Peer Review of Teaching

Learn what peer review of teaching (PRT) is, why it’s important, and how it can be implemented to support professional development.

Introduction

Peer review of teaching (PRT) is the process of observing and sometimes also evaluating instructors’ teaching. PRT can be an invaluable tool in supporting faculty in their professional development, as it promotes reflection on teaching and frames teaching as a skill to be regularly re-examined and updated.

This guide synthesizes the research and best practices for peer review of teaching. It is the culmination of the work done by the members of the BU Teaching Observation Troupe, Amy Bennett-Zendzian, Kyna Hamill, Nathan Jones, Aleksandra Kasztalska, and Christina Michaud. For more information, please consult the full report, which was authored by Aleksandra Kasztalska and which includes additional details and references. Download the full report.

PRT is important because it

encourages instructors to carefully examine their pedagogical practice, through which they can gain a deeper, more nuanced perspective on their teaching.
promotes an open and more collaborative model of teaching, thus strengthening departmental relationships.
strengthens transparency in teaching and frames teaching as a skill to be practiced, honed, and improved over time.

A note on terminology: Peer review of teaching (PRT) is an umbrella term that can refer to either teaching observations or teaching evaluations.

Teaching observations are usually conducted by the instructor’s peers (that is, faculty of similar professional rank or status), who provide the instructor with constructive feedback on their teaching and help them improve and grow professionally.
Teaching evaluations tend to be conducted by a more senior or experienced instructor, whose task is to assess another instructor’s overall effectiveness vis-à-vis a set of professional standards or general expectations for teaching in the program.

Because the term “peer review of teaching” is widely used to refer to both observations and evaluations, this guide will also use “PRT” as the overarching term to refer to any situation in which teaching is observed. The term “reviewer” will likewise be used to refer to any observer and/or evaluator. When necessary, this guide will distinguish between teaching observations and teaching evaluations to highlight the fundamental differences between the two types of PRT.

Two Types of PRT

PRT can serve different purposes, from helping an instructor reflect on and improve their teaching to evaluating an instructor’s overall effectiveness. Formative PRT refers to peer observations that are conducted to inform and improve teaching, while summative PRT refers to more formal faculty evaluations that are often part of annual review and faculty reward systems. These two types of PRT have distinct goals and characteristics, though in practice they sometimes overlap. Nonetheless, they are best understood as distinct systems due to their fundamentally different uses and goals, as shown in the table below.

	Formative PRT	Summative PRT
Purpose	Feedback on teaching with the goal of informing future instruction, identifying areas for improvement, and demonstrating growth	Assessment of overall teaching effectiveness and achievement of professional benchmarks, used in making hiring, merit increase, tenure, and other personnel decisions
Reviewer	Usually faculty or similar rank experience	Senior or more experienced faculty or department head
Format	Informal, semi-structured, optional, confidential	Formal, structured, mandated, shared with department head or dean
Features	Low-stakes Flexible and informal Easier to implement Encourages honest discussions of teaching Encourages reciprocal learning and collaboration between instructors	High stakes Standardized and formal Requires careful planning Involves qualitative and/or quantitative assessment Encourages learning from more experienced faculty
Product	Informal written report, narrative log, and/or rubric that encourages discussions on teaching and documents growth over time	Formal written report and/or rubric that offers a snapshot of instructor’s effectiveness and achievements at a given point in time
Audience	Content of observation is confidential and not included in annual reviews or external assessments (unless instructor chooses to include it in their teaching portfolio)	Formal report is shared with departmental head or dean and used in annual review, tenure, merit increase, and other high-stakes decisions

Benefits of PRT

Development of teaching expertise

Teaching requires complex cognitive and interpersonal skills as well as pedagogical expertise and in-depth understanding of the discipline. These elements of effective teaching can be honed through practice, but research suggests that teaching experience alone does not guarantee improvement over time. Regular PRT can assist instructors in developing their teaching expertise, because it encourages them to continuously review and reflect on their own and others’ teaching practice. PRT thus helps instructors see teaching as an ongoing activity that should be critically examined and regularly fine-tuned, promoting a departmental climate of pedagogical excellence and innovation.

Deeper insight into teaching

PRT, and peer observations in particular, encourage instructors and reviewers to closely examine and reflect on their own teaching. When regularly observed by others and offered constructive feedback, instructors can gain a deeper and more nuanced insight into their own pedagogical practice and more accurately identify their strengths as well as areas for improvement. Moreover, PRT exposes reviewers to other teaching methods, tools, and contexts, thus enriching their own pedagogical repertoire. In sum, PRT benefits not only the instructor being observed but also the reviewer.

Evidence of teaching effectiveness

Much of teaching happens behind closed doors, so PRT gives instructors opportunities to share their teaching with others. Formative PRT especially has the potential to highlight and document an instructor’s effectiveness and innovation in the classroom. Although the content of peer observations is generally kept confidential, an instructor may include the observation report and other documentation in their teaching portfolio or use such materials when applying for contract renewal, merit increase, teaching awards, etc. PRT can thus enhance and complement an instructor’s teaching portfolio by helping them document their successes.

Countermeasure against biased evaluations

In helping an instructor document their success and demonstrate growth over time, systematic PRT can act as a countermeasure against limited, narrow, or potentially biased forms of summative assessment. In particular, PRT can supplement end-of-semester course evaluations, submitted by students who are not qualified to judge the pedagogical soundness of certain choices and methods implemented by the instructor. Similarly, administrators with limited experience in teaching in a given field may not be suited to evaluate an instructor’s overall performance. Thus, peers who are experts in the subject area and relevant pedagogy and who have been trained to evaluate teaching effectiveness can potentially offer a more objective and nuanced description and assessment of an instructor’s work.

Accountability and maintaining standards

PRT is also an important tool to ensure accountability and maintain high professional standards within the program and across the institution. When instructors are regularly observed and when they are provided feedback on their work, teaching becomes more open and transparent, which can stimulate growth and innovation in the classroom. Consequently, PRT can encourage ongoing professional development among faculty of all ranks and prevent pedagogical stagnation. Additionally, systematic PRT ensures that teaching standards are continuously discussed, upheld, and updated as needed.

Culture of conversation and collaboration

Finally, in encouraging open and ongoing discussions of teaching practice, PRT helps instructors see teaching as a shared activity and a collaborative process. PRT can thus foster a culture of reciprocity and reflection, in which collegiality and collaboration are the foundations of effective teaching. Moreover, honest and informative conversations about teaching can promote a departmental climate in which the pursuit of pedagogical excellence and high standards is viewed as a continuous and worthwhile effort.

Limitations and Challenges to PRT

Lack of training

One of the greatest challenges in developing and implementing PRT is ensuring that reviewers have appropriate training and preparation. All too often, instructors are expected to observe or even evaluate others without adequate training or experience in assessing teaching, which can lead to unreliable, inconsistent, and potentially biased evaluations. It is therefore important that reviewers, whether observing for formative feedback or evaluating teaching for summative reports, receive appropriate training in identifying and assessing evidence of teaching effectiveness.

Fairness and equity concerns

A reviewer’s personal preferences and biases may in some cases influence their understanding or assessment of another instructor’s teaching. For example, a reviewer may negatively evaluate methods that do not align with their own or hold other implicit biases. These concerns should be mitigated through multiple means, such as developing assessment tools that focus on measurable and observable teaching activities and requiring reviewers to undergo training. In sum, thoughtful development and implementation of PRT is the most important means of minimizing bias.

Fear of criticism

Some instructors may perceive PRT as a threat to their teaching, while others may regard teaching as a highly personal and subjective activity and may feel uncomfortable sharing it with others. To mitigate these concerns, constructive feedback and fair assessment must be an integral part of an ongoing program-wide conversation on pedagogy. When teaching is regularly shared with others and examined with the goal of improvement and innovation, instructors are likely to find PRT valuable and worthwhile.

Distrust of observations

Instructors may have good reasons to distrust PRT. For example, those who had negative prior experiences with PRT may regard observations and evaluations as unhelpful or unfair, while instructors not used to being observed by others are likely to feel nervous Distrust can also result from lack of faculty input in the development of PRT instruments and protocols, which can lead to the perception that peer observations and evaluations are attempts to standardize teaching and stifle pedagogical freedom. It is therefore important that all stakeholders have a say in the development of PRT and that the process is transparent.

Practical constraints

PRT may be viewed by some as yet another requirement that instructors have to fulfill. Furthermore, when instructors are not given sufficient time to prepare for observations or evaluations, the process may become a stressful and tiring experience for both the reviewer and the observed. Because effective PRT requires careful preparation and training, observations and evaluations should be announced well in advance and conducted only as frequently as necessary. Departments should also consider classifying reviewers’ work as service.

Limited research

Although much has been written about PRT in K-12 settings, the protocols and instruments that are used to observe and evaluate university instructors have not been systematically or empirically tested. Consequently, there are some doubts about the reliability and validity of the available tools, as well as questions about the effects of PRT on pedagogy and on student learning outcomes Because PRT has the potential to improve both teaching and learning, there is a great need to more systematically examine the existing tools and approaches used in observing and evaluating teaching in the higher education context.

Seven Principles of Effective PRT

Appropriateness	PRT should be designed with the broader institutional context in mind, and ideally also adapted to the structure, needs, and resources of each academic program. Additionally, PRT should be grounded in and tied to the professional values and practices that are regarded as the foundations of effective teaching.
Transparency	PRT procedures and protocols should be developed with consultation from key stakeholders who should understand the professional and pedagogical principles that underlie the tools and protocols for observing and evaluating teaching.
Thoughtfulness	In developing or revising protocols for observing or evaluating teaching, care should be taken to mitigate bias and other limitations of PRT. Moreover, PRT should be conducted in a systematic and timely manner; ideally, mandated observations and evaluations should be announced at the beginning of each academic year.
Training	Both the observed instructors and the observers must be deeply acquainted with PRT procedures and instruments, and those tasked with assessing teaching should receive prior training. Faculty assessments should also be conducted in adherence to clearly defined professional and pedagogical standards.
Explicitness	Peer reviewers should have access to detailed step-by-step guides and other observation or assessment tools, such as rubrics and sample written reports. Additionally, it is important to clearly define the observer’s role and positionality during the classroom observation.
Cohesion	Ideally, PRT should include both formative and summative review. Summative assessments should inform and catalyze more low-stakes peer observations, while low-stakes observations should help instructors prepare for promotion, merit, or other high-stakes assessments.
Monitoring	PRT instruments and protocols should be continually monitored and updated or adjusted as needed, so that they are appropriate, timely, and useful for all stakeholders. Regular monitoring and assessment of PRT can be conducted by a faculty committee or in consultation with external experts.

Establishing a PRT System

When designing and planning PRT, there are several important questions that need to be answered. The answers to these questions can profoundly shape PRT instruments and protocols, so they need to be thoughtfully considered, with input from all stakeholders.

What is the role of PR in overall faculty assessment?
PRT should be situated within a larger system of documenting an instructor’s professional development and evaluating their effectiveness. The role of PRT in such a system must be clearly defined, especially when instructors are evaluated for the purpose of merit increase, promotion, and other high-stakes personnel decisions. Importantly, the results of summative evaluations should be carefully interpreted according to previously established and agreed-upon guidelines and used in combination with other appropriate measures of teaching effectiveness.

Who should conduct formal faculty evaluations?
The characteristics of the reviewer and their relationship to the observed instructor must be clearly defined, especially when instructors are being formally evaluated. One factor to consider is the reviewer’s teaching experience, as summative PRT is generally performed by a more experienced instructor. Another factor is faculty rank, appointment type, and career trajectory: Tenure-track faculty, lecturers, and adjuncts may all need to be observed and evaluated according to different procedures and criteria.

How should reviewers prepare for PRT?
Especially when PRT is used in high-stakes situations, reviewers need to be trained in properly using the tools and in mitigating potential biases and limitations of PRT. Reviewer training should be offered on a regular basis, for example once a year or once every other year. Because of the time and labor involved in conducting PRT, a program or college may decide that it is appropriate to create a rotating PRT committee.

How often should PRT be conducted?
Frequency of PRT depends on faculty rank, appointment type, and other considerations. While informal observations may be conducted once or more per semester, summative evaluations should be conducted only as frequently as necessary and as part of regularly scheduled faculty review and promotion processes. An important consideration is the number of class sessions to be observed and evaluated. In general, the more class meetings a reviewer is able to observe, the more nuanced and in-depth their evaluations will be, but this affordance needs to be leveraged against the increased time and labor of multiple observations.

How should PRT be conducted across pedagogical contexts?
The differences between large lectures, clinical labs, and small discussion-style seminars necessitate somewhat different PRT protocols and instruments. Moreover teaching observations and evaluations are conducted differently in each course modality (face-to-face, online, or hybrid).. Nonetheless, because it is often impractical to develop unique tools and procedures for a wide range of pedagogical settings and modalities, PRT instruments can be flexible and adaptable to different course types and modalities.

How should teaching be assessed in PRT?
The criteria used to assess teaching should reflect the best pedagogical practices and core values of the institution as well as the best practices and the given program. These criteria can involve a lower or higher degree of inference: Low-inference criteria are more descriptive in nature and may result in more consistent and more objective assessments, while high-inference criteria reflect judgments about the quality of teaching and can lead to more useful, but also potentially more biased, evaluations. Although both types of criteria can be insightful, low-inference criteria tend to lead to more reliable and neutral assessments.

Who should have access to PRT data?
Some important questions in developing high-stakes summative PRT are: Which kinds of evidence of teaching effectiveness will be collected and assessed? Where will this data be stored and for how long? And finally, who will have access to this data? Generally, only the predetermined and relevant teaching activities and materials should be documented, and all data collected during PRT should be shared only with the appropriate stakeholders. All data should be stored in a predetermined, secure location, and the confidentiality of the data must be carefully maintained.

Step-by-Step Guide to Establishing a PRT System

The following step-by-step guide outlines key stages in setting up or revising a system of PRT. These guidelines are intended as general recommendations only, as the actual implementation of PRT protocols and procedures may depend on a number of factors, including already-existing protocols, program size and structure, and institutional or departmental climate and characteristics.

Step 1: Assess program readiness	First, gauge program readiness for PRT by surveying instructors about their prior experiences with teaching observations and evaluations as well as their concerns and reservations about PRT. Surveying stakeholders’ past experiences and current attitudes toward PRT can reveal logistical, material, interpersonal, and affective challenges to establishing and implementing new protocols.
Step 2: Reach pedagogical consensus	PRT must reflect best practices in the program, so consensus should be reached among faculty and other stakeholders about what constitutes effective teaching. This can be done by hosting a departmental conversation moderated by an external facilitator or other neutral body. Such a conversation should culminate in the creation of a written statement of departmental teaching philosophy, outlining teaching principles and standards that will inform PRT.
Step 3: Encourage informal observations	Instructors should have opportunities to engage in informal observation. This can help normalize observations, encourage honest conversations about teaching, and prepare instructors for high-stakes assessments. Informal observations of teaching can resemble a buddy or team system, in which pairs or small groups of instructors of similar rank or experience regularly observe each, or a mentor system, in which a less experienced instructor is matched with a more senior faculty member.
Step 4: Develop evaluation protocols and instruments	PRT protocols and instruments should be developed with input from all stakeholders. It is recommended that an institutional committee or task force develop general PRT guidelines that can be adapted by each program. This approach can save individual departments time and effort, though each program should take care in adapting PRT protocols to ensure that these tools are relevant to their instructors and students.
Step 5: Train reviewers	Reviewers must undergo training in using PRT tools and criteria. Ideally, reviewers should have an opportunity to conduct a practice observation and observe instructors who have been recognized for excellence in teaching. Reviewers can also benefit from reading sample observation reports and norming rubrics or other assessment tools. Finally, they should be made aware of their responsibilities and roles during the classroom observation.
Step 6: Prepare instructors for PRT	Instructors should be encouraged to prepare for PRT in advance by engaging in regular reflection on their teaching and participating in informal observations. Instructors can also develop teaching portfolios that document their professional growth and achievements; these days, digital teaching portfolios can even include video excerpts of classroom activities to showcase the instructor’s teaching methods. These materials can be used to supplement regular classroom observations in assessing teaching.
Step 7: Implement and monitor PRT	PRT protocols and instruments should be implemented thoughtfully and efficiently. Because of the time commitment involved in PRT, a standing or rotating committee may be created to schedule and conduct observations and evaluations. The PRT process should also be regularly monitored and revised, and evaluation tools should undergo a more rigorous review annually or every other year to reassess the effectiveness, appropriateness, and fairness of these instruments.

Models for PRT Protocols and Instruments

Boston University

The following resources are examples of materials developed for the purpose of observing teaching at Boston University. We encourage you to review them and adapt them to the needs of your program.

Writing Program Guide for Faculty Observations: This guide was developed by the BU Writing Program’s Observation Committee to outline the procedures for observing teaching in WR courses.

Teaching Evaluation Rubric: This rubric lists some generally accepted best practices in teaching and can be used to observe and evaluate teaching across different disciplines. However, each program should carefully review and adapt the rubric to reflect the specific criteria and values of the program.

Writing Program Observation Inventory: This observation inventory was developed by the BU Writing Program’s Observation Committee to be used for note-taking purposes during the observation.

University of Texas at Austin

The University of Texas at Austin’s Faculty Innovation Center offers a succinct introduction to PRT, breaking the process down into several stages and listing guiding questions that should be asked at each stage. The website also includes links to additional resources, including the university’s PRT protocol and related PRT forms and resources.

University of Texas at El Paso

This detailed guide on Peer Observation and Assessment of Teaching was developed by University of Texas at El Paso’s Center for Effective Teaching and Learning, and the Instructional Support Services. The guidebook offers a more detailed overview of PRT and covers a range of topics that may be of interest to both faculty and administrators, from the role of PRT in assessing faculty performance, to developing a departmental system of PRT, to examples of forms and other resources for conducting teaching observations and evaluations.

University of Oregon

The University of Oregon’s page on evaluating teaching provides detailed guides for conducting teaching observations and evaluations. The website not only outlines the university’s procedures for PRT, but also provides resources for faculty to reflect on and assess their own teaching and instructions for using student feedback in evaluating teaching.

Vanderbilt University

Vanderbilt University‘s Center for Teaching has put together a website on PRT that not only discusses the best practices in evaluating teaching, but also discusses the benefits and limitations of PRT. In addition, the website offers a detailed list of teaching practices that are the focus of PRT as well as a bibliography on PRT for those wishing to learn more about the latest research and best practices in observing and evaluating teaching.

Georgia Tech

The Center for Teaching and Learning at Georgia Tech has created a website on PRT that provides a general overview of the best principles and practices in PRT as well as includes information about the university’s Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS). This evidence-based protocol is intended to offer an evidence-based and reliable description of classroom activities.