Peer Review of Teaching

Ahead of the soft launch of PRT practices at the University of Waterloo in 2024, the TAP Office, in collaboration with faculty Teaching Fellows and the Centre for Teaching Excellence (CTE) have been working hard to ensure that appropriate PRT reviewers are identified and training is provided to those serving as a reviewer. 

Faculty Teaching Fellows (in consultations with Faculty leadership) have identified experienced faculty members to serve as PRT reviewers. Beginning in November 2023, PRT reviewers completed CTE provided training on PRT practices in preparation for conducting PRT reviews.

The training included a focus on the impacts of pedagogical and unconscious bias, collegiality, and power dynamics in the PRT review process. Participants also receive instruction and practical advice on observing a peer’s teaching (in person or online), reviewing related teaching materials, and providing feedback that is aligned with Waterloo’s Framework for Teaching Effectiveness

Inquiries about the PRT training sessions can be directed to: Kathy Becker, Specialist, Teaching Assessment Processes Office.

1. What is the Peer Review of Teaching? 

Peer review of teaching is a systematic, reflective process through which teaching colleagues offer instructors feedback about their teaching for either formative or summative purposes, based on multiple forms of data. We use PRT specifically to mean peer observation of teaching, which is an intentional observation process where a peer observes an instructor with the aim of providing critical feedback, based on predetermined goals and purpose. Peer review generally involves three steps or stages:

• Pre-observation meeting (setting of observation goals and expectations, logistics, observer review of relevant materials such as syllabi, assignments, etc.).
• Observation (in-class or online utilizing pre-determined tool).
• Post-observation meeting (instructor self-reflection, observer’s constructive feedback, discussion of strengths and opportunities as ‘critical friends,’ written report when applicable).

2. What does the PRT process entail? 

The PRT review process can look different depending on the instructor, the teaching context (e.g., asynchronous online courses vs. synchronous delivery) the process of the observation will be different). The PRT review experience is generally expected to include an observation, a review of related course materials, a number of meetings between the instructor and the PRT reviewer, and a PRT report. 

3. Why use PRT practices? 

PRT practices are useful because they promote professional development, they support innovation in teaching, and strengthen the assessment of teaching by providing reliable evidence, enhancing dialogue and collegiality around teaching which benefit both the instructor and the observer. 

4. Why do institutional processes for PRT matter? 

Institutional processes for PRT matter because consistency in how PRT is practiced across faculties will increase equity of the process and increased equity reduces risk to the institution for grievances.

5. How do I schedule my PRT review and manage my PRT reports? 

The PRT system will automatically alert instructors when their PRT review window has begun, connect instructors with their PRT reviewer and prompt instructors to complete the process within a one-year period. When it comes time for performance review, tenure, and promotion activities, it will be easy for instructors and department chairs/school directors to access PRT reports.

6. Who has access to a faculty members' PRT Report(s)? 

Once a PRT review is complete and the report is written, the reviewer will upload the report to the PRT system where both reviewer and reviewee will have access. Department chairs/school directors will also have access to PRT reports for faculty members in their unit. Tenure and promotion committees will see PRT reports that are included in tenure and promotion (and, for lecturers, continuing status) packages.

7. How are PRT reports used in performance reviews and tenure/promotion decisions?

Once policy 76/77 have been settled, a team of faculty members and expert supports will be established to develop recommendations on how to interpret PRT Reports. Until that time, PRT reports will serve as a valuable complement to SCP survey scores, and faculties that are already using peer review in tenure and promotion decisions will likely continue as they have.

8. Do instructors have any input about their PRT report? 

Instructors being reviewed have input in two keyways. First, the PRT system will suggest three potential PRT reviewers. To address potential conflicts of interest, the PRT system was built to give both reviewer and reviewee an opportunity to anonymously veto any suggested match. Second, instructors will have the opportunity to review and provide a response to the PRT report before it is finalized.

9. Can instructors opt-out of a PRT review? 

The implementation of PRT is being approached as a soft launch meaning that not all instructors are required to participate in a PRT. However, instructors are strongly encouraged to complete their scheduled PRT review. The PRT review experience will provide instructors with a more nuanced assessment of their teaching practice and add invaluable context to SCP survey scores. Those who participate will benefit from a more complete assessment of their teaching for performance review, tenure, and promotion decisions, as well as framing to describe any efforts they make towards their professional development as teachers in future performance reviews. Except in the case of probationary faculty members, instructors who decline their scheduled PRT review will not be rescheduled until all other instructors have completed their scheduled PRT reviews.

Have a question that isn't answered on this page? Please contact Kathy Becker. 

Allison Chenier, Definite-Term Lecturer, Department of Sociology and Legal Studies, talks about her experiences undergoing a Peer Review of Teaching Evaluation at the University of Waterloo (2023).

What if there’s a conflict of interest between the instructor and a proposed PRT reviewer? 

Conflict of interests between the instructor and a proposed PRT reviewer can be dealt with through exercise of their anonymous veto. Both the instructor and the PRT reviewer will have the option to anonymously veto any proposed matches. Since the process is anonymous, neither has to worry that exercising a veto will harm their working relationship with a colleague.  

Will PRT reviewers know what they're doing? 

Yes, PRT reviewers were identified by Faculty Teaching Fellows as the appropriate candidates to serve as the PRT reviewer role. All PRT reviewers receive PRT reviewer training which is being provided by the Centre for Teaching Excellence. 

Doesn’t a PRT reviewer need to be an expert in the specific area being taught?

No, PRT reviewers do not need to be experts in the specific topic being taught. To create a more holistic system for the assessment of teaching (that is also less prone to the impacts of systemic bias), assessment processes are grounded in Waterloo’s Framework for Teaching Effectiveness. This means the goal of peer review is to assess teaching as it relates to UW’s teaching priorities. Matching instructors with PRT reviewers who don’t have discipline-specific expertise also helps prevent the bias that can result when a reviewer has strong feelings about the “right way” to teach a specific subject in a sub-discipline. During the 2024 roll out, requests for different matching approaches will be accommodated where feasible.

 The PRT process is too time consuming, I am already too busy.

The PRT process will involve some additional work. But the goal of including PRT in the process is to correct a problematic over-reliance on student survey data. Like the SCP survey, the PRT process is grounded in Waterloo’s Framework for Teaching Effectiveness, which helps mitigate the impacts of systemic bias in teaching assessment. And it’s an important part of Waterloo's holistic model of teaching assessment.

What’s wrong with using just SCP survey scores to assess teaching?

There are many things wrong with over-reliance on SCP survey data. Student perceptions of their learning experience matter; students are in a unique position to comment on how the teaching they experience impacts their learning experience. But there are elements of teaching practices that students are ill-equipped to assess, and those are the elements for which peers can provide meaningful feedback. Part of what makes PRT part of "the gold standard" is that having multiple sources of information about teaching performance is an important measure to mitigate the impact of bias present in any individual method. Mitigating the impacts of systemic bias is the primary driver behind Waterloo’s transition to a holistic model of teaching assessment, of which PRT is a key piece.