Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 11, No.

2, July 2005

Enhancing Teaching Quality Through Peer Review of Teaching

LAURIE LOMAS & GILL NICHOLLS
Kings College London, Kings Institute of Learning and Teaching, London, SE1 8WA, UK
Kings LaurieLomas 0 2000002005 11 2005 College OriginalinFrancis Education 1583-8322 (print)/1470-1081 Quality&ArticleLondonKings 10.1080/13538320500175118 Institute CQHE117494.sgm Ltd Taylor andHigher Group Ltd (online) of Learning and TeachingLondonSE1 8WAUK Francis

ABSTRACT This paper examines the introduction of peer review of teaching in a pre-1992 university in England. The paper first considers the theoretical dimensions. Peer review of teaching is generally seen as a quality enhancement rather than a quality assurance instrument and a powerful means of encouraging the continuing professional development of individual lecturers. However, the paper identifies that where peer review of teaching is not seen in these terms, but rather as just one of many impositions by external agencies, universities face the major challenge of changing organisational culture and influencing the assumptions, beliefs, values and behaviours of academic staff. The second part of the paper discusses a case study of the implementation and impact of peer review of teaching in a large and very diverse university. This study highlights the theoretical concepts discussed and helps to conceptualise the problems associated with formative peer review of teaching in higher education.

Keywords: peer review of teaching; organisational culture; implementation

Introduction Recent Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) and Department for Education and Skills (DfES) publications have emphasised the importance of enhancing teaching quality in UK universities in order to meet the challenges of the increasing numbers and diversity of students in the early part of the 21st century (Hativa & Goodyear, 2002). The government is unequivocal about the imperative for all higher education institutions to be judged on their performance in teaching and the facilitation of learning. This concern to address the issue of teaching and learning quality is explicit in the QAA institutional audit of higher education institutions that commenced in September 2002. There are 10 objectives of institutional audit, and the first of these is: to contribute to the promotion and enhancement of high quality in teaching and learning. (QAA, 2002, p. 2) More specifically, the government White Paper The Future of Higher Education noted that: QAA subject reviews have been instrumental in defining standards for teaching, and enabling poor provision to be identified and eliminated. The new model (institutional
ISSN 1353-8322 print; 1470-1081 online/05/020137-13 DOI: 10.1080/13538320500175118 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd

138 L. Lomas & G. Nicholls audit) firmly places the responsibilities on institutions themselves to have robust internal systems for assuring quality and standards. (DfES, 2003, para. 4.15) Also, HEFCEs draft Strategic Plan 20032008 states its general aim to develop a higher education system that regards excellence in teaching as highly as excellence in research (HEFCE, 2003). Given this increasing emphasis on the importance of university teaching, peer review of teaching is seen as a means of improving teaching quality through the sharing of good practice amongst academic staff. However, this enhancement of teaching quality will only be achieved if schemes are implemented sensitively and address the significant concerns about peer review of teaching. There will often need to be substantial change in the attitudes of staff, who will need to appreciate the value of peer review if it is to lead to quality enhancement. Peer review of teaching is defined as the intentional process of observation in which a university lecturer attends a colleagues teaching session with the intention of offering feedback as a critical friend (Kinchin & Nicholls, 2005). The use of peer review of teaching in UK universities has become more prevalent in recent years, but there is not nearly so much use as, for example, in Australia and the USA. The purpose of its use has varied along a continuum from accountability and individual performance review at the judgemental end of the scale to wholly developmental reasons (Learning and Teaching Support Network, 2002). At this developmental end of the continuum peer review is seen as a means of providing professional input based on experience and expertise into the lecturer evaluation process (Bingham & Ottewill, 2001). Blackwell and McLean (1996) view peer review of teaching as an opportunity for academic staff to reflect critically upon their teaching, leading to an improvement in performance. Lecturers professional associations, such as the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE), have been concerned that peer review of teaching is one of a number of possible developmental tools that should not be linked in any way to appraisal or an accountability system such as performance management (NATFHE, 2002). The argument that peer review of teaching is a development tool is reinforced by evidence that peer review also benefits the reviewer as well as the reviewee. The formal review (QAA, 2001) of teacher observations, which were part of QAAs subject reviews, noted that the assessors often had as much to learn from the experience as those being observed. This paper considers the challenges of implementing quality-enhancing peer review of teaching in universities. Peer Review of Teaching and Quality Enhancement Peer review of teaching has become more widespread in higher education for a variety of reasons. Within the UK, peer review has been a response to QAA subject review. More recently, the debate has moved towards peer review being a quality enhancement tool rather than a quality assurance mechanism, with its main objectives being to help academics examine their teaching for the purpose of self-improvement and to establish good practice as a means to enhancing student learning. Whereas quality assurance establishes systems and processes that require conformance to externally imposed standards, quality enhancement aims to achieve improvements in quality by encouraging new approaches to teaching, learning and assessment (Biggs, 2003). Peter Williams (2002), Director of QAA, argued that quality enhancement can occur as a consequence of the quality assurance process. He claimed that quality enhancement is an integral part of quality assurance by disseminating

Peer Review 139 the mass of good practice collected through reviews and also by warning against the bad practice that is sometimes seen. However, Jackson (2002) suggested that quality enhancement is more transformative and is directly concerned with adding value and improving quality. Harvey and Knight (1996) argued that quality education is transformative, leading to change and enhancement in the participants themselves. These views are supported by a Teaching Quality Enhancement Committee (TQEC) report (TQEC, 2003) which concluded that quality enhancement involves enthusing the students, responding to new technologies as one of the many means of coping with the more diverse range of students and ensuring that staff are recognised and rewarded for excellent teaching. Bingham and Ottewill (2001) consider that developmental peer review of teaching is a formative rather than a summative process that links to lecturers continuing professional development by identifying areas of teaching and learning that require in-depth consideration. Continuing this argument, peer review can be seen as a key factor in institutional quality enhancement on a broader level. Formative peer review frequently involves direct classroom observation, followed by supportive feedback and constructive advice, elements which Keig and Waggoner (1994) consider as being essential to improving teaching. Within this context, academics are beginning to realise that an emphasis on facts and on mastering information must give way to more active forms of learning; those that bring students to a deeper understanding (Hutchings, 1994). This form of teaching needs to be understood and disseminated by academics and managers throughout departments. Hutchings suggested that there are three main arguments for the peer review of teaching that should be considered by the academic community: to encourage collaboration amongst academic staff in order to share ideas and good practice; to ensure that the enhancement of teaching is largely the remit of professionals rather than members of outside agencies; to supplement student evaluations of teaching and provide multiple data sources. Each of these elements requires academics to be actively engaged with the substance of teaching, to be directly involved in collecting the evidence to show what they actually do and so reveal the thinking behind the actions they take. Currently, the evaluation of teaching rests largely on student feedback, and often the evaluation report is given to the department. Consequently, academic departments and individuals within them become objects of that evaluation, rather than participants within the process. Gibbs and Habeshaw (2002) suggested that relying on student evaluation is not sufficient on its own to enhance the quality of teaching and learning across departments. Academics and senior managers need to be active agents in the process of enhancing teaching and learning. On the basis of the discussion so far and provided the reviewee wants to change, it would appear that formative peer review can be a positive means of enhancing teaching and learning within the academic community. Opposition to Peer Review of Teaching There are many reasons why academic staff might be opposed to educational innovations or, at best, be diffident about the prospect. A major stumbling block to peer review of teaching has been the reluctance of academics to be involved or engage with the process. Keig and Waggoner (1995) cited some of the reasons for academics lack of involvement or engagement:

140 L. Lomas & G. Nicholls peer review of teaching can be seen as challenging academic freedom; perceptions of the representativeness, accuracy and generalisability of what is reviewed; concerns about the objectivity of those who review; academics values relating to the institutions rewards and incentives: incentives are perceived as far greater for research than teaching.

Evans and Nation (2000) noted concern about change overload. This, together with exhortations to teach and publish more while the diversity and numbers of students increase and resources fall, has made many academics suspicious and regard peer review of teaching as yet another time consuming management initiative. Massy et al. (1994) argued that academics will engage with any professional activity if they find it intrinsically valuable or if they are rewarded for it. However, The Future of Higher Education (DfES, 2003) reminds us that most universities promote staff on their ability to research and publish rather than their teaching and, consequently, academic staff are less likely to engage in activities related to the review of teaching. Therefore, it is imperative that understanding, managing and implementing a peer review process takes account of the realities of academic life. The Carnegie Foundations research (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1989, 1990, 1994, 2001) has shown that academics are very often more interested in their teaching than research, but feel forced to give up the intrinsic satisfactions of teaching for the external rewards of research. The Future of Higher Education (DfES, 2003) aimed to increase the status of teaching by setting out ways that universities can recognise and reward good teaching, and this could lead to an increase in the commitment of academic staff to teaching. Essentially, it is for institutions to understand, accommodate and support the enhancement of teaching and learning by demonstrating the intrinsic value of peer review. Martin et al. (1999) raise the objection of some academic staff to peer review relating to the observation of their teaching being an intrusion into an intimate part of their work. Blackwell and McLean (1996) go on to argue that this is perceived as a threat to their professional autonomy. Resistance to change in organisations often surfaces through boundary maintenance, with an uncompromising not invented here attitude (Carnall, 1997; Knight, 2002). Becher and Trowler (2001) contend that the acculturation which occurs within particular academic tribes serves to reinforce these boundaries and further increase the difficulty of the change management task. Discerning effective ways to counter such views held by academics is the key to creating a developmental approach to continuing professional development and the enhancement of teaching and learning within higher education. Research by Keig and Waggoner (1995) and HEFCE (2002) suggests that academics participating in formative peer review of teaching have improved their understanding of the teaching process and increased their understanding of teaching actions and the level of collegiality in departments. There are many reasons why academic staff might oppose the introduction of peer review of teaching schemes. By promoting the advantages of peer review to academic staff and their departments, some of this opposition can be addressed and countered.

Managing Peer Review of Teaching Managing change in a university can be a most complicated and difficult task, with academic staff often failing to respond to the arguments advanced by innovators (Trowler, 2002). Innovators need to persuade and cajole if there is to be any success in addressing the

Peer Review 141 concerns about peer review of teaching. High levels of leadership skill, commitment and perseverance are required if there is to be any success in breaking down these boundaries (Kogan, 2002). Fullan (1991) reminded managers that change is a process and not an event, with this complex process requiring a fine balance of pressure and support. He advised that pressure without support can easily lead to resistance and alienation whereas support without pressure can lead to drift and a loss of momentum. Bell (2001), Ferren (2001) and Keig and Waggoner (1995) considered that departments that undertake formative peer review raise the levels of understanding and engagement in innovation in teaching-and-learning environments. These authors argued that peer review of teaching is more likely to be accepted by staff if: there is non-judgemental and developmental descriptions of academics teaching by colleagues; there is peer review on a regular annual or biennial cycle; departments take the leadership in the design and implementation of formative peer review of teaching; departments provide opportunities for training in the skills needed to conduct formative peer review of teaching; there is institutional recognition with rewards and incentives structured to demonstrate to departments that participation in formative peer review of teaching is valued. The status of teaching in some universities is often relatively low in comparison with that of research (Hutchings, 1994). Indeed, Elton (1998) is concerned that some academic staff regard teaching as the poor relation of research and there are still some academics who, when they are teaching, are inclined to profess their discipline and simply transmit knowledge didactically to their students. In order to redress the balance between research and teaching, it was part of the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Educations (ILTHE) [1] strategy to fulfil its brief from the Dearing Report (National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, 1997) to enhance the status of teaching in higher education. At a national level, the National Teaching Fellowship Scheme (NTFS) provided funding of 50,000 over a period of 3 years for each of 20 lecturers per year. The NTFS is a high profile scheme that celebrates excellence in teaching by recognising individuals who are excellent teachers and promoters of learning (ILTHE, 2002) and under the auspices of the Higher Education Academy (HEA) it has now been expanded to support 50 lecturers per year (HEA, 2005). To further reward excellent teaching practice, the NTFS has been supplemented by the establishment of 74 Centres of Excellence for Teaching and Learning (CETL). The CETL initiative represents HEFCEs largest ever single funding initiative in teaching and learning. HEFCE established CETLs to reward excellent teaching practice and to further invest in that practice so that their funding delivers substantial benefits to students, teachers and institutions (Blackwell, 2003; HEFCE, 2005). However, to convince academic staff who are predominantly involved with research that peer review of teaching would be of value to them, the opportunity costs of such schemes as NTFS and CETL need to be considered. Opportunity costs gauge the efficiency of the allocation of resources and are based on the premise that the use of resources in one way precludes their use in any other ways (Hay & Morris, 1991). The notion of opportunity costs prompts the question What else could have been done with the resources? (Ferguson et al., 1993). Designers of a scheme should ensure that it is cost-efficient and effective so that any involvement with peer review of teaching by a member of staff who is predominantly a

142 L. Lomas & G. Nicholls researcher adds value. It is also essential that it does not use time that could be more profitably used on research activity. There are now major national initiatives that are designed to increase the status of learning and teaching and, as a consequence, promote the value of peer review of teaching schemes to universities and their academic staff. Changing Culture When implementing a programme of peer review of teaching, the organisational culture and sub-cultures of a university and its departments need to be understood. Bamber (2002) considered that individuals and their departments still have a great deal of power within a university and Bowden and Marton (1998) supported this view, arguing that it is essential to take account of the departmental culture with its particular historical and political issues. The basic beliefs and values (Schein, 1997) of academic staff members should be discussed and, if necessary, challenged in an attempt to raise the status of teaching and develop an awareness of the importance of continuous improvement and, hence, the value of peer review. The aim should be to seek to embed peer review of teaching as part of the departmental culture. To achieve this, the perception that teaching is a private activity which is shared with students but not colleagues needs to be tackled (Hutchings, 1994). The changing of this perception requires a different mindset leading to different behaviours. Clark (1998) found that universities that were successful in changing culture were characterised by a concerted effort to innovate and to galvanise all the staff of the university; senior management, academics and administrative staff. There was stronger steering from the centre, with staff responding in a flexible and adaptable manner. Both Salford University (Powell et al., 2001) and the University of Western SydneyNepean (Duke, 2001) made use of Clarks work when seeking to transform their institutions predominantly bureaucratic culture to one that was far more entrepreneurial. Although Clarkes work focused on how institutions could maximise their income, his generic strategy of galvanising the staff and ensuring stronger steering from the centre could also be used in a similar way to help bring about an organisational culture more conducive to innovations such as peer review of teaching. Quinlan and Akerlinds (2001, p. 27) comparative study of departmental peer review of teaching in Australia and the USA demonstrated that cultural change is required if academic staff are to be committed to peer review and it is to be conceived as collegial conversations and collaborations about teaching, rather than merely as peer judgements about teaching. Harvey and Knight (1996) noted that collegialism is characterised by shared decision-making when considering academic matters, mutual support in upholding the academic integrity of the group and the preservation of a particular area of knowledge and practice. Achieving this collegial approach to teaching is more likely when collaborative working, regular dialogue about educational issues and a history of educational innovation already exist in a department (Quinlan & Akerlind, 2001). In attempting to change attitudes to peer review of teaching one can appeal to reluctant lecturers extrinsic or intrinsic motivation. Adopting the extrinsic approach, it can be argued that if a peer review of teaching scheme is not in place at the time of a universitys institutional audit, then the QAA review team will revert to a default position of conducting teacher quality assessments similar to those that were part of the QAA subject review methodology (QAA, 2000, 2002). The strategy of the change agent here is to present an alternative; either you have your teaching observed by a colleague or else you will be observed, exceptionally, by an outsider from the QAA as part of an institutional audit.

Peer Review 143 Lecturers would be far more likely to prefer the former. However, the lecturers professional association, NATFHE (2002), warned that if peer review of teaching is regarded as just a mechanistic scheme designed simply to satisfy external requirements then there is a danger that apathy and cynicism rather than commitment will abound and lecturers and reviewers will discharge their respective responsibilities perfunctorily. Blackwell and McLean (1996) believed that this cynicism could also be engendered by a scheme that was simply mutually gratifying and complacent rather than rigorous in encouraging critical reflection. Overall, consensual leadership and skilled management are required in order to gain the confidence and support of academic staff. Leaders can evoke feelings of fear, dependence and guilt in their change strategies but, although this may gain compliance, it is also very likely to lead to resentment (Bennis, 1998) and the peer review of teaching scheme not being fully embedded. Intrinsic motivational approaches are likely to be far more effective (Knight, 2002). The argument can be made that peer review of teaching will contribute greatly to improvements in lecturers teaching abilities. By adopting a normative-educative approach, one can appeal to their professionalism and the ethos of the primacy of student learning and the teaching process, loyalty to students and colleagues and a concern for academic standards (Randle & Brady, 1997). The virtues and value of self-reflection and continuous improvement can also be extolled. One can also appeal to feelings of institutional loyalty by arguing that not only will peer review of teaching improve individual lecturer performance, it will also enhance the work of the department and, as a consequence, the university. As lecturers might reasonably feel anxious about the prospect of a colleague coming to their classes and evaluating their teaching, it is essential that their fears and anxieties are swiftly allayed. One way of doing this is to introduce peer review as a support mechanism that involves other members of the particular learning community and who are critical friends (Melrose, 1998). It is important to appreciate that a defensive response to change is very likely if care is not taken to adopt a human relations approach and implement any scheme sensitively and supportively. Certainly, NATFHE is most concerned that lessons are learnt from what they consider to be the employers heavy-handed management during their attempt in 1991 to insist upon some form of mandatory lecture room observation linked to the appraisal schemes (Learning and Teaching Support Network, 2002). Burnes (1996) believed that the human relations school of thought is predicated on the assumption that people are generally emotional and the organisations to which they belong are comprised of influential workplace social groups. Following on from Burnes argument, Martin et al. (1999) stated that honesty and trust are key elements for the success of any scheme if a critical friend is, for example, to suggest ways of dealing with a colleagues problems in coping with large groups of students in lectures or possible strategies for encouraging all members of a seminar group to contribute to the discussion. Gosling (2002) identified three models of peer observation of teaching: the evaluation model; the development model; the peer review model. There are significant differences between the three models. With the evaluation model senior staff observe the other staff, whereas with the development model educational developers observe the lecturers. The peer review model involves lecturers observing each other. The status of the evidence is also very different. The more hierarchical evaluation

144 L. Lomas & G. Nicholls model is based on the authority of senior staff. Expert diagnosis is fundamental to the development model, while the peer review model is far more collegial and involves the shared perceptions of the observer and the observed. The Peer Review Scheme: a case study The following case study investigated peer review of teaching in a real-life context (Yin, 1994). The case study university regarded peer review of teaching as a scheme that was nonjudgemental, developmental and formative in its approach and adopted Goslings (2002) peer review model. The case study described here is used as a means of illustrating many of the challenges facing universities when attempting to enhance teaching quality through peer review of teaching. Case study is a useful methodology when a holistic, in-depth investigation is needed (Feagin et al., 1991). Case studies are designed to bring out the details from the viewpoint of the participants by using multiple sources of data (Yin, 1993). The essential element of case study is to maximise what can be learned in the period of time available for the study. Within a case study the unit of analysis is a critical factor. This is usually a system of action rather than an individual or groups of individuals. Thus case studies tend to be selective, focusing on one or two issues that are fundamental to understanding the system that is being examined. Case studies are multi-perspective analyses (Tellis, 1997). This means that the researcher considers not just the voice and perspective of the participants but also of the relevant groups of participants and the interaction between them. These are the major reasons why case study was considered to be the most appropriate methodology for the research. This methodology has allowed the research to describe the real-life context in which the intervention, in this case peer review of teaching, has occurred (Yin, 1994). The peer review of teaching system as described below is seen as a single case design (Levy, 1988; Yin, 1994) and is used as a mechanism to investigate one of Goslings models of peer observation of teaching. All case studies require a protocol. The protocol used in the study followed classic case study design (Yin, 1994): overview of the project (project objectives and case study issues); field procedures (sources of information, access to sites); case study questions (specific questions leading the research); guide for the report (outline, format, narrative).

Six sources of data were identified for the study, which included peer review documents, archived records of peer reviews, interviews with over 100 participants, direct observation of peer review interventions, participant observations and institutional reports on the peer review process. The documents were used to corroborate the evidence from the sources. Archived evidence produced quantitative data in relation to participation and the interviews were used to establish data about certain events within the peer review process and to corroborate evidence obtained from other sources. Data collected from direct observation of the peer review process gave additional information about behaviour. The reliability of the process was enhanced as seven observers were involved in the process. Glesne and Peshkin (1992) suggested that reliability is increased when more than one observer is involved in the task. The university is large and diverse in its delivery of both subject areas and teaching methodologies. The peer review scheme at the university involves a formative and

Peer Review 145 developmental process that is designed to enhance the quality of teaching and the student learning experience. The process is considered to be an integral part of lecturers continuing professional development. The scheme was implemented after a 6 month pilot phase that was fully evaluated. Senior management encouraged and supported the view that all staff should be involved at the earliest opportunity, reflecting Clarks (1998) argument that strong steering from the centre is essential to success. Academic staff are observed once per year and there is an initial pre-observation meeting followed by a teaching observation. After this, a confidential discussion occurs between the lecturer and the observer based on the universitys observation criteria and any issues raised at the pre-observation meeting. The lecturer keeps the completed record sheets. The scheme was designed to be developmental rather than judgemental, with an emphasis on a mutually beneficial learning experience for the lecturer and the observer. To identify and disseminate good practice and distinguish development needs in a department, the observer completes a summary form that details the good practice or development needs but not the lecturers name. These summary forms are sent to the departmental scheme coordinator who collates the information and this is integrated into the departments annual report on teaching. General good practice and development needs are identified on a department-by-department basis and are circulated to the appropriate academic members of staff. Unlike the procedures of some higher education institutions noted by the Education Subject Centre: Advancing Learning and Teaching in Education (ESCALATE) programme, there is no direct linking of the lecturers observation to future training (Education Subject Centre, 2000). This is because the university is keen, at this stage, to keep the process confidential and formative. The universitys structure is based on subsidiarity of decisionmaking within individual departments, and the heads of department have overall responsibility for implementation, monitoring and management of the peer review of teaching process. As Bell (2001), Ferren (2001) and Keig and Waggoner (1995) noted, peer review of teaching is much more likely to be accepted by staff if departments take leadership in the design and implementation of a scheme. The above authors also argued that schemes are more likely to be successful if staff are provided with training in the peer review process. Seminars were provided at the case study university on a departmental basis. These made use of video extracts of a variety of teaching scenarios within higher education; they were chosen to best represent the needs of departmental staff that are being trained. A normative-educative approach (Trowler, 2002) was adopted for the seminars. To date, approximately 50 seminars have taken place and over 600 full-time academic staff been trained out of an approximate total of 2000. Staff Perceptions of the Peer Review Scheme The proposition of this paper is that peer review of teaching will be quality-enhancing if it is a formative and developmental process that involves collegial conversations and collaborations about teaching and not just peer judgements. Also, successful embedding of peer review is more likely if a normative-educative approach is adopted with the advantages of peer review and concerns and anxieties discussed fully in training seminars. Departments having an active part in the design, development and implementation of the scheme together with strong support from the senior management at the centre of the university are other factors that assist in the development of effective peer review of teaching. In the case study institution, the scheme appeared to benefit both the lecturer and the observer through local learning and the reflection and detailed discussion that are key

146 L. Lomas & G. Nicholls elements of the process. The scheme also identified general university-wide developmental needs, as well as providing opportunities for good practice to be disseminated. Before the introduction of the university-wide scheme only a small number of departments had implemented peer review. Overall, provision was very patchy and there tended to be few written records of the outcomes from these reviews, which meant that the dissemination of good practice and the identification of general development needs had been very limited. The impact of the scheme has been greater in certain departments than others, but in general the whole university has moved a long way forward in the 18 months or so that the scheme has been in place. Although reactions to the notion of peer review of teaching varied, the majority of staff said that they found all aspects of the process (pre-observation, observation and post-observation meetings) to be highly valuable and that it helped their practice by providing them with constructive criticism within a supportive environment. Staff also commented on how the process had given them an opportunity to reflect and consider ways in which their teaching could be improved. Some staff appeared to be willing to take part in the scheme because they appreciated that it was expedient for the university to implement their own internal systems to enssure the quality of teaching. Despite there being a generally positive approach to the peer review of teaching scheme, a few staff were openly hostile to the idea. These staff constituted a small minority group. The following responses from staff as part of the scheme evaluation process give a clear indication of the general perceptions of peer review of teaching: Peer review offers the opportunity for constructive criticism in an informal and supportive environment. Peer review is a time when you can reflect on ways of improving your teaching. We should have started the peer review process earlier as it is so valuable. Conclusion This paper has looked at a case study in a particular university where the peer review model has been adopted and where a confidential rather than an open approach of reporting has been chosen. It is acknowledged that there are other models of peer review and several other approaches that can be implemented. The study has been used to illustrate and illuminate the key underpinning concepts and issues related to peer review of teaching and there has been no attempt to over-generalise from this case study. Nevertheless, it is possible to make some inferences. It has been argued that peer review of teaching can be a quality-enhancing tool that is an integral part of individual lecturers continuing professional development and the professionalisation of the teaching process. If the full benefits of peer review of teaching are to be achieved and it is to enhance the quality of teaching and learning, the implementation and maintenance of any scheme has to be managed thoughtfully and skilfully. The particular concerns and anxieties of academic staff need to be addressed fully, with decisions on systems, structures and procedures being contingent upon the organisational culture and sub-cultures of a particular department. The dominant behaviours, beliefs, values and basic assumptions need to be taken into account. Having taken full cognisance of these concerns and the prevailing organisational culture, it is probable that there will be a positive response when the advantages of peer review of teaching to individual lecturers and the organisation are clearly, robustly and appropriately set out. Lessons can be learnt from the examples of successful implementation of cultural change strategies discussed earlier.

Peer Review 147 The case study discussed here demonstrates that raising awareness, management of change and the implementation of a scheme are time-intensive processes in which the normative-educative approach is not successful with all staff. However, the literature and the case study do suggest that the careful and sensitive management of change does lead to a peer review of teaching scheme that is far more likely to enhance the quality of teaching and significantly improve students learning experiences. Note
[1] The role of the ILTHE has been taken over by the newly formed Higher Education Academy.

References
BAMBER, V., 2002, To what extent has the Dearing policy recommendation on training new lecturers met acceptance? Where Dearing went that Robbins didnt dare, Teacher Development, 6(3), pp. 43357. BELL, M., 2001, Supported reflective practice: a programme of peer observation and feedback for academic teaching development, The International Journal for Academic Development, 6(1), pp. 309. BECHER, T. & TROWLER, P., 2001, Academic Tribes and Territories, 2nd edn. (Buckingham, SRHE/Open University Press). BENNIS, W., 1998, On Becoming a Leader (London, Arrow Books). BIGGS, J., 2003, Teaching for Quality Learning at University, 2nd edn. (Buckingham, SRHE/Open University Press). BINGHAM, R. & OTTEWILL, R., 2001, What happened to peer review? Revitalising the contribution of tutors to course evaluation, Quality Assurance in Education, 9(1), pp. 329. BLACKWELL, R., 2003, The future of quality enhancement, Educational Developments, 4(3), pp. 1011. BLACKWELL, R. & MCLEAN, M., 1996, Peer observation of teaching and staff development, Higher Education Quarterly, 50(2), pp. 15671. BOWDEN, J. & MARTON, F., 1998, The University of Learning (London, Kogan Page). BURNES, B., 1996, Managing Change, 2nd edn. (London, Pitman). CARNALL, C., 1997, Managing Change in Organisations, 3rd edn. (Hemel Hempstead, FT/Prentice Hall). CARNEGIE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING, 1989, The Condition of the Professoriate: Attitudes and Trends (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press). CARNEGIE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING, 1990, The Condition of the Professoriate: Attitudes and Trends (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press). CARNEGIE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING, 1994, The Condition of the Professoriate: Attitudes and Trends (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press). CARNEGIE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING, 2001, The Condition of the Professoriate: Attitudes and Trends (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press). CLARK, B., 1998, Creating Entrepreneurial UniversitiesOrganisational pathways of transformation (Oxford, Elsevier). DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS (DfES), 2003, The Future of Higher Education, Cmd 5735 (Norwich, HMSO). DUKE, C., 2001, Cultural change and the machinery of management, Higher Education Management, 13(3), pp. 3143. EDUCATION SUBJECT CENTRE, 2000, Peer Observation of Learning and Teaching, available online at: http:// www.escalate.ac.uk/exchange/PeerReview/ (accessed 2 January 2004). ELTON, L., 1998, Dimensions of excellence in university teaching, International Journal for Academic Development, 3(1), pp. 311. EVANS, T. & NATION, D., 2000, Changing University TeachingReflections on creating educational technologies (London, Kogan Page). FEAGIN, J., ORUM, A. & SJOBERG, G. (Eds.), 1991, A Case for Case Study (Chapel Hill, NC, University of North Carolina Press). FERGUSON, P., FERGUSON, G. & ROTHCHILD, R., 1993, Business Economics: The application of economic theory (Basingstoke, Macmillan). FERREN, A., 2001, Reconciling corporate and academic cultures, Peer Review, 3(3), pp. 917.

148 L. Lomas & G. Nicholls

FULLAN, M., 1991, The New Meaning of Educational Change, 2nd edn. (London, Cassell). GIBBS, G. & HABESHAW, T., 2002, Recognising and Rewarding Excellent Teaching (Milton Keynes, TQEF/NCT). GLESNE, C. & PESHKIN, A., 1992, Becoming a Qualitative Researcher (New York, Longman). GOSLING, D., 2002, Models of peer review of teaching, Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) Generic Centre, pp. 16. HARVEY, L. & KNIGHT, P., 1996, Transforming Higher Education (Buckingham, Open University Press). HATIVA, N. & GOODYEAR, P., 2002, Teacher Thinking, Beliefs and Knowledge in Higher Education (London, Kluwer Academic). HAY, D. & MORRIS, D., 1991, Industrial Economics and Organisation: Theory and practice, 2nd edn. (Oxford, Oxford University Press). HIGHER EDUCATION ACADEMY (HEA), 2005, National Teaching Fellowship Scheme, available online at: http:// www.heacademy.ac.uk/1043.htm (accessed 20 January 2005). HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND (HEFCE), 2002, Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund Report 02/24 (London, HMSO). HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND (HEFCE), 2003, Strategic Plan 20032008For consultation (Bristol, HEFCE). HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND (HEFCE), 2005, Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, available online at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/learning/tinits/cetl/ (accessed 27 January 2005). HUTCHINGS, P., 1994, Peer review of teaching: from idea to prototype, American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, no. 44, pp. 37. INSTITUTE FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION (ILTHE), 2002, National Teaching Fellowship Scheme, available online at: http://www.ntfs.ac.uk/ (accessed 28 December 2002). JACKSON, N., 2002, Principles to support the enhancement of teaching and student learning, Educational Developments, 3(1), pp. 16. KEIG, L. & WAGGONER, M., 1994, Collaborative Peer Review: The role of faculty in improving college teaching, AAHE-ERIC Higher Education Report no. 2 (Washington, D.C., AAHE). KEIG, L. & WAGGONER, M., 1995, Peer review of teaching: improving college instruction through formative assessment, Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6(3), pp. 5183. KINCHIN, I. & NICHOLLS, G., 2005, Evolving diversity within a model of peer observation at a UK university, International Journal of Academic Development, in press. KNIGHT, P., 2002, Being a Teacher in Higher Education (Buckingham, SRHE/Open University Press). KOGAN, M., 2002, The role of different groups in policy-making and implementation: institutional politics and policy-making, in TROWLER, P. (Ed.) Higher Education Policy and Institutional Change: Intentions and outcomes in turbulent environments, (Buckingham, SRHE/Open University Press). LEVY, S., 1988, Information Technologies in Universities: An institutional case study doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. LEARNING AND TEACHING SUPPORT NETWORK (LTSN), 2002, Peer Observation of Teaching, available online at: http://www.ltsn.ac.uk/genericcentre/projects/peer-ob (accessed 27 December 2002). MARTIN, G., SMITH, B. & DOUBLE, J., 1999, Agony aunt, Times Higher Education Supplement, 17 September, p. 40. MASSY, W., WILGER, A., & COLBECK, C., 1994, Overcoming hollowed collegiality, Change, 26(4), pp. 1020. MELROSE, M., 1998, Exploring paradigms of curriculum evaluation and concepts of quality, Quality in Higher Education, 4(1), pp. 3743. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS IN FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION (NATFHE), 2002, Consenting Adults in PrivateUnion and management perspectives on peer observation of teaching, NATFHE Report (London, NATFHE). NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO HIGHER EDUCATION (NCIHE), 1997, Higher Education in the Learning Society: Report of the National Committee (London, HMSO). POWELL, J., HARLOE, M. & GOLDSMITH, M., 2001, Achieving cultural change: embedding academic enterprisea case study, Higher Education Management, 13(3), pp. 4564. QUALITY ASSURANCE AGENCY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (QAA), 2000, Handbook for Academic Review (Gloucester, QAA). QUALITY ASSURANCE AGENCY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (QAA), 2001, The QAA Subject Review Experience (Gloucester, QAA). QUALITY ASSURANCE AGENCY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (QAA), 2002, Handbook for Institutional Audit: England (Gloucester, QAA). QUINLAN, K. & AKERLIND, G., 2000, Factors affecting departmental peer collaboration for faculty development: two cases in context, Higher Education, 40, pp. 2352.

Peer Review 149

RANDLE, K. & BRADY, N., 1997, Managerialism and professionalism in the Cinderella Service, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 49(1), pp. 12139. SCHEIN, E., 1997, Organisational Culture and Leadership, 2nd edn. (San Fransisco, Jossey-Bass). TELLIS, W., 1997, Application of a case study methodology, The Qualitative Report, available online at: http:// www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-3/tellis2.html (accessed 4 March 2005). TEACHING QUALITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE (TQEC), 2003, Final Report of the TQEC on the Future Needs and Support for Quality Enhancement of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (Bristol, HEFCE). TROWLER, P., 2002, Higher Education Policy and Institutional Change: Intentions and outcomes in turbulent environments (Buckingham, SRHE/Open University Press). WILLIAMS, P., 2002, Anyone for enhancement? QAA Higher Quality, no. 11, pp. 12. YIN, R., 1993, Applications of Case Study Research (Newbury Park, CA, Sage). YIN, R., 1994, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd edition (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).