[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-598737-105":59,"doc-detail-598737-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","peer-review-of-teaching-sharing-best-practices","Peer Review of Teaching: Sharing Best Practices","","Paper presents examples of best practices in peer review of teaching, grounded in the authors’ experience designing and implementing the Peer Review of Teaching program at the Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology. It reviews the initiative’s history at the University of British Columbia and explains key elements of an interactive peer review session facilitated at STLHE 2014. The work includes participant-generated examples and outlines future steps for the UBC program.",{"@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/peer-review-of-teaching-sharing-best-practices/598737/",{"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/peer-review-of-teaching-sharing-best-practices/598737.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"awa","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":24},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"How do the authors define peer review of teaching?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The paper presents peer review of teaching as a feedback process for improving teaching and supporting personal or career decisions. It also distinguishes informal (formative) from formal (summative) peer review along a continuum.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What structure does the paper describe for classroom peer reviews?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It outlines a three-part process: a preobservation meeting, classroom observation, and a postobservation meeting. Notes from each stage form a report provided to the reviewee.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What historical milestones does the UBC initiative include?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The paper describes peer review beginning at UBC in 2006 through a faculty request with one-year funding, followed by workshop design and later expansion through additional funding and specialized workshops across faculties.","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},598737,1792171485,{"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":24,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":39,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":46},3985747858093,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","Peer Review of Teaching: Sharing Best Practices  \nShaya Golparian, Judy Chan, Alice Cassidy University of British Columbia  \nIn this paper, we share examples of best peer review of teaching practices, drawing on our involvement in the design and implementation of the Peer Review of Teaching program at the Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology. We review the history of the Peer Review of Teaching Initiative at the University of British Columbia and explain key aspects of the interactive peer review of teaching session we facilitated at STLHE 2014. We provide examples generated by participants of that session, as well as participants of Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology workshops on peer review of teaching. We share future steps for the Peer Review of Teaching Program at UBC.  \nIntroduction  \nHowlearncainngbyyocuondpouciitnivgelpyeer infrevliuencew oef testudachienngt?  \nIn what ways do you support colleagues who ask you to sit in on their classes and provide them with feedback?  \nHaving been involved in different developmental stages of the Peer Review of Teaching (PRT) Program at the University of British Columbia (UBC), we led an interactive session on this topic at STLHE 2014, intended for people who have conducted peer reviews of teaching. Our goals were to have participants explore classroom peer reviews from a variety of perspectives and to leave the session being able to help colleagues at their institutions and contexts in new ways.  \nIn this paper, we will provide an overview of our PRT Initiative at UBC, describe key elements of the conference session, and place peer review in the context of related work.  \nWhat do we mean by Peer Review of Teaching?  \nChism (2007) defines peer review of teaching as a form of evaluation designed to provide feedback to instructors about their teaching in order to foster improvement or make personal and/or career decisions. Related terms are summarized by Cassidy and Lee (2011) . Peer review of teaching occurs along a continuum from informal to formal. Informal peer review, usually conducted for developmental purposes, is often defined as formative peer review. Formal peer review, usually conducted for evaluation purposes, is defined as summative peer review. The terms formative and summative evaluation, first introduced by Scriven (1973) within the context of program evaluation, have now been widely adopted in the evaluation of teaching.  \nAs noted in Cassidy and Lee (2011), The Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching at Iowa State University conducted a literature review of peer evaluation of teaching, with links to best  \npractices. Peer review has gained prominence internationally and for online teaching as well, such as through the Australian Learning and Teaching Council. While programs of peer review of teaching now take place at several institutions (for example: University of Waterloo, Kansas State University, University of Nebraska, etc.), it was less common when we started this process at UBC.  \nClassroom peer reviews can be a transformative process for both reviewee and reviewer as it provides an opportunity for the reviewee to have feedback on their teaching, and it exposes thereviewer to different styles and techniques of teaching. Cassidy and Johnson (2006) designed and first implemented a 4-hour workshop, Developing your skills as a Peer Reviewer: Introductory workshop. The model, a three-part process, involves a preobservation meeting, class observation, and a postobservation meeting. Notes taken at each of the three stages comprise a report that is provided to thereviewee. They may wish to include it in their teaching dossier or application for a job, promotion and/or tenure. Additional steps such as meeting with the students, and/or post-observation meeting reflection have been described elsewhere (Buskist, Ismail, & Groccia, 2014; Hitchens, 2014) .  \nBased on the Instructional Skills Workshop (ISW) model ([http://iswnetwork.ca/about/isw](http","cbCaijitE6JF6WOA","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaijitE6JF6WOA","pdf",276462,"English","# Introduction\n## What do we mean by Peer Review of Teaching?\n## History of the Peer Review of Teaching Initiative at the University of British Columbia","[{\"question\":\"How do the authors define peer review of teaching?\",\"answer\":\"The paper presents peer review of teaching as a feedback process for improving teaching and supporting personal or career decisions. It also distinguishes informal (formative) from formal (summative) peer review along a continuum.\"},{\"question\":\"What structure does the paper describe for classroom peer reviews?\",\"answer\":\"It outlines a three-part process: a preobservation meeting, classroom observation, and a postobservation meeting. Notes from each stage form a report provided to the reviewee.\"},{\"question\":\"What historical milestones does the UBC initiative include?\",\"answer\":\"The paper describes peer review beginning at UBC in 2006 through a faculty request with one-year funding, followed by workshop design and later expansion through additional funding and specialized workshops across faculties.\"}]","Peer Review of Teaching: Sharing Best Practices | PDF",1792087486]