You want useful feedback, so you think of a colleague whose teaching you admire. That's a reasonable starting point, but a review also needs the right expertise and, where applicable, eligibility under the institution's process.
The handbook recommends considering the reviewer's teaching experience, field knowledge, fairness, and familiarity with the teaching format. Match those qualities to the actual review rather than choosing on friendship or seniority alone.
Start with the selection rules
Find out who selects or approves the reviewer and which requirements apply. Rank, appointment, experience, and relationships may be addressed by the formal process. Use those rules rather than treating one preferred arrangement as universal.
If you're only asked to suggest a name, respect that boundary.
Consider the knowledge the task requires
A reviewer may need to understand the subject, learning level, teaching approach, assessment, or professional context. Identify which knowledge is essential and where another perspective could be useful.
A colleague from a related area may notice something valuable, but shouldn't be expected to judge specialized content beyond their expertise.
Match experience to the format
An online, hybrid, studio, laboratory, clinical, or large-class setting can require different evidence and interpretation. Ask whether the proposed reviewer can assess the work in that context.
For an asynchronous course, a single live interaction won't show the whole instructional design.
Look for careful, constructive judgment
Useful feedback explains the observation, its significance, and the criteria behind the judgment. You need a reader willing to examine the work fairly, including strengths and concerns.
Seeking a thoughtful reviewer is different from trying to secure a favorable outcome.
Check capacity and expectations
Clarify the time, materials, visit or access arrangements, report, and deadline. Give reasonable notice and follow the authorized process. A suitable colleague may still be unable to complete a particular review.
Respect that answer without treating it as a judgment of your course.
For the next review, make a brief list of the expertise and formal requirements needed. Compare potential reviewers with that list and discuss the choice through the proper route. The aim is feedback grounded in the teaching task you actually want assessed.
Adapted from The New Faculty Handbook by Zafer Unal, pp. 198-199.
