Abstract
As campuses search for ways to raise the level of attention to teaching, the peer review of teaching offers distinct advantages, especially for faculty eager to overcome the isolation of the classroom and to collaborate on improvement. But it presents a number of challenges as well, both political and methodological, and presumes significantly different roles for faculty in ensuring and improving the quality of student learning. Experience on twelve campuses in a national project on the peer review of teaching provides a context for analysis in this introduction to the essays that follow.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bernstein, D. J. (1995, September). Personal communication.
Boyer, E. L. (1990).Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Cerbin, W. (1992). How to improve teaching with learner centered evaluation.National Teaching and Learning Forum, 1(6), 6–8.
Cohen, P. A. & McKeachie, W. J. (1980). The role of colleagues in the evaluation of college teaching.Improving College and University Teaching, 28(4), 147–154.
Cross, K. P. (1987).Feedback in the classroom: Making assessment matter. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Engineering education: Designing an adaptive system. (1995, April). Report of the Board on Engineering Education (pre-publication draft), National Research Council.
French-Lazovik, G. (1976).Evaluation of college teaching: Guidelines for summative and formative procedures. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.
From idea to prototype: The peer review of teaching (a project workbook). (1995). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Gillespie, D. (1989, July/August). Claiming ourselves as teachers.Change, 21, 56–58.
Kahn, S. (1993). Better teaching through better evaluation: A guide for faculty and institutions.To Improve the Academy, 12, pp. 111–126. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
Recognition and rewards in the mathematical sciences. (1994). A report of the Joint Policy Board for Mathematics Committee on Professional Recognition and Rewards.
Report of the task force on faculty rewards. (1990). Report of the University of California System.
Shulman, L. S. (1993, November/December). Teaching as community property.Change, 25, 6–7.
Teaching growth and effectiveness: An issues paper. (1994). Report of the Mathematical Sciences Education Board, National Research Council.
Weimer, M. (1990).Improving College Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Additional information
Patricia Hutchings directs the Teaching Initiative of the American Association for Higher Education in Washington DC, where she has been a staff member for the past eight years. Prior to that she was a faculty member and chair of the English department at Alverno College in Milwaukee. She received a Ph.D. in English from the University of Iowa in 1978 and continues to teach creative writing.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hutchings, P. The peer review of teaching: Progress, issues and prospects. Innov High Educ 20, 221–234 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01185797
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01185797