Peer Review and Evaluation of Teaching

Since 2016, the Office of the Provost, the University Senate and United Academics have been working together to critique and revise all aspects of teaching evaluation. For more information, please see Revising UO's Teaching Evaluations.

UO Senate legislation of 1996 and the 2015-2018 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the university and United Academics require periodic peer review of teaching for all faculty. The legislation also established criteria and procedures for conducting these reviews. These procedures are equally relevant to the peer review of teaching for tenure-related faculty and instructional non-tenure-track faculty. 

Peer review of teaching is the written assessment of a class observation and the contextual material informing that observation (e.g., syllabus, faculty member’s self-assessment, other framing information provided by the faculty member). Peer reviews are an opportunity to support and improve faculty teaching efforts, and to assess how individual teaching choices reflect the department’s curriculum and goals.

Evaluation of teaching is done for promotion and/or tenure, contract renewal or merit raises, and involves multiple windows into a faculty member’s teaching including: peer review, student feedback and self-assessment via narratives or Instructor Reflection.

Departments are urged to adopt procedures that protect both the formative and summative nature of the separate peer review and evaluation of teaching processes.


  • A copy of the written peer review should be provided to the faculty being reviewed prior to placement in their personnel file.
  • The faculty being reviewed should be able to provide corrections to any factual errors in the written peer review and be provided the opportunity to acknowledge with their signature that they have read the review. Then, one copy of the written peer review, signed and dated by the reviewer shall be placed in the permanent personnel file of the faculty being reviewed. 
  • The faculty being reviewed may submit a response to the written peer review to also be placed in their permanent personnel file.
  • All written peer reviews (and any responses) shall be included in the evaluation of a faculty member’s teaching for the purpose of contract renewal, promotion and/or tenure, and are to be carefully reviewed at the department and school/college level. 

Frequency of Peer Review of Teaching

  • Career Instructional Faculty: one peer review of teaching per appointment period
  • Assistant Professor: one peer review before the mid-term review, and one during each of the three years preceding the faculty member’s tenure review. 
  • Associate Professor: one every other year 
  • Professor: one every three years 

OtP recognizes that COVID-related disruptions in AY20-21 and AY21-22 made adhering to this schedule difficult if not impossible for many units. For this reason, in the AY22-23 review cycle only, the following is our expectation: 

  • Career Instructional Faculty: one peer review of teaching per appointment period. 
  • Assistant Professor: one peer review before the mid-term review, and two in the three years preceding the faculty member’s tenure review.  
  • Associate Professor: one every 3 years (at least two in the promotion file) 
  • Professor: one every three years (at least two in the 6th-year PTR file) 

*The normal schedule/frequency will resume in AY23-24. Units should plan accordingly. 

Best Practices

The Teaching Engagement Program outlines best practices in peer review of teaching, and offers a number of example tools, procedures, and documents to support units.