Introduction In some circumstances, faculty want or need to use peer review to show evidence of teaching quality. This kind of review, sometimes called a summative review, usually results in a written assessment which is seen by people other than the faculty member being reviewed and the reviewer. Establishing the quality of teaching for any faculty member, particularly when a written assessment will result, should incorporate a range of assessment tools. These tools may include self review, student evaluations, and peer reviews. Each of these assessment tools can address some issues of teaching quality and effectiveness, but not all issues. Triangulation, or viewing from a combination of perspectives, is essential to arrive at an accurate evaluation of teaching quality and effectiveness. This web site only addresses the peer review portion of this multiple perspective approach to developing evidence of teaching. Several characteristics of an effective peer review program for this purpose may be shared with the other assessment tools used in conjunction with the peer review. These characteristics include: a program consisting of a series of reviews over en extended period of time; program planning by reviewer and reviewee; significant feedback to the faculty being reviewed; the opportunity for written comments by reviewee to be appended to the review; and discussion of resources available for development based on previous review results. As with peer review for other purposes, prior to initiating a peer review program intended to show evidence of teaching quality, faculty to be reviewed, reviewers, and subsequent users of the review need to be in substantial agreement on the purposes, focus, breadth, depth, and kinds of results expected from the review. The techniques appropriate to a review will depend on the purpose, focus, breadth, depth, and kinds of results expected. Listed below (in alphabetical order) are a set of techniques which could be used for peer review to show evidence of teaching quality. Collaborative Inquiry (a colleague works with you to develop a course) Divisional Committee Requirements (requirements for tenure from the four divisions at UW-Madison) External Review of Course Content (a colleague from outside UW-Madison reviews your course materials) Interviewing Students about Their Learning Experience (a colleague talks with your students about what is contributing to their learning) Interviewing Students about What They are Learning (a colleague with content expertise talks with your students about what they are learning) Observing Teaching (a colleague observes your teaching) Reciprocal Classroom Visits (you and a colleague visit each others' classes) Student Outcomes (showing your students' work) Teaching Portfolios (you document and reflect upon your teaching or a specific course)