


































Global Research in Higher Education 
ISSN 2576-196X (Print) ISSN 2576-1951 (Online) 

Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe 

1 

 

Original Paper 

Fostering Scholarly Approaches to Peer Review of Teaching in 

a Research-Intensive University: Strategic Development of a 

Departmental SPRoT Protocol 

Andrea S. Webb
1*

, Harry T. Hubball
1
 & Anthony Clarke

1
 

1
 Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada  

*
 Andrea S. Webb, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada 

 

Received: November 23, 2022   Accepted: December 5, 2022   Online Published: January 11, 2023 

doi:10.22158/grhe.v6n1p1                URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/grhe.v6n1p1 

 

Abstract 

This article draws on a 10-year institutional initiative and examines whether and how a strategic 

departmental Summative Peer Review of Teaching (SPRoT) Protocol was implemented at a Canadian 

research-intensive university. A peer review of teaching initiative (2010-12), led by a team of UBC 

national teaching fellows, was prompted by institutional concerns about the quality of student learning 

experiences and the effectiveness of teaching in a multi-disciplinary research-intensive university 

context. Canadian universities have long recognized the importance of attending to the evaluation of 

teaching practices in their particular contexts; however, the enactment of localized scholarship 

directed at these practices remains very much in its infancy. Traditional approaches to the evaluation 

of university teaching have often resulted in the over-reliance on student evaluation of teaching data 

and/or ad-hoc peer-review of teaching practices with numerous accounts of methodological 

shortcomings that tend to yield less useful and less authentic data. Using a case study research 

methodology, this paper examines the strategic development of a departmental SPRoT protocol at the 

University of British Columbia, Canada. Issues addressed in this article include contemporary 

approaches to the evaluation of teaching in higher education, faculty “buy-in” for the evaluation of 

teaching in a research intensive university, scholarly approaches to summative and formative 

Performance Reviews of Teaching (PRT), faculty-specific engagement in summative and formative 

(informal to formal) PRT training and implementation, and strategic institutional supports (funding, 

expertise, mentoring, technological resources). 

Keywords 

peer review of teaching, tenure and promotion, scholarship of teaching, case study 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 

2 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

1. Introduction 

Historically, inadequate means of evaluating teaching have undermined the consideration of teaching in 

tenure, promotion, and re-appointment cases within research intensive universities (Bernstein, 2008; 

Elen, Lindblom-Ylänne, & Clement, 2007; Hammersley-Fletcher & Orsmond, 2004). For the most part, 

this has been due to the lack of rigour, authenticity, and credibility in peer reviews of teaching. Peer 

Reviews of Teaching (PRT) for high-stakes decisions (e.g., tenure and promotion) face a number of 

challenges (Chism, 2007; Hubball & Clarke, 2011), including: 

 Lack of systematically prepared and knowledgeable assessors. 

 Confusion about the relationship and distinction between formative and summative PRT. 

 Exclusive reliance on classroom observations by peers or student evaluations of teaching. 

 Methodological shortcomings that result in less authentic and credible data. 

 Potential conflict of interest associated with peers acting as reviewers. 

This article draws on a 10-year institutional initiative and examines whether and how a departmental 

Summative Peer Review of Teaching (SPRoT) Protocol was implemented at the University of British 

Columbia (UBC), Canada. 

1.1 Context for PRT at The University of British Columbia, Canada 

As a research-intensive university, The University of British Columbia educates a student population of 

50,000 and has over 250 graduate degree programs with 12 Faculties, 2 Colleges (Interdisciplinary 

Studies and Health Disciplines), and multiple Schools (see http://www.ubc.ca/). It is routinely ranked 

among the top 40 universities in world and among the top 3 in Canada (Times Higher Education World 

University Rankings, 2022). Therefore, if PRT is to be accepted for tenure and promotion decisions, it 

must be consistent with the standards of quality that are characteristic of scholarly work across the 

university (Hubball & Clarke, 2011). For this to happen, data from PRT must be rigorous and credible, 

ideally addressing all of the challenges outlined above. However, while UBC has long recognized the 

importance of student experience of instruction, most frequently gathered in end-of -term student 

evaluation of teaching, localized, discipline-specific scholarly approaches to PRT remains very much in 

their infancy (Glassick, Huber, & Maeroff, 1997; Hubball & Clarke, 2011; Kanuka, 2011; University 

of British Columbia, 2009).  

In 2010-12, UBC embarked on a major PRT initiative that was articulated in UBC’s Place and Promise: 

The UBC Plan, a “10-year visioning” document for the institution (University of British Columbia, 

2010a). The academic plan outlined in the document emphasizes priorities and goals for enhancing the 

quality of teaching and learning across the university. In addition, a new educational leadership tenure 

track, culminating in a Professor of Teaching stream, emerged in 2012 to situate educational practices 

as both scholarly and professional endeavours within this research-intensive environment. These 

opportunities accentuated the need for more authentic and credible data on the quality teaching. In 2018, 

a new strategic plan Shaping UBC’s Next Century, focused around ten goals, emphasized 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 

3 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

transformative learning as a core area. “Excellence in transformative teaching” is supported through 

Educational Renewal (strategy 11 of 15 strategies), which emphasizes instructors as “highly effective 

teachers […] developing their craft” (University of British Columbia, 2018).   

UBC considers teaching as one of three essential components of academic life (research, teaching and 

service). Faculty members are expected to not only be pedagogically proficient but also to develop a 

scholarly approach to their university teaching practices (UBC, 2020). Heads, Deans, and the Senior 

Appointments Committee were also seeking better data on teaching so they can more responsibly carry 

out their respective oversight and evaluation responsibilities in the university. Thus, in 2009-2010, a 

UBC faculty working group report followed by a UBC PRT Initiative (UBC, 2009), led by three 3M 

National Teaching Fellows, Director of Faculty Relations and 12 representatives (Dean’s nominees), 

one from each of the Faculties on campus, developed discipline-specific guidelines and professional 

development strategies for PRT in order to enhance the quality of teaching evaluations within and 

across the disciplines at UBC.  

Typically, PRT has been undertaken by experienced academics for the purpose of evaluating new/less 

experienced/tenure-track faculty members. In most instances, there has been a disproportionate reliance 

on student evaluation of teaching or hastily conceived classroom observations. When these types of 

data are used, peer reviews are often dismissed or given little credence for re-appointment, tenure or 

promotion, or other reviews of teaching at UBC (e.g., formative reviews of teaching) (Pratt, 1997). 

Specifically, traditional PRT practices have lacked adequate prior dialogue or follow-up around critical 

issues such as a clear rationale for how particular judgments are made, as well as the appropriateness of 

guiding frameworks (institutional, disciplinary, programmatic, and teaching) and timelines used in the 

process. Further, the actual practice of PRT often bears little resemblance, and makes scant reference, 

to the current teaching and learning literature. Rarely does PRT scholarship clearly articulate “best 

practices” for teaching and learning within various disciplinary contexts, often with differing 

philosophical underpinnings (e.g., consider the qualitative emphasis in the arts versus the more 

quantitative emphasis in the sciences).  

1.2 Theoretical Underpinnings to the Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education 

Contemporary approaches to PRT are increasingly the subject of research in higher education. For 

example, a 2009 report by four Australian Universities recommended that peer review of teaching 

should be tailored to specific institutional needs and circumstances rather than adopting generic 

protocols. Further, contemporary approaches draw on authentic assessment and evaluation processes 

including attention to criteria, standards, data collection, trained reviewers and the important 

relationship between formative and summative peer reviews of teaching. For example, Figure 1 

illustrates the relationship between formative and summative approaches to PRT. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 

4 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

 

Figure 1. Relationship between Formative and Summative Approaches to PRT 

 

Formative peer review of teaching emphasizes periodic feedback to faculty members to improve 

teaching practices (Esterhazy, de Lange, Bastiansen, & Wittek, 2021). The progressive focus of 

formative peer review is essential to immersive continual professional development through iterative 

feedback. Formative approaches range from informal, classroom or practice-setting observations with 

follow-up collaborative reflection and discussion among colleagues, to formal, rigorous criteria-driven 

processes that simulate summative evaluations (Hubball & Díaz-Cidoncha García, 2022). Building on 

these approaches, summative PRT uses both internal and external evaluators to provide information 

and feedback to faculty members about the quality of their teaching. Peer, student, and self-evaluation 

can be integrated to offer a more holistic and contextual assessment of teaching (Bullough & Pinnegar, 

2001; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2004). The evaluative focus of summative PRT inform decision-making 

considerations for reappointment, tenure, or promotion. 

Researchers have cautioned that PRT, as with peer review of other forms of academic work (e.g., merit 

reviews), peer reviewers must be sensitive to personal agendas and frames of reference, such as, their 

understanding of institutional and teaching contexts, personal beliefs and values about effective 

teaching, and their evaluative skills, as well as the beliefs, values, and intentions of the faculty member 

being reviewed. While recent literature has documented a best practice approach to formative and 

summative peer review of teaching, this approach can easily become performative, ad hoc and/or lost 

within the disciplinary context or complex (and often competing) priorities of research-intensive 

universities. Scholarly approaches to PRT deliberately build upon current practices by tailoring peer 

reviews of teaching to the diverse needs, circumstances and disciplinary contexts of one’s university. 

But in all cases, a scholarly approach to PRT (formative and summative) requires greater commitment 

to the process than ad-hoc or one-off evaluations that currently characterize the practice in many 

research-intensive universities.  

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 

5 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

1.3 Scholarly Approaches to PRT in Research-intensive Universities 

Scholarly approaches to PRT are part of a larger process of current institutional, curricular, and 

pedagogical reform in higher education (Ambrose et al., 2010; Chism, 2007). A scholarly approach to 

PRT, as with all forms of research, is based on underlying assumptions about knowledge, in this case, 

knowledge about teaching and learning. We believe that there are at least three assumptions that are 

significant in relation to PRT specifically that knowledge is: 1) personally constructed, 2) socially 

mediated, and 3) inherently situated (Cox, 2004). Each assumption provides direction and caution for 

the peer review of teaching. For example, the first assumption cautions that individual, local, and 

disciplinary conceptions of the “good” in teaching will always be part of the PRT process. Therefore, 

peer reviewers need to make explicit their personal beliefs about effective teaching (Atwood, Taylor, & 

Hutchings, 2000; Pratt, 1998). Similarly, those being reviewed should be allowed to clarify their own 

assumptions, beliefs, and intentions related to effective teaching. This bilateral transparency is critical 

to making peer reviews of teaching fair, as well as authentic. 

The socially mediated aspect of knowledge construction speaks to the negotiated nature of gathering 

and presenting authentic and credible knowledge about someone’s teaching. Negotiation may be more 

obviously relevant in the formative review process, but it is no less relevant in summative reviews. 

Indeed, scholarly approaches to summative reviews of teaching often involve faculty members from 

different institutional levels or disciplinary traditions, e.g., when internal and external reviewers are 

involved (Friedman, 2008; Healey, 2000). Coming to consensus about the quality of someone’s 

teaching may, therefore, require give and take across disciplinary traditions and diverse communities of 

practice. Negotiation between various stakeholders, e.g., administrators, peers, and students, can 

enhance the validity, reliability, and authenticity of PRT (Wenger-Trayner et al., 2015).  

Finally, knowledge about teaching is also inherently situated within disciplinary traditions, learning 

environments, and political landscapes that frame what is acceptable in both the review process and 

evidence of effective teaching. Scholarly approaches to PRT must, therefore, have regard for the 

historical, political, and contextual factors that are beyond the control of individual teachers and 

reviewers, but are part of the signature pedagogies or accepted practices within which they are teaching. 

Acknowledging the situated nature of knowledge about teaching is, therefore, also a matter of assessing 

the appropriateness of an individual reviewer within a culture of teaching (Stake & Cisneros-Cohernour, 

2000; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Given that very little research has examined summative PRT 

experiences in diverse university settings, this paper draws on a 10-year institutional initiative and 

examines whether and how a departmental SPRoT protocol was implemented in a Canadian 

research-intensive university context. Drawing on case study research methodology, the following 

research question was designed to guide this investigation within one department at The University of 

British Columbia, Canada, whether and to what extent was a strategic SPRoT protocol implemented in 

UBC’s Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy (EDCP)? 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 

6 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

2. Methodology 

2.1 Case Study Research 

Case study research is a systematic in-depth inquiry that investigates a phenomenon within its real-life 

practice context (Pearson, Albon, & Hubball, 2015). Case study research methodology internalizes 

theory and practice by drawing on a wide range of contextually-bound data and engaging with key 

personnel. Accordingly, researchers in this study included Co-chairs of the FCP and original members 

of the UBC institutional PRT initiative (2010-12). Case study research enables research practitioners to 

develop a richer and more in-depth understanding of the phenomena under investigation (Webb & 

Welsh, 2019; Yin, 2017). Thus, case study research is highly generative in nature and is particularly 

well-suited to examine whether and how a strategic departmental SPRoT protocol was implemented in 

a Canadian research-intensive university context. Specific prompts for this inquiry included: 

 How does the institutional teaching context, with its particular features such as geographic region, 

organizational structure, strategic objectives, and allocation of resources, shape PRT 

initiatives?  

For example: 

 How is PRT understood, interpreted, organised, delivered, experienced, and/or institutionalized 

within EDCP? 

 What are the most common best practices and challenges for implementing PRT initiatives in 

EDCP? 

 How can PRT be better supported in the departmental setting? 

2.2 Data Collection and Analysis 

Integral to this inquiry, a purposeful sample of contextually-bound program data were gathered from 

the following: 

 Relevant documentation from UBC strategic planning documentation (Indigenous Strategic Plan, 

2020; Place & Promise, 2010; Strategic Plan 2018-2028);  

 Meetings. Mixed groups (including Co-Chairs UBC FCP, EDCP Teaching Review and Awards 

Committee (TRC) leaders, administrators, and faculty members) with members ranging from 

four to six stakeholders or individuals in either face-to-face venues or by using online video 

conference platforms, ranging from two to three sessions in total over a 3-month period. 

 Samples of teaching (online and face-to-face) materials including syllabi, podcasts, video 

recordings, worksheets, teaching dossiers, student evaluations of teaching, feedback and 

grading of students’ work, teaching awards, unsolicited letters of support for teaching; 

 Classroom teaching observations; and 

 Reflective field notes from the EDCP TRC team. 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 

7 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Qualitative data sources were analyzed using the constant comparative method through itemizing, 

categorization, and finally to thematisation (Coe, Waring, & Hedges, 2017; Cresswell, 2013). Next, 

member checking was utilized to establish major themes, data patterns, and to discern complex 

commonalities, contradictions, and interactions with respect to PRT practices. The use of iterative and 

multiple data sources established the trustworthiness of the research findings through triangulation. 

 

3. Result 

The focus of this study examined whether, to what extent and how a strategic EDCP SPRoT Protocol 

was implemented in UBC’s research intensive context. First, it is important to re-assert that a strategic 

EDCP SPRoT Protocol was implemented in order to address primary institutional concerns for the 

quality of scholarly and evidence-based teaching evaluation reports that were required for the high 

stakes purpose of tenure and promotion at UBC. Thus, with a strong focus on SPRoT, the TRC in 

EDCP were guided by a number of discipline-specific questions drawn from the UBC context and the 

literature related to peer review of teaching:  

 What are critical elements of an effective summative PRT report? 

 What evidence/data for summative PRT are appropriate? 

 What criteria for summative PRT are appropriate? 

 What standards for summative PRT are appropriate? 

 What ethical principles for summative PRT are appropriate? 

 What engagement sequences for summative PRT are appropriate? 

3.1 Frameworks for Scholarly Approaches to PRT in EDCP 

We argue that there is no one single institutional strategy or scholarly approach to PRT in 

research-intensive university contexts. Building on PRT perspectives presented in the literature and 

research, the organizational framework shown in Figure 2 was useful for facilitating scholarly 

approaches to PRT within EDCP.  

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 

8 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

 

Figure 2. Operational Framework for Conducting a Scholarly Approach to PRT in a RIU 

 

Figure 2 provides a flexible and iterative framework that takes into account the PRT context, and 

integrates responsive institutional strategies for conducting scholarly approaches to PRT. Practical 

strategies, outlined briefly below for each component of the framework, are drawn from a combination 

of literature sources and research at UBC (Hubball & Clarke, 2011; UBC, 2009).  

3.1.1 PRT Context 

PRT context refers to the attention and sensitivity given to the “big picture” that shapes peer review of 

teaching practices. This can be achieved through appropriate leadership, research and ethical 

considerations, consultation, dialogue, collaboration, and attention to adequate support and incentives 

to conduct PRT. These strategies ensure that the PRT experience is not only meaningful and relevant to 

the needs and circumstances of faculty members, but it is also manageable to administer, and, above all, 

empowers the community to engage in scholarly approaches to PRT. 

Within the EDCP context, leadership support, including recognition of PRT team as a departmental 

committee and ensuring that their contributions were recognized as service (within tripartite work 

contract at UBC: research, teaching, and service), lend credence to the process as a scholarly practice. 

Additionally, a clear distinction between formative assessment and summative evaluation clarifies the 

importance of PRT committee within the department processes. Faculty members on the committee are 

familiar with the university, faculty, and departmental processes for evaluation of teaching and policies 

for reappointment, tenure, and promotion 

3.1.2 PRT Planning 

PRT planning refers to the preparation and development of short- and long-term PRT goals including 

the scheduling of timely (e.g., pre-assessment, assessment, and post-assessment) meetings, deadlines, 

and expectations with respective parties (e.g., Department Head, reviewers, and reviewed faculty 

member when appropriate), which, in part, drive the PRT process. For example, these meetings can be 

focused on discussions to clarify signature pedagogies (such as PBL in Health, Case Study in Law, 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 

9 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Aesthetics in the Arts), and appropriate forms of assessment and evaluation. Situated with the larger 

Faculty of Education, PRT planning as a department includes annual timing to coincide with faculty 

reappointment, tenure, and promotion deadlines and managing subject specific perspectives that may 

be part of disciplinary training (e.g., historians in Social Studies education, kinesiologists in Physical 

education, chemists, biologists, and physicists in Science education, etc.).  

For any process to be fair and equitable, it must be as transparent as possible to the participating 

members. For that reason, a protocol for the PRT should be established and agreed upon by the 

members in the Department/Faculty. An example of one such protocol that was developed in one 

Faculty context included the following sequence:  

Sample protocol for summative PRT  

 notification of required summative PRT 

 meeting of PRT committee (internal and external reviewers) to discuss context, appropriate data, 

criteria, standards, and process expectations 

 meeting of candidate with PRT committee member to discuss/clarify context, data collection, 

criteria, standards, and process expectations 

 data collection to obtain a long and broad perspective of a faculty member’s teaching practice 

 meeting of candidate with PRT committee member to discuss and debrief outcomes from PRT 

 meeting of external and PRT committee to discuss data analysis and formulation of summative 

report that is submitted to Department Head by external PRT committee member) 

3.1.3 PRT Data Sources 

PRT data sources are typically quantitative and qualitative in nature, and include teaching workload 

statistics, classroom observations of teaching, course syllabi, teaching dossier, and student evaluations 

of teaching. Data sources must be appropriate and sensitive to assessing a broad perspective of teaching 

practices, including evidence about context, process, outcomes, and impact within the institution.  

The inclusion of peer, student, and self-evaluation data is important to help address the PRT challenges 

including assumptions about knowledge in teaching and learning. Moving away from a single data 

source (classroom observations or student evaluations) and building in, where possible, formative 

cycles of feedback, provides additional data to contextualize the activities, pedagogical understanding, 

and personal growth of each faculty member 

3.1.4 PRT Criteria and Standards 

PRT is guided by appropriate frameworks related to logistical and pedagogical criteria (e.g., command 

over subject matter and representation of recent developments in the field, preparedness, relationship 

between goals/objectives, student engagement strategies, and assessment of learning) and standards for 

effective teaching (e.g., descriptors pertaining to designated criteria for percentile or A, B, C, D ratings; 

exceeds, meets, or does not meet standards; strengths and weaknesses) if judgments about the quality 

of a faculty member’s teaching practice is to be authentic and credible within specific contexts. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 

10 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Within EDCP, departmental criteria and standards use scholarly approaches to integrate institutional 

requirements (Guide for Senior Appointments Committee, etc.) with the current literature and practices. 

Various criteria frameworks for effective teaching have been documented in the higher education 

literature. The following criteria are suggested in the collective agreement at the University of British 

Columbia (UBC, 2020 Section 3.2.1-3.2.7). 

Sample criteria for summative PRT 

 command over subject matter (how knowledgeable or authoritative) 

 representation of recent developments in the field (what’s in; what’s not) 

 preparedness (for individual sessions and for overall course/term) 

 presentation 

 student engagement 

 influence on the intellectual and scholarly development of students 

 relationship between goals/objectives and assessment and evaluation of student learning  

 appropriateness of course materials and requirements (given the topic and level) 

 articulation with other programmatic courses/elements 

 responsiveness/accessibility to students 

 demonstration of a scholarly approach to teaching 

 effective graduate supervision (as appropriate) 

Making judgments on aspects of a colleague’s teaching practice (evaluation) is typically the most 

challenging dimension of PRT. Evaluation challenges often emerge due to inadequate attention to 

communities of practice, inappropriate criteria, and vague standards. For example, judgments tend to 

focus on committee members’ interpretations of statements such as “Exceeds”, “Meets”, or “Does not 

meet” expected standards. The following descriptions (Table 1) are provided as examples and illustrate 

valuable specificity (further developed and contextualized by each Faculty) that, in part, overcomes 

idiosyncratic interpretations. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 

11 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Table 1. Sample Standards for Summative PRT 

 A 

Exceeds Faculty/Departmental 

Expectations 

Reserved for the (usually) few exceptional examples of teaching 

practice consistent with the standard, reserved for those that the 

Department/Faculty would nominate for teaching awards. Both 

internal and external peer reviewers need to be in agreement with 

the evidence presented. 

Meets Faculty/Departmental 

Expectations 

Evidence suggests there is generally a high quality throughout the 

instructor’s teaching practice, no problems of any significance, 

and evidence of consistent attention to the following: student 

engagement, effective teaching practices, and developing a 

scholarly approach to teaching and learning. 

Does Not Meet 

Faculty/Departmental 

Expectations 

Evidence suggests there is generally an inadequate quality in the 

instructor’s teaching practice and serious flaws or deficits in the 

instructor’s understanding of teaching and learning. 

 

3.2 Data Used for Summative Evaluation of Teaching  

Various types of data for summative peer review of teaching are documented in the literature 

(Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Building on the earlier organizational framework for conducting 

scholarly approaches to PRT, data sources can be strategically categorized within the parallel 

conceptual framework shown in Figure 3 (Hubball & Clarke, 2011). 

 

 

Figure 3. Potential Data Sources for PRT 

 

3.2.1 Teaching Context  

Teaching Context data focus on critical structures that shape a faculty member’s teaching practice. 

Therefore, a comprehensive needs assessment involving consultations and collaborations between 

respective parties is required in order to situate a faculty member’s teaching practice within the SoTL 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 

12 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

literature, institutional visioning documents, pedagogies within their context and discipline, and an 

individual’s academic workload. 

3.2.2 Teaching Process 

Teaching Process data focus on issues of importance that arise throughout a faculty member’s teaching 

practice. For example, to what extent are learning outcomes made explicitly to the students through 

course syllabi? To what extent are individual instructors incorporating learning-centred classes that are 

responsive to the needs and circumstances of the students? To what extent is the instructor drawing on 

an appropriate selection and sequencing of active learning methodologies and developing a reflective 

teaching disposition to guide further teaching development? This could also be better served with 

annual quality assurance and quality enhancement strategies for further developing both formative and 

summative departmental PRT practices. 

3.2.3 Teaching Outcome 

Teaching Outcome data focus on immediate outcomes of a faculty member’s teaching practice. For 

example, what are key student learning outcomes from this particular teaching approach and how do 

students rate the quality of the educational experience? It might also encompass an examination of the 

quality of students’ work and an examination of the faculty member’s student grading practices. 

3.2.4 Teaching Impact 

Teaching Impact data focus on the long-term (e.g., months, years) impact of a faculty member’s 

teaching practice. This might involve, for example, an examination of the faculty member’s long-term 

impact on and contributions to teaching and learning within a subject or unit. It might also encompass a 

longer-term analysis of the range in quality of students’ work, a longitudinal examination of grades 

given, and an examination of the faculty member’s responses to and subsequent changes from previous 

formative peer review of teaching feedback/reports. See Appendix for a Sample Summative Review 

Report. 

 

4. Discussion 

Departmental Teaching Review and Awards Committee (TRC) leaders, collectively and individually, 

have progressed through various stages of PRT professional development training pertaining to 

scholarly PRT processes. Not unexpectedly, various challenges emerged from these PRT experiences. 

Initially, for example, there was a great variation in quality and rigour of initial summative PRT reports 

that were disseminated among the group. On review, these generated useful debates about disciplinary 

cultures with respect to PRT (e.g., misunderstandings about formative and summative PRT practices, 

initial confusion and anxiety about the rationale and interpretations for internal and external PRT 

evaluators, misunderstandings about PRT sources of data collection). For example, one of the most 

pressing challenges, has been the lack of departmental and Faculty-wide support, resources and 

recognition for the importance of an external reviewer in the SPRoT process (i.e., comparable to 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 

13 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

peer-evaluations of research productivity by colleagues in other Faculties and/or similar institutions for 

the purpose of institutional tenure and promotion considerations) which rendered a major limitation to 

authentic SPRoT practices. However, over time, inspired by cross-disciplinary discussions pertaining to 

current practices, significant progress was made and greater coherence agreed upon with respect to 

authentic (e.g., signature pedagogies) and scholarly approaches to PRT within the department that 

includes external reviewers (i.e., those not immediately from the unit or department of the Faculty 

member being review). Nonetheless, there is still considerable discussion and debate within EDCP and 

UBC more broadly about external reviewers.  

These discussions are aided by the fact that many TRC leaders have served on Faculty and institutional 

promotion and tenure committees. Beginning with an understanding of the quality and type of report 

that is required by the Dean’s Advisory and Senior Appointments Committees, has guided the 

development of rigour, longitudinal, and broad perspective reporting on teaching practice. This insight 

has guided the development of a template that includes multiple data considerations, both qualitative 

and quantitative sources. The EDCP SPRoT Protocol has been adopted as the Faculty-wide model. 

One important outcome that emerged, sped forward by the transition to online learning during the 

Covid-19 pandemic, was the effective and efficient use of digital technologies in order to facilitate 

faculty members’ engagement in scholarly approaches to PRT. The appropriate use of technology was 

deemed to provide greater flexibility and, in many cases, improve the quality of analysis of teaching 

practices. For example, the increasing use of video conferencing tools (e.g., Zoom) was deemed to 

facilitate pre- and post-assessment meetings, as well as e-portfolios for teaching dossiers and online 

teaching and digital recordings of “classroom” experiences (e.g., split screen video with one camera 

focusing on the instructor and the other on the class). However, it should be noted that technology 

cannot always adequately capture true classroom atmospheres or teacher-student dynamics and/or 

tensions in diverse classroom settings and sometimes posed difficulties with the technology itself.  

Evidence thus far suggests five issues that arose during this study: (1) significant differences have 

occurred in pre-post PRT reporting protocols; (2) insufficient familiarity and clarity with PRT literature 

and key concepts such as formative, summative, external and internal reviewers; (3) lack of 

understanding regarding diverse and authentic PRT data sources; ignorance around explicit PRT 

sequencing; (4) lack of methodological rigour of PRT processes by refining/developing reports to 

incorporate key PRT concepts; and (5) the need for a greater sense of community and cohesion among 

EDCP PRT leaders within and across the disciplinary domains (e.g., science education, art education, 

etc.).  

Scholarly approaches to PRT often require faculty members to move beyond their own disciplinary 

orientation and embrace broader social science methodologies, which for many is epistemologically 

and ethically challenging (Kanuka, 2011). Additionally, PRT may expose unknown weaknesses but not 

strengths in individual teaching practices (Barrios-Rodriguez et al., 2022). Although, if coupled with a 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 

14 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

strategically aligned formative PRT practice/policy, we are hopeful that we can develop an ongoing 

and iterative cycle of peer review that supports faculty development and provides additional data for 

the SPRoT report. Despite these inevitable challenges, the early signs for implementation of the UBC 

PRT initiative are very encouraging, though we are closely analyzing progress annually. 

Finally, where appropriate, EDCP TRC provides additional support for mentoring and nominations for 

teaching awards. The intent of this is to build discipline-specific protocols that are sensitive to the 

pedagogical norms of the discipline, profession, and field of practice in the department. 

 

5. Conclusion 

This article has outlined a PRT initiative at one Canadian research-intensive university and the issues, 

practices, and challenges associated with implementing that initiative. We are still learning and trust 

that the progress made to date will provide a strong foundation for a reputable and respected PRT 

process within and across the disciplines into the future. We acknowledge that we will still have to 

overcome existing suspicions and conceptions that linger from earlier and less scholarly PRT efforts. 

Thus, as outlined in this paper, we have attempted to provide a more scholarly underpinning to PRT 

reconceptualization of the process. We hope that through this study we can inform ongoing 

campus-wide renewal and review. 

A scholarly approach to PRT in a research-intensive university is a complex and multifaceted process. 

It involves focused attention to the needs and circumstances of discipline-specific communities of 

practice, relevant literature and conceptual frameworks, systematic methodology for authentic 

assessment and evaluation, ethical considerations, and effective dissemination of outcomes. Summative 

PRT should take a broad and long perspective of a faculty member’s teaching practice with explicit 

procedures and guiding principles (e.g., scholarship, accuracy, integrity, transparency, diversity, 

credibility, and usefulness). Further, to implement formative and summative scholarly approaches to 

PRT, in a research-intensive university requires appropriate resourcing for peer reviewers’ time, 

expertise, and training costs. Consequently, if scholarly approaches to PRT are not adequately 

supported, confronting implementation issues can present significant challenges for many reviewers 

and administrators-the magnitude of which may well be an outright deterrent for some academic units 

to engage in scholarly approaches to PRT (Hubball & Clarke, 2011).  

While there are still many significant challenges and areas for improvement in this department, the 

growing local and institutional support, and widespread attention to scholarly approaches to the PRT 

within and across disciplines is a testimony to the increasing value placed on scholarly approaches to 

PRT in research-intensive universities. An institutional commitment to research, therefore, far from 

being a barrier to improving teaching, can be publicly engaged as the basis for authentic assessment 

and evaluation of teaching in a research-intensive university setting. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 

15 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Acknowledgements 

The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to institution-level educational leaders and 

colleagues from UBC who have provided key insights for this paper. 

 

References 

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., Norman, M. K., & Mayer, R. E. (2010). 

How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco: 

Jossey-Bass. 

Bernstein, D. J. (2008). Peer review and evaluation of the intellectual work of teaching. Change, 40(2), 

48-51. https://doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.40.2.48-51 

Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., & Grunow, A. (2011). Getting ideas into action: Building networked 

improvement communities in education. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), Frontiers in Sociology of 

Education (pp. 127-162). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1576-9_7 

Bullough, R., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self-study 

research. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13-21. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X030003013 

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate 

education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7. 

Chism, N. V. (2007). Peer review of teaching: A sourcebook (2nd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker 

Publications. 

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2004). Practitioner inquiry, knowledge and university culture. In J. J. 

Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. L. Russell (Eds.), International Handbook of 

Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (pp. 601-605). Dordrecht, Netherlands: 

Kluwer Academic Publishers. 

Coe, R., Waring, M., & Hedges, L. (2017). Research methods and methodologies in education (2nd 

ed.). Sage, London: UK. 

Cresswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd 

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers. 

Elen, J., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Clement, M. (2007). Faculty development in research-intensive 

universities: The role of academics’ conceptions on the relationship between research and teaching. 

International Journal for Academic Development, 12(2), 123-139.  

Esterhazy, R., de Lange, T., Bastiansen, S., & Wittek, A. L. (2021). Moving beyond Peer Review of 

Teaching: A conceptual framework for Collegial Faculty Development. Review of Educational 

Research, 91(2), 237-271. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321990721 

Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maefoff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the 

Professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.  

https://doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.40.2.48-51
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1576-9_7
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X030003013
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321990721


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 

16 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Hammersley-Fletcher, L., & Orsmond, P. (2004). Evaluating our peers: Is peer observation a 

meaningful process? Studies in Higher Education, 29(4), 489-503. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507042000236380 

Hubball, H. T., & Clarke, A. (2010). Diverse methodological approaches and considerations for SoTL 

in Higher Education. Canadian Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning in Higher 

Education, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2010.1.2 

Hubball, H. T., & Clarke, A. C. (2011). Scholarly approaches to Peer-Review of teaching: Emergent 

frameworks and outcomes in a Research-Intensive University. Transformative Dialogues: 

Teaching & Learning Journal, 4(3), Article 7. 

Hubball, H. T., & Díaz-Cidoncha, G. (2022). Peer review of coaching in diverse international 

amateur/grassroots 50-65+ small-sided football contexts. International Science & Football 

Association Newsletter Magazine (6th ed.). 

Hubball, H. T., Clarke, A., & Pearson, M. L. (2017). Strategic leadership development in 

research-intensive higher education contexts: The Scholarship of Educational Leadership. In P. 

Tripathi, & S. Mukerji (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Administration, Policy, and Leadership 

in Higher Education (pp. 1-19). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. 

https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0672-0.ch001 

Hutchings, P., Huber, M. T., & Ciccone, A. (2011). The scholarship of teaching and learning 

reconsidered: Institutional integration and impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Kanuka, H. (2011). Keeping the scholarship in the scholarship of teaching and learning. International 

Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1). 

https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2011.050103 

Lomas, L., & Kinchin, I. (2006). Developing a peer observation program with university teachers. 

International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 18(3), 204-214. 

Pearson, M. L., Albon, S. P., & Hubball, H. (2015). Case study methodology: Flexibility, rigour, and 

ethical considerations for the scholarship of teaching and learning. Canadian Journal for the 

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2015.3.12 

Rocío, B.-R., Inmaculada, S.-B., José, J. J.-M., Macarena, L.-L., Noelia, G.-C., Enrique, J. C., José, D. 

V. R., Rocío, O.-R., Carmen, A.-P., Sandra, M.-P., Carmen, M. G. D., Juan, P. A. M., Raúl, A. R., 

María, E. G.-R., & Pilar, R. (2022). Peer review of teaching: Using the nominal group technique 

to improve a program in a university setting with no previous experience. International Journal 

for Academic Development. 

Stake, R. E., & Cisneros-Cohernour, E. J. (2000 Fall). Situational evaluation of teaching on campus. 

New Direction in Teaching and Learning, 83, 51-72. 

The University of British Columbia. (2009, April). Report of the UBC Working Group on Peer-review 

of Teaching. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507042000236380
https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2010.1.2
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0672-0.ch001
https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2011.050103
https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2015.3.12


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 

17 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

The University of British Columbia. (2010). Place and Promise: The UBC Plan. President’s Office, 

UBC Press. 

The University of British Columbia. (2018). Shaping UBC’s next century: Strategic plan 2018-2028. 

Retrieved from https://strategicplan.ubc.ca/  

The University of British Columbia. (2020). Indigenous Strategic Plan. Retrieved from 

https://isp.ubc.ca/ 

The University of British Columbia. (2020, Sept). Guide to Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure 

Procedures at UBC. Retrieved from 

https://hr.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/documents/SAC%20Guide.pdf 

Webb, A. S., & Welsh, A. J. (2019). Phenomenology as a methodology for SoTL research. Teaching & 

Learning Inquiry, 7(1), 168-181. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.1.11 

Wenger-Trayner, E., Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Hutchinson, S., Kubiak, C., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (Eds.). 

(2015). Learning in landscapes of practice: Boundaries, identity, and knowledgeability in 

practice-based learning. Routledge, New York, N.Y. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315777122 

Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

 

Appendix 

Sample report template for a summative PRT 

The following excerpts (purposely edited) provide a working example of a summative PRT report at 

UBC.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

<Unit Letterhead> 

Date:  XXXX 

To:  XXXX Head 

Department of XXXXX 

From:  XXXXXX <Name of External ad Internal Reviewers> 

Re:  Peer Review of Teaching for <name> 

 

Summative Peer review of Teaching: Feedback Report 

 

Introduction  

We have worked with XXXXXXX over the past six weeks to review his/her teaching practice. The 

departmental guidelines for the “Colleague Review Process” define teaching practice to include 

post-Baccalaureate courses, graduate courses, and membership (including supervision) of graduate 

student thesis committees. Departmental guidelines identify key data sources and criteria when 

https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.1.11
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315777122


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 

18 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

determining the standard (exceeds, meets, or does not meet the standard of teaching expected of faculty 

members in this department) upon which to evaluate teaching practices. 

 

This report looks back over XXXXXXX’s recent accomplishments and forward to professional 

development goals for future teaching practice. Prior to the peer review, we met with XXXXXXX to 

discuss the context of his/her teaching, departmental criteria and standards for effective teaching, 

his/her teaching and course goals, and the peer review protocol. In compiling this report, therefore, we 

drew on the following data sources:  

 

 our pre-instruction, post-instruction, and follow-up discussions with XXXXXXX 

 his/her course syllabi and lecture plans (e.g., is based on current scholarship and literature; 

uses authentic methods to assess and evaluate student learning outcomes; contributes to 

departmental/programme goals; and articulates a rationale for pedagogical approaches) 

 her/his scholarly teaching dossier (if available) 

 two peer classroom observations of XXXXXXX (e.g., breadth and depth of pedagogical 

repertoire; clear and helpful classroom discourse; engagement with and responsiveness to 

students; and inclusiveness and fair treatment of student diversity is evident) 

 comments elicited specifically for this evaluation from XXXX students (graduate and 

undergraduate) for whom XXXXXXX was a course instructor and/or supervisor (e.g., Is 

reasonably accessible; provides timely feedback; offers high quality guidance; knows 

institutional/departmental procedures) 

 her/his student evaluation of teaching (SEoT) open-ended comments and numerical scores on 

teaching practice from UBC’s 6 module teaching evaluation components 

 student grading practices (including distributions and justification, review of feedback on 

students’ assignments)  

 his/her 2-page reflection paper pertaining to XXXXXXX’s interpretation of his/her previous 

formative PRT or SEoT data from XXXXX to XXXXX 

 

XXXXXXX’s teaching expertise is in the areas of XXXXX, with a scope that is interdisciplinary and 

international. XXXXXXX has a strong commitment to diversity and innovation in his/her teaching 

practice, evident in his/her teaching philosophy statement and pedagogic goals. For example, 

XXXXXXX’s teaching practice draws on and uses a wide range of learning and teaching strategies 

(such as XXXXX) in order to recognize, acknowledge, and honour XXXXX in the student learning 

experience.  

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 

19 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Major Teaching Contributions  

 

XXXXXXX’s contributions to teaching at UBC are significant and varied. For example, she/he is the 

XXXXX, she/he is a graduate student advisor, and teaches in both the graduate and undergraduate 

programs within the Faculty.  

 

Since coming to UBC, XXXXX has been involved in direct supervision, co-supervision, and committee 

work of several graduate students at the XXXXX and PhD level. In the XXXXX years that he/she has 

been at UBC, a total of XX graduate students (XXXXX) with whom she/he worked as Principal 

Supervisor or Committee Member have successfully defended their research theses/dissertations. In 

addition to guiding his/her graduate students in their research inquiries, she/he has actively 

encouraged and successfully supported a number of them in developing conference proposals, 

presenting conference papers, and preparing articles for publication. One of her/his recent XXXXX 

graduates has since enrolled in the PhD Program in XXXX and she/he was successful in securing one 

of the prestigious 4-year XXX graduate scholarships.  

 

The following two quotes from his SEoTs demonstrate how his/her teaching (both graduate and 

undergraduate) has been perceived and interpreted by students at UBC. The first quote refers to his 

undergraduate teaching, and the second quote comes from a student who took one of his/her XXXXXX 

graduate courses. 

  XXXXX (graduate student XXXXX) 

 

Graduate Student Supervision 

Since 2007, XXXXX has worked with several graduate students. We were able to contact XXX of these 

students to request feedback about XXXXX’s graduate teaching practice and supervision. All responses 

consistently speak of a highly dedicated and talented teacher. A representative selection of their 

comments (and those from a selection of undergraduate students) include the following: 

 

XXXXX l (XXXX May-June 2022). 

 

Meetings with XXXXX: Reflective Practice and Professional Development 

Our meetings with XXXXX proved to be valuable in that we were able to move beyond artifacts and 

observations to a conversation about the assumptions that underlie and give meaning to his/her 

teaching practice. We were impressed with the thoughtfulness, enthusiasm and care with which XXXXX 

talks about and reflects on his/her teaching, and the willingness to constantly seek ways of further 

developing her/his teaching repertoire.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 6, No. 1, 2023 

20 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Student Evaluation of Teaching (SEoT) Numerical Scores on Teaching Practice 

The SEoT Office provided a summary report of the numerical scores for three undergraduate courses 

and four graduate courses XXXXX has taught while at UBC. The scores are based on student 

responses to a 30-item questionnaire. The report documents XXXXX’s record of achievement beginning 

with courses she/he taught in 2007 as an AAAAA Professor. SEoT records document XXXXX courses 

which Dr. XXXXX has taught since the fall of XXXXX. Since XXXXX, the three-year faculty average for 

undergraduate courses was XXXXX, and the graduate average was XXXXX. Dr. XXXXX was above the 

faculty mean for one of the undergraduate courses and above the faculty mean for all XXXXX of the 

graduate courses listed. Dr. XXXXX’s weighted overall average was XXXXX across XXXXX 

undergraduate courses, and XXXXX across all four graduate courses she/he has taught since XXXXX 

(SEoT Summary Report, October XXXXX). Taken overall, these results reflect a very high standard of 

teaching. 

 

Summary  

We commend XXXXX for her/his valuable contributions to the graduate and undergraduate (XXXXX) 

programs and for his/her commitment to embark on professional development initiatives to expand and 

improve his/her teaching practice in order to enhance student learning. In our opinion, when taking 

into account all data sources and criteria, XXXXX meets the teaching standards of our department. 

 

 


