Peer review of courses

Enabling professional growth and quality learning experiences

IU East faculty engage in on-going professional development activities on teaching and learning and strive to create quality learning environments for all students. An important component of the professional development process is peer review of teaching.

Peer review is a critical step on the path for tenure; two reviews are required before tenure is considered (school standards may differ).

Request peer review ADD LINK

Discover the process

Peer review of teaching is based on the following assumptions:

  • Teaching requires the same commitment to success and best practices as other areas of faculty work;
  • Peer review, as it is the gold standard in research, should also be a central measure in teaching;
  • Peer review enhances teaching effectiveness;
  • Peer review is grounded in the commitment professionals have to hold themselves and their colleagues accountable for their work and its impact.

While what defines good teaching is up for debate, research does demonstrate some consistent principles that allow us to generalize about good teaching broadly. IU East has adopted the following framework to judge the quality of effective teaching on our campus:

  1. Teacher’s Content Expertise: Effective teachers understand their academic field well; and match their instruction to institutional and program learning objectives.
  2. Course Design: Effective teachers have a clear purpose that organizes course elements; align activities and assessments with learning outcomes; communicate high but realistic expectations; and match the instruction to students’ learning needs and interests.
  3. Instructional Delivery: Effective teachers use good communication skills; design learning environments that encourage time on task; engage students to use knowledge actively; assess student success in achieving course learning objectives; use an appropriate array of methods; encourage students to work together to learn; and give regular, helpful evaluations of learning.
  4. Instructional Relationships: Effective teachers promote interest in the subject; effective teachers and students need to know and respect each other; effective teachers acknowledge and adjust to student differences; are fair and imp courses appropriately.
  5. Course Management: Effective teachers organize instructional environments well; and are available to help students, both in and out of the classroom.
  6. Professional Development: Effective teachers hold high standards and engage in ongoing professional development; and show improvement in their teaching through student feedback, peer review, and other appropriate feedback and review methods.

(Adapted from the Report of the Task Force on Assessing and Improving Teaching and Learning at Indiana State University, 1998)

This framework guides the peer review process.

Literature suggests that faculty respect peer reviewers who have been recognized as outstanding teachers and have been through a training process. At IU East, we will invite faculty who have been recognized for their teaching and who have successfully completed training to serve as peer reviewers. Peer reviewers must also attend regular training updates to maintain their status. A call for reviewers will go out at the beginning of the Spring semester. Reviewers will self-identify via their interest in participating in the training. Formal training will also take place in the Spring semester.

Training will adhere to best practices in peer review as outlined in Peer Review of Teaching: A Manual for Peer Review at IU Southeast (retrieved April, 24, 2019). Dr. Robin Morgan has graciously agreed to allowing the use of their manual as a basis for our training and implementation. If feasible, Dr. Morgan will participate in our first training session in the Spring.

Performing a peer review

The peer review process is orchestrated by the Center for Faculty Development (CFD), and consists of the following steps:

1. Initial request

The faculty member requests a peer review ADD LINK. CFD staff contact the faculty member and ask what type of review is needed and what the faculty member would like to achieve with the peer review.

2. Selection of Peer Reviewer

Reviewer will be selected from a pool of trained reviewers. Faculty member may accept or reject the selected reviewer IS THIS ACCURATE?.

3. Pre-review meeting

Once the selection process is complete, the reviewer should consult with the candidate to obtain basic background information on the class, teaching  goals/objectives, the syllabus and any supporting materials the candidate
wishes to provide. Ideally this would take place in person, but could be done remotely. The reviewer then reviews the materials and observes a session (or more than one) of the class.

Some information to note during this phase of the review:

  • Name of Course (Graduate, Undergraduate, or Mixed)
  • Class size
  • Time/Date/location of observation
  • Syllabus
  • Information that might be helpful for the reviewer to understand the context of the specific observation:
    • Topic of the class to be observed
    • Objectives for the class
    • Any assignments students completed for this class
    • Teaching methods planned for the class
    • How similar this class is to the candidate’s usual teaching approach
  • Anything in particular the candidate would like the reviewer to focus on
  • Any other supporting materials that candidate would like feedback on
  • This is only a partial list. There are other questions and ideas you might want to discuss during the pre-review.

4. Review process

The reviewer will review the class and may make use of the classroom observation form and documentation matrix ADD LINK as a guide to help adhere to the promotion and tenure guidelines.

Face to Face Courses:

Ideally, two observations of a F2F class should occur. However, the final decision about the numbers of observations will vary depending upon the needs of the faculty member and the pre-observation discussion with the peer reviewer. During the observation, the consultant will look for several instructor behaviors, student behaviors, and evidence to support the instructional goals outlined by the faculty member. Course materials should also be used as a guide during the observation.

Online Courses:

Ideally, the reviewer should observe all aspects of the course. There is no specific time frame, but the reviewer should spend a significant amount of time acquainting themselves with the course. The reviewer should pay attention to the course design and instructional delivery of the course.

5. Post-review meeting

Following the observation, the reviewer and candidate meet to review observations and clarify questions that might have arisen during the observation. The reviewer then provides the candidate with a written report based on information gained from the Classroom Observation Form and Matrix. The following information should be provided to the reviewer prior to a classroom visit for observation. This information could be shared in person or via email. These are questions to guide the post visit interview between the instructor and reviewer, to occur within one week of the visit. The reviewer may choose to take notes, but there is no separate form to complete for the post-consultation visit.

  1. How did you feel the session went?
  2. What parts of the learning session did you feel went especially well?
  3. What parts of the session did not go as well as you would have liked?
  4. To what extent do you think the students achieved the goals you had set for the session?
  5. What suggestions do you have to improve areas that you believe would benefit from attention?

6. Final report

The peer reviewer prepares a report (suggested report format is located at the end of the document). This report will be given ONLY to the faculty member. It is important that the peer review process remain confidential. The reviewee has the right to determine who will see the final report and all documentation related to the peer review.

Model reporting form

Introduction:

  • Peer Reviewer:
  • Faculty Member Reviewed:
  • Dates of classroom observations (if applicable):
  • A brief summary of pre-observation discussion

Narrative:

  • Review of course goals and student learning objectives as outlined by faculty member.
  • Review of course materials provided to peer reviewer by faculty member.
  • Summary of findings from the peer evaluation. There is no need to cover everything, but you will want to include the highlights of the observation noted in the peer review form.
  • If applicable, description of the first observation conducted by the peer reviewer.
  • If applicable, summary of feedback session to faculty member and what steps the faculty member planned on the basis of this feedback.
  • If applicable, description of the second observation conducted.
  • Summary of feedback session to faculty member and what steps the faculty member planned on the basis of this feedback.

Summary:

  • In this section, the peer reviewer should pull together the entire process. Interpretation is okay here but should be used sparingly.
  • For formative review, include recommendations for further improvement.
  • For summative reviews, include overall impression of your observations.
  • Based upon the entire process, what additional changes could the faculty member make?

Provide a copy of the final report within one month of observation.