Relevant Issues

Over the course of this project, the project team has identified several key issues that must be considered by teams wanting to put a summative peer review of teaching program into practice.  These include:

• the need to include a formative element to the peer review process
• the need to make some form of reward available for reviewers
• the need to make professional development available for Peer Review Team members
• the need to clarify roles for reviewers and promotion committee members
• the need to adapt the peer review process to suit individual universities
• the need to address equity issues around the formation of Peer Review Teams

Formative element

Feedback from both reviewers and applicants has shown that applicants need a formative element to the Internal Peer Review process in order to feel comfortable with and confident in the processes and criteria involved.  A modified protocol for formative peer review, to be conducted at School or Discipline level and completely separate from the summative process, is available here.

top

Reviewer rewards

Reviewers typically spent between 4 and 8 hours completing each peer review (whether internal or external).  This represents a significant amount of their time on top of other commitments, more so if they are asked to participate in more than one peer review or if there is only a limited pool of qualified reviewers available.  For this reason, it is advisable to offer some form of reward or compensation for reviewers who agree to participate in the program.  Options include:

• payment by the hour for review work
• time off in lieu, or reduction in teaching hours
• funded teaching assistance (semester-long, or ad hoc as needed to allow reviewers to meet their peer review commitments)
• formal acknowledgment of participation as service to the university community

top

Reviewer professional development

Feedback from reviewers indicates the in order for peer reviewers to feel comfortable with and confident about using the Internal and/or External Peer Review processes and applying the criteria to review colleagues fairly, they need some form of professional development and support. 

Suggested models for professional development workshops, for both Internal and External Peer Review Team members, are available here.

top

Clarification of roles

It can be helpful for reviewers, particularly Internal Peer Review Team members, to have the parameters of their roles clarified before they begin to carry out reviews. 

While it is clearly stated in the Peer Review protocol documents that reviewers are not to offer recommendations for or against an applicant's promotion, it may be helpful in professional development sessions to restate the point.  Additionally, it should be made clear that Internal Peer Review Team members are asked to comment only on the applicant's performance in the classroom or other teaching venue on a specific occasion (i.e. the session being observed), and that External Peer Review Team members are asked to comment only on the contents of applicant's written application.

It may also be worthwhile to give promotion committee members some information about the content and focus of both Internal and External Peer Review Team reports, so that the reports to be used to full advantage in the promotion process.  Some notes for promotion committee members are available here.

top

Adaptation of process

While the protocols given here present a workable system for the summative peer review of teaching, it is not a system that will suit every university.  Institutions will need to adapt the system to suit their context - either individually, or working in a team with a partner university. 

Adaptations may be minor (at the level of names, roles, alterations to reporting forms etc), or more substantial.  To adapt the system successfully will require considering key questions about: the role and place of formative peer review in the overall system; the handling of classroom observation and assessment of written material; the assignment of authority roles; the appeals process; the administration of the peer review process; and the role and involvement of a potential partner university. 

A list of relevant questions to consider is available here.

top

Equity issues

When forming Peer Review Teams, it is necessary to consider any equity concerns that may arise between the applicant for promotion and the Peer Review Team, and/or between the members of the Peer Review Team.  These can include reviewer rank, gender and cultural issues.

A list of relevant questions to consider is available here.

top