The following brief guidelines, taken in part from Nancy Van Note Chism's Peer Review of Teaching: A Sourcebook (Bolton, MA: Anker, 1999), will greatly benefit units that wish to initiate substantive and effective change in current practices of peer review of teaching at the most local levels, i.e., departments or schools.

Local Discussion of Evaluating Peer Review of Teaching

This first step in reviewing current practices and seeking effective change is most crucial. Faculty must come together to address several philosophical and pedagogical issues before revising existing practice or implementing new practices. The kinds of issues addressed during local discussions (which will take place over several meetings and/or during retreats to address teaching) might include the following:

1. Define good teaching within the unit, its qualities and goals (a "what" of peer review). For what purposes is teaching reviewed (the "why")?
2. Define "peer" (a "who" of peer review). Who is eligible to conduct reviews of teaching?
3. Define who will be reviewed (a second "who"). According to Office of Academic Affairs guidelines, all faculty teaching must be reviewed periodically.
4. Enumerate the range of practices defined as teaching (a "what" and "where" of peer review). These practices might include but are not limited to classroom teaching, scholarship on teaching, advising, web-based instruction, distance learning, dissertation and thesis advising, independent study, curriculum development.
5. Articulate the areas of focus for review of classroom teaching (e.g., articulation of course goals, mastery of course content, effective use of instructional methods and materials, appropriate evaluation of student work).
6. Establish the process by which peer review of teaching will take place (the "how" of peer review). What tools and methods will be used? What kinds of documentation will be required of faculty, peer reviewers, department chairs?
7. Define a schedule by which all faculty will be reviewed (the "when").
8. Articulate the relationship between and provide opportunities for both formative and summative evaluation of teaching.
9. Articulate the relationship among types of evaluation of teaching (i.e., student, peer, administrative, self).

Implementing the System

Once a department has discussed and reached consensus on issues like those listed above, it can then begin to implement the new processes. To do so effectively, the department must:

1. Prepare faculty to participate effectively in the new review processes.
2. Monitor, review, and evaluate the new processes.
3. Commit to further change and adjust the system if data suggests that is necessary.

"Closing the Loop"

In addition to preparing faculty, monitoring and evaluating and perhaps adjusting a new system of peer review of teaching, departments just also "close the loop," use the data gathered in peer review to improve the quality of teaching within the unit. That is, teachers (and peers) use what they learn from both formative and summative evaluation to become better teachers. Departments must also seek to use the data collected to make informed and equitable judgments about teaching while undertaking summative evaluation of teaching. Peer review of teaching, as well, must be situated in terms of the other data available (i.e., self-evaluation, student evaluation, administrative review). Similarly, all data should be interpreted in terms of both the department's and candidate's goals, philosophies of teaching, and mission.