewer examines the course components, including assets such as the course syllabus, learning outcomes, exams and other assessment strategies, lesson plans, Canvas course, sample graded student work, and other learning materials used to support teaching and learning. Course Materials Guide and Rubric Template (Detailed Version) |
A peer reviewer observes the instructor in the "classroom" setting. The classroom is envisioned expansively, encompassing various learning environments, including clinical rounds, seminars, traditional lectures, field studies, hybrid instruction, virtual instruction, and studio instruction. Classroom Observation Guide and Rubric Template (Detailed Version) |
Formative and summative review of teaching is available in both streams. Instructors may also engage in peer reviews of teaching, either for formative development, summative evaluation, or both.
Request a Peer Review (coming soon)
CTL has teamed up with the Colleges to support instructors in finding peer reviewers. Watch the website for more information coming soon on how to request a peer review through this service.
Peer Review Process
The peer reviewer process focuses on collaboration and support, aiming to foster growth and improvement. The instructor guides the review process by identifying goals, expectations, and insights. Whether you engage in a review of your teaching materials or a classroom observation, you and the peer reviewer progress through three main steps together.
The pre-meeting is important in setting up the course materials review or the classroom teaching observation. This meeting can occur in various multimodal formats, including in-person discussions, video conferencing, email exchanges, shared Google Docs, or other collaborative digital platforms. During this step, the instructor and the peer reviewer:
- Build rapport and trust: Meet to establish a positive and collaborative relationship and learn about each other’s backgrounds, roles, and perspectives.
- Outline goals and expectations: Discuss the aims of the peer review, whether driven by the instructor’s needs, the peer reviewer’s objectives, or institutional requirements.
- Review the process: Clarify the peer review process to ensure mutual understanding.
- Confirm timelines: Agree upon key deadlines and milestones for the teaching observation or review of teaching materials.
The peer reviewer either observes the instructor’s teaching or reviews teaching documents:
- Observation or document review: Peer reviewer completes a classroom* observation or examines key teaching documents, such as syllabi, instructional materials, assignments, tests, and LMS content. Sometimes, the same peer reviewer may complete both an observation and a review of the teaching material.
- Constructive feedback: Guided by the pre-meeting and functioning with a supportive mindset, the peer reviewer works to provide constructive feedback. Feedback highlights strengths and offers actionable suggestions for enhancement.
Step 3 is grounded in trust, evidence, and a collaborative mindset that seeks to highlight strengths while articulating areas and strategies for improvement. Importantly, Step 3 involves:
- Meeting: The peer reviewer and instructor meet to discuss the outcomes of the observation or document review stage.
- Determine the next steps: Whether engaged in a formative or summative peer review, this stage helps the instructor determine, including:
- adjustments to teaching approach or materials
- establish a timeline for implementation and subsequently evaluate these adjustments
- how the peer review feedback will be used
Instructors can incorporate their peer review into formal evaluation processes, such as annual reports or applications for tenure, to support submissions to a Faculty Evaluation Committee (FEC).
To help brainstorm, implement, or evaluate your next steps, instructors can consult with the Centre for Teaching and Learning (CTL).Key principles guide the peer review process to ensure a productive experience for the instructor and the peer reviewer:
- Collaborative reflection: The instructor and peer reviewer engage in open dialogue, sharing their perspectives and reflecting on the process to gain mutual insights.
- Grounded in trust and evidence: Feedback is delivered in a trusting and collegial environment, supported by evidence-based observations.
- Focus on strengths and improvement: The discussion emphasizes the instructor’s strengths, identifies areas for growth, and offers actionable strategies to enhance teaching effectiveness.
- Instructor autonomy: The instructor maintains complete control over how the feedback is used, ensuring that the process aligns with their goals and respects their professional agency.
AI Use Statement
Prioritize human judgment, contextual understanding, and professional discretion in peer review–elements that Generative AI cannot fully replicate. To align Tri-Council guidelines on AI use in grant reviews, Generative AI use for peer review is strictly prohibited without explicit instructor approval. Any AI-generated content or analysis used in the peer review process must be openly discussed, agreed upon, and conducted with transparency and consensus, ensuring the integrity of the peer review process.
EligiBility
Multifaceted Evaluation of Teaching (Appendix B) values reflective, iterative practices that minimize bias and improve equitable experiences through a fair evaluation of teaching. Peer review is designed for U of A instructional staff as defined in Appendix B (outlined below). Postdoctoral fellows and graduate students who serve as principal instructors are also eligible.
| Instructors | Peers |
|
Academic faculty, faculty service officers, librarians, academic teaching staff and excluded academic administrators. When their responsibilities include teaching, academic colleagues, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students are also included. Support staff with a teaching component in their role are also welcome to participate in the program.
|
Peer reviewers are typically other instructors. Depending on the context, peers may hold a similar position and/or share a similar disciplinary background. In other contexts, the backgrounds may be diverse. Normally, peers are from within the University of Alberta but may, in some instances, be from another institution, industry or clinical setting. Peers can also include interdisciplinary colleagues who provide valuable insights, enriching the peer review process with diverse perspectives. |
Source: Teaching, Learning and Evaluation Policy
PEER REVIEW OF TEACHING FRAMEWORK
Peer review of teaching embodies a spirit of collaboration that is key to a positive experience. It offers a supportive framework that helps instructors grow and refine their teaching skills. The U of A’s Teaching, Learning and Evaluation Policy evaluates teaching through the Multifaceted Evaluation of Teaching and Learning, which includes student feedback, self-assessments, peer reviews, and evidence of continuous professional development. Appendix B of this policy outlines the five domains of the Framework for Effective Teaching, listing specific indicators of quality teaching and evidence sources.
These frameworks offer structured, evidence-based approaches to elevating teaching quality. They empower instructors and reviewers with clear guidelines and foster meaningful, constructive dialogue. Grounded in the institutional principles of the Multifaceted Evaluation of Teaching and the Framework for Effective Teaching, peer review fosters a shared language and a structured process. This foundation empowers instructors and reviewers to engage collaboratively and confidently in the peer review journey.
Image: Circular diagram of the U of A Framework for Effective Teaching with five colour-coded, interconnected domains: Expertise, Content and Outcomes; Course Design; Instructional Practices; Learning Environment; and Reflection, Growth and Leadership.