Collegial Course Review

Rationale

Through a multi-year iterative process of literature review and tri-campus feedback, the Faculty Council on Teaching and Learning developed the following evidence-based recommendations for providing formative feedback and documenting reflective teaching practices. These recommendations are designed to support implementation of changes to the UW Faculty Code (24-52) that require teaching be evaluated on the 5 core elements of effective teaching.

If departments, colleges, or schools have developed a collegial review process that conforms to best practices, they are encouraged to adapt their existing process to include review of the 5 core elements. Although not explicitly required by the faculty code, we recommend that lecturers and part-time teaching faculty also receive collegial reviews.

Assignment of Reviewers

Step 1: Department, school, or college leaders or their designees identify appropriate faculty to conduct collegial review. Those designated to conduct reviews should be trained in collegial review protocols. The faculty code outlines the minimum required frequency for collegial reviews.

Prior to the Review

Step 2: Reviewees, in consultation with the reviewer(s), select one course to be reviewed and share pertinent course information with the reviewer(s). When deciding on a course, reviewees should aspire to establish evidence, over time, of both longitudinal growth in teaching of a single course and breadth of teaching excellence across the full range of their teaching responsibilities. Submitting annotated material is recommended.

Step 3: Reviewer(s) and the reviewee coordinate logistics for the review (e.g. date of review, access to course materials).

Review

Step 4: Reviewer(s) conduct the review.

• Reviewer(s) must consider the five core elements of effective teaching and any other criteria required by the department, college, or school.
• Reviewees may ask reviewer(s) to pay additional attention to specific aspects of their teaching.
• If possible, reviewer(s) should consult course materials provided by the reviewee and at least one prior collegial review of teaching for longitudinal context.

Post-review

Step 5: Reviewer(s) share collegial review with reviewee.

Step 6: Reviewer(s) and reviewee discuss the review in a post-review debrief, clarifying issues and comments related to the reviewee’s teaching.

Step 7: Reviewer(s) finalize and the review is submitted by either the reviewer or reviewee, observing the policy of the department, college, or school.

 

Collegial Course Review Template

This form focuses collegial feedback on helping faculty improve their implementation of the five core elements of effective teaching (UW Faculty Code, Section 24-32). Departments, schools or colleges may consider assessing additional teaching elements that are relevant for their discipline.

Course Review Context

Instructor name:
Reviewer name:
Date:

Course Information

Course title / number:
Course modality:

• In-person
• Hybrid
• Synchronous online
• Asynchronous online
• Other

Characteristics of course setting (e.g. class size, majors / nonmajors, first-year / upper division / graduate, lab / field, traditional lecture hall / active learning classroom):

Pre-review: Course information

Which materials did you review? List all that apply (e.g. prior collegial reviews, course syllabus, Canvas site)
This course review included an in-class observation (Yes or No):
If the reviewee requested feedback on specific aspects of their course, briefly describe here:

If the reviewee noted active areas of revision or exploration in their teaching of this course, briefly describe here:

Review

This section is organized to focus your review on each of the five core elements of effective teaching.
Evidence may come from any of multiple sources including classroom observations, course syllabus, Canvas site, etc. Access the links provided to see examples of practicing and demonstrating each core element. For reference, an abbreviated list of examples is provided on the Collegial Course Review page.

Aligned: Effective teaching is intentionally designed and organized to help learners meet learning objectives.

Please comment on a specific observation you made of aligned teaching practices, and/or suggestions for improvement:

Inclusive & equitable: Effective teaching considers learners’ experiences and creates opportunities for each learner to thrive.

Please comment on a specific observation you made of inclusive & equitable teaching practices, and/or suggestions for improvement:

Active & engaged: Effective teaching creates opportunities for learners to critically engage ideas and each other.

Please comment on a specific observation you made of active & engaged teaching practices, and/or suggestions for improvement:

Growth-oriented: Effective teaching creates opportunities for learners to learn through practice and provides feedback that helps them grow their knowledge and abilities.

Please comment on a specific observation you made of growth-oriented teaching practices, and/or suggestions for improvement:

Relevant: Effective teaching helps learners understand why what they are learning matters and prepares them for future learning and life after UW.

Please comment on a specific observation you made of relevant teaching practices, and/or suggestions for improvement:

Course Review Summary

1. What are the instructor’s major strengths as demonstrated in this course review?
2. What suggestions do you have for improvement or enhancement?
3. Optional: If the reviewee requested additional feedback, provide feedback here:

Post-Review Debrief

Date of post-review debrief meeting:

Reviewee signature to acknowledge the opportunity to review feedback and provide comment:

Optional: Summary of key points discussed in post-review debrief

---

2026 Collegial Course Review Template