Peer Review

Following on from two surveys, one of Academic Reviewers and the other of faculty views of Undergraduate Teaching (HKUST network login required), the VPAA office promulgated a discussion paper on Peer Input on Teaching. The main point coming from these reviews was that faculty preferences among teaching evaluation methods for the purpose of contract renewal, substantiation or promotion, were teaching portfolio (including self-evaluation) at 61.5%; peer evaluation at 58.6% and student ratings at 49.4%. The discussion paper defines peer evaluation as not simply meaning peer observation of classroom performance but can include:

  • Peer review of the course syllabus;
  • Peer review of the course materials;
  • Peer comments on teaching and assessment strategies;
  • Peer assessment of student learning; and
  • Peer observation of classroom teaching.

The discussion paper provides some draft guidelines for evaluating each of these areas and asks if peer input on teaching should be a required part of the evidence in academic review. If yes, whether this should be centrally or School or Department specified? If no, what other more appropriate ways of ensuring multiple inputs to the assessment of teaching effectiveness should be used in academic review.

The following documents may help your peer review: