U of A Peer Review
About Peer Review
Research on the evaluation of teaching underscores the value of peer review in higher education, noting its ability to promote reflective teaching practices, encourage collaboration, and build 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 promotes a culture of continuous improvement, inspires innovation, and strengthens the shared mission of empowering student success.
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). Post-doctoral fellows and graduate students who are principal instructors are also eligible.
| Who is an Instructor? | Who is a Peer? |
|
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 who have a teaching component to their role are also welcome to participate in the program. |
Other instructors. Depending on context, peers may have a similar position and/or 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. |
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.
Peer Review Streams: Teaching Observation and Course Design
Peer reviews can focus on classroom teaching observation, course material review, or both. You can start with one aspect, apply feedback-driven improvements, and then request a review of the other.
For a well-rounded approach, we recommend engaging in both streams. You can spread the review process over time. For example, you might begin with a course material review in one academic year and follow up with a teaching observation in the next. This phased approach allows for thoughtful reflection and continuous improvement.
| Course Materials Review Stream | Classroom Observation Stream |
|
A peer reviewer examines the course materials such as the course syllabus, learning outcomes, assignments, texts/exams, lesson plans, Canvas course, and other learning materials. Using a rubric rooted in the University of Alberta’s Multifaceted Evaluation of Teaching and Learning (Appendix B), peer reviewers apply their expertise and insights to offer constructive feedback on course design. This feedback strengthens the instructor’s teaching practices, fosters professional development, and enhances students’ learning experiences, contributing to a well-rounded and impactful evaluation process. |
A peer reviewer completes a classroom observation (clinical rounds, seminars, traditional lectures, field studies, hybrid, virtual, and studio instructions) and provides constructive, respectful feedback through supportive collaboration. Guided by a rubric grounded in the University of Alberta’s Multifaceted Evaluation of Teaching and Learning (Appendix B), peer reviewers draw on their experiences and knowledge to provide constructive feedback on course design. This feedback supports the instructor’s teaching practice, fosters professional growth, and enhances students’ learning experiences, ensuring a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation process. |
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.
Peer Review Process
Engaging in a peer review process can initially be challenging, making instructors feel vulnerable and reviewers anxious. To address these concerns, the Centre for Teaching and Learning provides learning opportunities and resources for peer reviewers and instructors being reviewed.
It fosters a positive, confidence-building experience for all participants.
The peer reviewer approaches the process by focusing 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, collegial environment and 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 judgement, contextual understanding, and professional discretion in peer review–elements 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 in the peer review process must be openly discussed, agreed upon, and conducted with transparency and consensus, ensuring the integrity of peer review.
Request a peer review of teaching orientation
Enhance your department’s 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 tailored to your department’s needs.