1 INTRODUCTION The necessity for quality instructional practice and as- sessment in engineering education is of paramount concern (1). However, the fact that the quality of ed- ucation depends on giving faculty members more control of their practice is seemingly neglected (2). Developments in the scholarship of teaching and learning have changed from an information transmis- sion approach to a quality learning approach. This change suggests that the emphasis on facts and mas- tering information has given way to active forms of learning, requiring students to deeply understand sub- ject materials and engage in making meanings (3). Similarly, there is a need to change the traditional method of teaching evaluation to a more collegial de- sign. As such, peer review and tailored evaluation in- terventions are increasingly proposed in higher edu- cation entities as alternatives to improve the evaluation process and teaching quality (2), primarily to support accountability processes (4). Peer review of teaching (PRT) includes the observation of lectures and tutorials, monitoring online teaching, examining curriculum design, and the use of student assessments (5) The essence of PRT is about furthering the devel- opment of faculty members through the expert input based on knowledge and understanding, although it can be used as part of performance appraisal and ten- ure portfolios (6). PRT also sharpens individual skills, such as the ability to observe and critically reflect on the dynamics and social context of teaching (7). After reviewing the available literature on the teaching peer review, Thomas et al. (4) concluded the following. First, PRT is an effective strategy to kick- start transformational reforms within an institution by encouraging faculty members to observe and reflect on teaching performance and identify areas of im- provement with the aid of their colleagues. Second, there is a thin boundary between consensus and con- formity in conducting PRT. Although faculty mem- bers need to agree on teaching criteria that constitute effective teaching, there is also a danger of conform- ing to nationally accepted teaching standards to gain the necessary teaching competency. Third, higher ed- ucation institutions can implement collaborative peer reviews across disciplines and cultures, albeit with three confounding factors. According to Quinlan and Akerlind (8), these factors are (a) the nature of the discipline, (b) institutional structure, and (c) depart- ments and individual faculty. Fourth, as FitzPatrick and Spiller (9) proposed, the PRT process can ease the anxiety and anger among faculty members who are developing teaching portfolios by making the evaluation process a collaborative effort. The Peer Review of Teaching/Learning Paradigms: A New Proposal for Engineering Education Maram Saudy, Ibrahim Abotaleb, Khaled Nassar, and Ezzeldin Sayed-Ahmed The Department of Construction Engineering, The American University in Cairo, Egypt. ABSTRACT: In higher education, it is common to hear "we have the best engineering education" or "we have talented and experienced instructors who offer the best teaching/learning paradigm," etc. In general, the four main components of higher education are simply students, faculty, facilities, and curriculum. We may have a flawless four components, yet the outcomes may not be as good as expected: an indicative of the crucial need for teaching/learning continuous evaluation. Peer review can be one of the most effective tools for the continu- ous improvement of higher education offerings. In this paper, the authors form a team to create an effective peer-review process with new and innovative formative and summative functions. A new checklist is being designed and used by two or more reviewers to rate the course syllabus, objectives, outcomes, and activity/as- sessment tools; this is the summative evaluation phase. Two or more peers used another designed checklist to rate different aspects of the instructor's pedagogy based on a class visit for the formative evaluation. Both lists are shared with the faculty but not used as part of his/her evaluation. A pilot study is performed on the four authors of this paper and four courses of the construction engineering curriculum in the American University in Cairo. The four faculty adopt the process as they believe that what they have excelled in for some time will unequivocally be surpassed by something that is newer and indubitably works better.