This annotated bibliography includes resources for faculty participating in a peer review of teaching program. The references are separated into two sections: the process of peer review of teaching (i.e., how to do it), and the rationale of why it's important. The references listed here can supplement the peer review of teaching resources provided by the Office for Teaching and Learning (OTL) at WSU. For questions regarding peer review of teaching, contact the OTL at otl@wayne.edu.

Peer Review of Teaching Process:                                                                                      

Brent, R., & Felder, R. M. (2004). A Protocol for Peer Review of Teaching. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.

This article by Brent and Felder outlines a general peer review process that could be adopted at the university, department, or individual peer observer/instructor level. The beginning section usefully outlines how not to conduct a peer review of teaching program, and dispels some concerns faculty/administrators may have regarding the peer review of teaching mission. Furthermore, Brent and Felder give an overview of the process and results of a peer review program implemented at North Carolina State University Chemical Engineering Department, and discuss the consistency of the results from that program. The article ends by detailing a peer review protocol recommended by Brent and Felder, and derived from the protocol implemented at North Carolina State University.

La Lopa, J. (2012). A Scholarly Approach to a Peer Review of Teaching. Journal of Culinary Science, 10(4), 352-364.

La Lopa discusses the peer review of teaching process from a scholarly perspective, answering questions of "why is peer review of teaching required?" and "how is the peer review process different from the SET?". This article summarizes some key literature regarding effective peer review of teaching, and summarizes some of the steps taken to implement a peer review from key articles. La Lopa also lists common concerns of faculty regarding the peer review of teaching process, and how to mitigate such concerns with a thoughtfully developed peer review protocol. Moreover, La Lopa lists some references that contain tools to assist faculty/administrators in developing and carrying out a peer review process, such as rubrics for peer observer note taking during teaching observations, step-by-step instructions, etc…

Kite, M. E. (2012). Effective evaluation of teaching: A guide for faculty and administrators. Retrieved from the Society for the Teaching of Psychology web site: http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/evals2012/index.php

Mary Kite's guide brings together numerous articles discussing the significant drawbacks of using SETs as the sole way to determine an instructor's teaching, and how a peer review process could supplement the SET's results, to provide a more holistic picture of an instructor's teaching prowess. The article towards the end of the guide, "Peer Review of Teaching", provides key details for conducting each of the five sections of a peer review of teaching program: the preclassroom visitation meeting, the classroom visitation (directly observing the instructor), the class visitation discussion with the students, preparing the written report, and the postclassroom visitation meeting. The articles ends with a discussion of some common questions about the peer review system, such as "what are the benefits/limitations of peer review?".

Bernstein, D. J., Johnson, J., & Smith, K. (2000). An Examination of the Implementation of Peer Review of Teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 83, 73-86.

A PRoT program was implemented at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, and Bernstein et al provide a detailed overview of the program, as well as a critique of its effectiveness. The University of Nebraska faculty reported overwhelmingly positive attitudes towards the PRoT process at the end of the program. Furthermore, faculty involved in the PRoT pilot program increased the level of critical thinking required for assessments used in their courses, compared to before the implementation of the program. The authors also site the necessity to run the summative and formative aspects of the PRoT program in alternating cycles of formative-then-summative processes, to allow faculty development to take place during the formative periods.

Rationale for Peer Review of Teaching

Atkinson, D. J., & Bolt, S. (2010). Using teaching observations to reflect upon and improve teaching practice in higher education. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(3), 1-9.

Atkinson and Bolt discuss the implementation of a PRoT program, specifically calling on a formative approach involving peer observation to promote faculty reflection on their teaching. This PRoT process involved an observation of the faculty teaching by an expert observer, a written report by the observer, a post-observation discussion between the observer and faculty member, and a group debrief. The group debrief was somewhat unique to this PRoT process, and involved all faculty and observers sharing knowledge regarding the experience. Atkinson and Bolt found that the faculty recommended the process be continued in a voluntary manner, and that the observer be a university retained expert. 

Bernstein, D. J. (2008). Peer Review and Evaluation of the Intellectual Work of Teaching. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40 (2), 48-51.

Daniel Bernstein provides a review of the roots of the general PRoT process and ideals, and many issues associated with the process. Bernstein offers insight from several sources to tackle the emerging issues in establishing PRoT programs, such as the necessary support of faculty development activities in concert with the establishment of PRoT programs. Furthermore, Bernstein discusses sources that stress the importance of keeping formative and summative PRoT programs separate. Bernstein ends by discussing sources commenting on the integration of PRoT programs into larger faculty evaluation structures at universities.

Maeda, M., Sechtem, P. R., & Scudder, R. (2009). Peer Review of Teachers: Are They Useful? Paper presented at the 5th Annual GRASP Symposium, Wichita State University.

Maeda et al. performed a short study aimed to learn more about methods and uses of information from peer reviews of teaching, specifically in the Communication Sciences and Disorders programs. The study included a survey of instructors (115) from 85 programs, and the survey included similar to "Are the results of peer reviews meaningful to you?", and "Do you take peer reviews to heart and change or modify the way you teach based on the findings?", etc…  The study shows that the peer review process has an overall positive impact, with 80% of the respondents stating that the results of the peer reviews were meaningful to them.