[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-596556-105":59,"doc-detail-596556-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","dont-tell-it-like-it-is-preserving-collegiality-in-the-summative-peer-review-of-teaching","Don’t tell it like it is - Preserving collegiality in the summative peer review of teaching","","Explores faculty perceptions of feedback practices in summative peer reviews of teaching and explains why constructive feedback is often absent or nonspecific. Interview data from 30 tenure-track professors at a research-intensive Canadian university show reviewers rarely provide feedback; when they do, comments are usually vague or emphasize positives, limiting professional growth. Faculty attribute this to tenure and research productivity stakes, limited pedagogical expertise, lack of teaching evaluation criteria, and the artificiality of peer review processes.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/dont-tell-it-like-it-is-preserving-collegiality-in-the-summative-peer-review-of-teaching/596556/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/dont-tell-it-like-it-is-preserving-collegiality-in-the-summative-peer-review-of-teaching/596556.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Alexandar","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":34},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What does the article investigate about summative peer reviews of teaching?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It examines faculty members’ perceptions of feedback practices in summative peer reviews and their understanding of why constructive feedback is typically missing or unspecific.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What do the interview findings show about feedback given in summative reviews?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Reviewers rarely give feedback; when they do, comments are commonly vague and/or mainly highlight positive aspects.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Why is feedback described as limited in summative peer reviews?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Faculty suggest limitations stem from the high-stakes nature of tenure, pressure for research productivity, limited pedagogical expertise, lack of teaching-evaluation criteria, and the artificiality of peer review.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},596556,1792161539,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":34,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},962090768658,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","CSSHE  \nSCÉES  \nCanadian Journal of Higher Education Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur Volume 44, No. 1, 2014, pages 108-124  \nDon’t tell it like it is: Preserving collegiality in the summative peer review of teaching  \nIsabeau Iqbal  \nThe University of British Columbia  \nAbstract  \nWhile much literature has considered feedback and professional growth informative peer reviews of teaching, there has been little empirical research conducted on these issues in the context of summative peer reviews. This article explores faculty members’ perceptions of feedback practices in the summative peer review of teaching and reports on their understandings of why constructive feedback is typically non-existent or unspecific in summative reviews. Drawing from interview data with 30 tenure-track professors in a research-intensive Canadian university, the findings indicated that reviewers rarely gave feedback to the candidates, and when they did, comments were typically vague and/or focused on the positive. Feedback, therefore, did not contribute to professional growth in teaching. Faculty members suggested that feedback was limited because of the following: the high-stakes nature of tenure, the demands for research productivity, lack of pedagogical expertise among academics, non-existent criteria for evaluating teaching, and the artificiality of peer reviews. In this article I argue that when it comes to summative reviews, elements of academic culture, especially the value placed on collegiality, shape feedback practices in important ways.  \nRésumé  \nSide nombreux écritsont été consacrés aux évaluationset au perfectionnement professionnel des professeurs dans les rapports formatifs des pairs, peude recherches empiriques portent sur ces questions dans leurs évaluations sommatives. Cet article explore les perceptions des professeurs d’université quant aux pratiques d’évaluation adoptées dans les évaluations sommatives  \nCJHE / RCES Volume 44, No. 1, 2014  \nDon’t Tell It Like It Is / I. Iqbal 109  \nde l’enseignement par les pairs, et expose leur compréhension des raisonsexpliquant l’absence d’évaluations constructives, ou leurimprécision, dans cesmêmes évaluations sommatives. À partirde 30 entrevues avec des professeurs occupant un poste menant à la permanence dans une université canadienneaxée sur la recherche, les résultatsontindiqué que les examinateurs donnaient rarement de commentaires aux candidats et que, quand ils le faisaient, ces commentaires étaient généralement vagues ou ne soulignaient que les aspects positifs. En conséquence, ces rapports n’ont pas contribué au progrèsprofessionnel du travail del’enseignant. Des professeursont avancé les raisons suivantes pour expliquer les limites de la rétroaction : l’importance de l’enjeu dela permanence et des publications, le manque de compétence pédagogique chez les universitaires, l’absence de critères d’évaluation de l’enseignement et le caractère artificiel des évaluations par les pairs. Dans le présent article, je soutiens que, lorsqu’il s’agit d’évaluations sommatives, des traits propres à la culture universitaire, en particulier la valeur accordée à la collégialité, influencent grandement les pratiques d’évaluation par les pairs.  \nIntroduction  \nWithin Canadian universities, summative peer reviews of teaching are increasingly being used to inform personnel decisions such as tenure, promotion, and reappointment (Gravestock, 2011; Ackerman, Gross, & Vigneron, 2009) . The peer review process often consists of a tenured professor (or more than one) who conducts at least one classroom observation of teaching of a departmental peer. Summative reviews may also include an assessment of a candidate’s teaching philosophy statement, course materials, or teaching portfolio. Based on what they observe and read, the reviewers write a report that they submit to the chair of the peer review committee and/or the department head. Tenured departmental colleagues with input into decisions about te","cbCaiftIqcsCTgzk","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiftIqcsCTgzk","pdf",447558,17,"English","# Introduction\n## Purpose and research gap\n## Peer review structure and decision role\n## Critiques of student evaluations and data triangulation\n## Limits of summative reviews for professional growth\n## Comparison with formative peer review and collegiality","[{\"question\":\"What does the article investigate about summative peer reviews of teaching?\",\"answer\":\"It examines faculty members’ perceptions of feedback practices in summative peer reviews and their understanding of why constructive feedback is typically missing or unspecific.\"},{\"question\":\"What do the interview findings show about feedback given in summative reviews?\",\"answer\":\"Reviewers rarely give feedback; when they do, comments are commonly vague and/or mainly highlight positive aspects.\"},{\"question\":\"Why is feedback described as limited in summative peer reviews?\",\"answer\":\"Faculty suggest limitations stem from the high-stakes nature of tenure, pressure for research productivity, limited pedagogical expertise, lack of teaching-evaluation criteria, and the artificiality of peer review.\"}]","Don’t tell it like it is - Preserving collegiality in the summative peer review of teaching | PDF",1792083297,43]