Peer Review of Teaching

Periodic peer review of teaching is required for all faculty by UO Senate legislation passed in 1996 and the 2015-2018 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the university and United Academics. How to carry out that peer review was left mostly up to individual departments, with the result that the procedures vary widely across campus.

The peer review of teaching has the potential to be an extremely valuable element in the teaching evaluation if the department as a whole has taken the time to define what good teaching means for them and has adopted a procedure that guides the reviewer to assess the faculty member’s teaching through that lens. 

TEP’s specific procedural recommendations and rubrics may be found below, along with examples of procedures and documents provided by UO’s Department of Human Physiology, which has adopted nationally validated instruments for STEM teaching. Both models direct evaluators toward teaching practices linked to student learning and value and cultivate teaching development—engaging in reflection and informed experimentation/change—as characteristic of teaching excellence.

Peer Review of Teaching Example Documents

 TEP RecommendedValidated Instruments for STEM
  Exemple Department: Human Physiology
Review Procedure

TEP Recommended Peer Review Procedure

HPHY Department Procedures(Word doc - PDF File)

Observation InstrumentTEP Peer Teaching Observation Guide (PDF File) (Word doc) (Excel version with point rubric)Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (Excel file - Example COPUS file with dummy data)
Self-AssessmentTEP Faculty Self-Assessment Guide (PDF File)(Word Doc)Teaching Practices Inventory
ReportTEP Recommended Report ContentHPHY Department Template(Word doc- PDF File)
Workload Expectation for ReviewAbout 5 hours5 – 6 hours
For more more information contact:Julie MuellerSierra Dawson

These peer review instruments draw the reviewer’s attention to specific, itemized "actions" of teachers and learners: they generate information about the class separate from a judgment of quality (though in these examples, quality is implied inasmuch as the actions on the list are linked to research on student learning). And, ideally, they give the reviewer a fresh, more objective way of looking at the class.

An annotated list of other available observation instruments, self-assessment tools, self-efficacy scales, and instruments for graduate student teacher development and self-efficacy can be found at the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology site. The instruments on the list have generally been extensively tested for reliability and validity.

N.B. These materials primarily focus on the review of face to face classes. To assess the quality of a fully online course, TEP offers these online considerations and directs faculty to the new Policy on Undergraduate Online and Hybrid Courses: Student Engagement.