Library Resources for the Peer Review of Teaching: Selected Resources*

Agatucci, Cora, and others. Peer evaluation guidelines. 1995. 18 pp. ERIC Document ED420358 Available online (pdf).
Provides the peer evaluation guidelines for Central Oregon Community College (COCC). It begins by identifying the goals of the peer team: to maintain and strengthen the quality of instruction at COCC; establish strong collegial ties among faculty members; offer positive suggestions to them for improvement as teachers; and evaluate their performance and growth over time for purposes of rehire, tenure, and promotion. The report offers suggestions for simplifying evaluations and includes criteria for final reports. It also provides common standards for teaching performance at COCC. These include: knowledge, preparation, and understanding of subject material; instructional delivery skills and relationship with students; and course organization. One section describes unique teaching situations at COCC, including: those in labs; the library; computer sciences; film arts, fine arts, music, theater performance and studio classes; social sciences; speech courses; interdisciplinary courses and seminar classes. (Contains guidelines for classroom peer observation and course material review for peer evaluation.)

Bell, Thomas L. and Tricia McClam. Peer review of teaching at UTK: An assessment. 1992. 26 pp. ERIC Document ED350899 Available online (pdf).
Reviews the development of the peer review process at The University of Tennessee at Knoxville (UTK) and presents perceptions of the process after 1 year of implementation. The perceptions presented are from a survey of department heads and some faculty who had completed the peer review process. Responses included comments about the development of departmental guidelines, the funding of teaching research strategies, and ways of helping the instructor who is deemed to be inadequate. The report presents suggestions for improving the process as provided by these participants. Six conclusions from the survey are highlighted and briefly discussed: (1) the peer review process developed at UTK Knoxville reflects the current literature on the subject of faculty evaluation; (2) even though the mandated guidelines are minimal, they are not always properly adhered to; (3) the use of the results is unclear to most faculty and a source of great disquiet to some; (4) the rewards given for good teaching are generally viewed as grossly inadequate; (5) there is widespread support for the improvement of instruction on campus; and (6) there is a clear need for the administration to provide leadership in the support of the improvement of instruction. Contains 14 references.

(to the top)

Burns, Candace W. Peer evaluation of teaching: Claims vs. research. 1998. 24 pp. ERIC Document ED421470 Available online (pdf).
Examines evidence supporting the validity of peer evaluations of teaching, focusing on relationships between peer evaluations and student evaluations of teaching. The article discusses conditions in which peer and student ratings are comparable, beginning with studies that K. A. Feldman included in his 1989 meta-analysis and concluding with studies post-dating Feldman's analysis, which include expanded evaluations of teaching. In particular, the article notes that as the specificity of information that peers receive about faculty members' teaching increases, agreement with student ratings decline. Conversely, peer ratings based on general, impressionistic information tend to agree with student ratings. Though there is some evidence of the potential for peers to aid in teacher evaluation, the evidence for peers' effectiveness in broadened evaluative roles is scant and inconsistent. Given mixed and sometimes weak evidence for the validity of peer ratings, the article calls for caution regarding roles that peers should assume in evaluating teaching. Contains 25 references.

Cavanagh, Ronald R. Formative and summative evaluation in the faculty peer review of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 20 (4) Summer 1996, pp. 235-40. Print copy available in Pickler Library Periodicals LA 227.3 A3932
If faculty peer review of teaching is to overcome institutional marginalization, its formative and summative components must use rules, criteria, and standards for effective teaching that are agreed upon by faculty in the academic unit. This conversation clarifies expectations for curriculum, teaching, and student learning. Only such a process can produce credibility needed for faculty development and personnel decisions.

Chism, Nancy Van Note. Peer review of teaching: A sourcebook. Anker Publishing, 1999. Book available in Pickler Library LB2838 .C45 1999
Intended to help college administrators develop a strong peer review component for their faculty evaluation and development system. Part 1, an overview of peer review, provides arguments for peer review and briefly describes the process of establishing a peer review system. Chapter 1 reviews the tenets of effective evaluation of teaching in general, provides a rationale for the use of peer review, and discusses issues that arise when considering peer review. Chapter 2 offers suggestions for developing and implementing a peer review system. Chapter 3 considers the role of chairs, colleagues, and peer reviewers, and Chapter 4 lists the components of a peer review system. The chapters in Part 2 consider various aspects of peer review and the procedures and forms that can be employed in conducting each type of activity. Individual chapters offer resources on reviewing course material (Chapter 5); classroom performance (Chapter 6); scholarship of teaching and contributions to departmental teaching efforts (Chapter 7); and teaching portfolios (Chapter 8). The concluding chapter (Chapter 9) presents guiding principles for the peer review of teaching and reviews major points in the book. Contains 55 references.

Hutchings, Patricia. The peer review of teaching: Progress, issues and prospects. Innovative Higher Education 20 (4) Summer 1996, pp. 221-34. Print copy available Pickler Library Periodicals LA 227.3 A3932
As colleges and universities seek to raise attention to teaching, peer review offers distinct advantages, especially for faculty eager to reduce classroom isolation and collaborate in improvement. It also presents political and methodological challenges and presumes significantly different roles for faculty in improving quality of student learning. Experiences of 12 institutions in a national peer review project are described.

Keig, Larry, and Michael D. Waggoner. Peer review of teaching: Improving college instruction through formative assessment. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6 (3), 1995, pp. 51-83. Print copy available Pickler Library Periodicals LB 2331 J68
Examines use of collaborative college faculty peer review for instructional improvement. Establishes rationales for formative evaluation of teaching, peer review in instructional improvement, and comprehensive faculty evaluation that includes peer review. Examines roles faculty might play in assessing colleagues' teaching; describes five methods used in collaborative peer review. Notes factors that detract from or enhance faculty's willingness to participate.

(to the top)

Keig, Larry, and Michael D. Waggoner. Collaborative peer review: The role of faculty in improving college teaching. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2. ERIC Document. Available online. Full report, 1994, 193 pp. ED378925 (pdf document); ERIC digest, 1995, 4-page summary. ED378924 (pdf document)
Argues for the central involvement of faculty themselves in collaborative peer review for the improvement of college teaching. An early section makes the case for formative evaluation to improve teaching and argues that collaborative peer review is well suited to the formative evaluation task. The next section examines faculty roles in formative evaluation and also the roles of students, academic administrators, teaching consultants, and faculty development programs. The following section reviews various methods used in formative evaluation including direct classroom observation, videotaping of classes, evaluation of course materials, an assessment of instructor evaluation of the academic work of students, and analysis of teaching portfolios. The section that follows describes, compares, and analyzes some examples of single-institution and multi-institution programs currently in operation. The next section discusses disincentives that may keep faculty from participating in peer evaluation including attitudes about academic freedom, fairness, and other factors. Final sections discuss incentives to improve participation and the personal and institutional benefits of peer formative evaluation. A final section presents eight recommendations for designing peer review processes based on analysis of the research and of programs now operating at some institutions. Contains 219 references.

Keig, Larry. Formative peer review of teaching: Attitudes of faculty at liberal arts colleges towards colleague assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14 (1), March 2000, pp. 67-87. Available online (pdf). Print copy available Pickler Library Periodicals LB 2838 J68
Studied attitudes of college faculty toward methods of formative evaluation of peers. Most of the faculty members participating, ranging from 10 to 82 at colleges in Iowa indicated that they would take part in classroom observation, videotaping, evaluation of course materials, and assessment of evaluation of the work of students as peer evaluation methods.

Kohut, Gary F., Charles Burnap, and Maria G. Yon. Peer observation of teaching: Perceptions of the observer and the observed. College Teaching, 55 (1), Winter 2007, pp. 19-25. Available online.
While peer observation of teaching is regarded as an important part of a faculty member's promotion and tenure portfolio, little has been reported on its usefulness. Results from this study indicate that both observers and observees value the peer observation process, are neutral about the adequacy of observer training, use a variety of observation instruments but favor the written narrative, and believe their peer observation instruments are an effective measure of teaching. Although observers feel more stress about peer observations than observees, both groups experience minimal stress in participating in observations. Both groups also believe that peer observation reports are valid and useful. (Contains 5 tables.)

Kumaravadivelu, B. A multidimensional model for peer evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 6 (3), 1995, pp. 95-113. Print copy available Pickler Library Periodicals LB2331 .J68
Proposes a broader concept of college faculty peer evaluation, in which perspectives of teacher, learner, and observer are considered. Argues that three basic principles (intention/interpretation, advisement/appraisement, acceptability/accessibility) must necessarily and minimally guide peer evaluation. Presents a four-part, multidimensional peer evaluation model that can be adapted by various academic units to meet specific evaluation needs.

Malik, David J. Peer review of teaching: External review of course content. Innovative Higher Education, 20 (4), Summer 1996, pp. 277-86. Print copy available Pickler Library Periodicals LA 227.3 A3932
An important component that models for peer review of faculty often exclude is course content. An approach incorporating course content evaluation by colleagues outside the institution, used at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, is described, and the structure and materials used are noted. The model, excerpted from the final report of a teaching evaluation committee, is outlined.

Martsolf, Donna S. and others. Peer review of teaching: Instituting a program in a college of nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, 38 (7), October 1999, pp. 326-32. Print copy available Pickler Library Periodicals RT 1 J65
Kent State University nursing faculty established a peer-review process through a task-force approach. Classroom and clinical observations and teaching circles were the most effective methods. Program success was attributed to its voluntary nature, its reflection of organizational culture, and administrative support.

(to the top)

Miller, Geri, and Diana Quealy-Berge. The impact of a peer review community on teaching. 2006. 13 pp. ERIC Document ED492544. Available online.
There is evidence that a teaching community can have a powerful impact on teaching effectiveness. While "common sense" and the individual stories of teachers may support such a perspective, this article is a case study where one professor, who was involved in a peer review community of teachers, quantitatively examined the impact of this community on her teaching via her teaching evaluations. (Contains 2 tables.)

Morehead, Jere W., and Peter J. Shedd. Utilizing summative evaluation through external peer review of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 22 (1), Fall 1977, pp. 37-44. Print copy available Pickler Library Periodicals LA 227.3 A3932
Examines the differences in summative and formative evaluation of college teaching, and suggests a new model for peer review of teaching that uses colleagues from other campuses (external review) for summative evaluation. Argues that traditional student evaluation and on-campus peer evaluation (internal review) discourage innovations in teaching assessment, and should be used primarily for formative purposes.

Quinlan, Kathleen M. Involving peers in the evaluation and improvement of teaching: A menu of strategies. Innovative Higher Education, 20 (4), Summer 1996, pp. 299-307. Print copy available Pickler Library Periodicals LA 227.3 A3932
Approaches to college faculty peer coaching and peer review are described, including team mentoring, reciprocal class visits, teaching circles, departmental teaching libraries, teaching portfolios, course portfolios, pedagogical colloquia, and departmental reviews. Methods can be adapted, combined for different goals, contexts. All rest on faculty assumption of responsibility for the process and a view of teaching as substantive and scholarly.

Webb, Jamie, and Kathleen McEnerney. The view from the back of the classroom: A faculty-based peer observation program. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6 (3), 1995, pp. 145-60. Print copy available Pickler Library Periodicals LB 2331 J68
Describes the peer observation program developed by faculty at California State University, Dominguez Hills, its structure and adaptations, outcomes, and recommendations for development of formative peer observation programs. The program helps reduce faculty professional isolation by providing an informal structure for discussion of teaching and promotion of collegiality.

Yon, Maria, Charles Burnap, and Gary Kohut. Evidence of effective teaching: Perceptions of peer reviewers. College Teaching, 50 (3), Summer 2002, pp. 104-110. Available online.
The use of peers in the evaluation of teaching is part of a larger trend in postsecondary education toward a more systematic assessment of classroom performance. Many scholars believe that certain aspects of teaching can be assessed only by classroom observation. This study examines the use that peer reviewers make of teaching products, especially peer observation reports, during the promotion and tenure review process. Results indicate that peer observation reports are seen as an important component in evaluating teaching effectiveness, though perhaps not the best indicator of effective teaching. Despite flaws in peer observation instruments, the results from classroom observation are seen as valid and are used in deliberations about faculty teaching performance. (Contains 4 tables.)
_________________________

*All abstracts are copied from the ERIC database.

(to the top)