This article was downloaded by: [University of Windsor]On: 14 November 2014, At: 15:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Quality in Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cqhe20

Enhancing Teaching Quality ThroughPeer Review of TeachingLaurie Lomas a & Gill Nicholls aa King’s College London , King’s Institute of Learning andTeaching , London, SE1 8WA, UKPublished online: 19 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Laurie Lomas & Gill Nicholls (2005) Enhancing Teaching Quality Through PeerReview of Teaching, Quality in Higher Education, 11:2, 137-149, DOI: 10.1080/13538320500175118

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538320500175118

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 11, No. 2, July 2005

ISSN 1353-8322 print; 1470-1081 online/05/020137-13 © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group LtdDOI: 10.1080/13538320500175118

Enhancing Teaching Quality Through Peer Review of TeachingLAURIE LOMAS & GILL NICHOLLSKing’s College London, King’s Institute of Learning and Teaching, London, SE1 8WA, UKTaylor and Francis LtdCQHE117494.sgm10.1080/13538320500175118Quality in Higher Education1583-8322 (print)/1470-1081 (online)Original Article2005Taylor & Francis Group Ltd1120000002005LaurieLomasKing’s College LondonKing’s Institute of Learning and TeachingLondonSE1 8WAUK

ABSTRACT This paper examines the introduction of peer review of teaching in a pre-1992 universityin England. The paper first considers the theoretical dimensions. Peer review of teaching is generallyseen as a quality enhancement rather than a quality assurance instrument and a powerful means ofencouraging the continuing professional development of individual lecturers. However, the paperidentifies that where peer review of teaching is not seen in these terms, but rather as just one of manyimpositions by external agencies, universities face the major challenge of changing organisationalculture and influencing the assumptions, beliefs, values and behaviours of academic staff. The secondpart of the paper discusses a case study of the implementation and impact of peer review of teaching ina large and very diverse university. This study highlights the theoretical concepts discussed and helpsto 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 AssuranceAgency for Higher Education (QAA) and Department for Education and Skills (DfES)publications have emphasised the importance of enhancing teaching quality in UK univer-sities in order to meet the challenges of the increasing numbers and diversity of students inthe early part of the 21st century (Hativa & Goodyear, 2002). The government is unequivo-cal about the imperative for all higher education institutions to be judged on their perfor-mance in teaching and the facilitation of learning. This concern to address the issue ofteaching and learning quality is explicit in the QAA institutional audit of higher educationinstitutions that commenced in September 2002. There are 10 objectives of institutionalaudit, and the first of these is:

to contribute … to the promotion and enhancement of high quality in teaching andlearning. (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, andenabling poor provision to be identified and eliminated. The new model (institutional

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:35

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

138 L. Lomas & G. Nicholls

audit) firmly places the responsibilities on institutions themselves to have robustinternal systems for assuring quality and standards. (DfES, 2003, para. 4.15)

Also, HEFCE’s draft Strategic Plan 2003–2008 states its general aim to develop a highereducation 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 ofteaching is seen as a means of improving teaching quality through the sharing of goodpractice amongst academic staff. However, this enhancement of teaching quality will only beachieved if schemes are implemented sensitively and address the significant concerns aboutpeer 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 auniversity lecturer attends a colleague’s teaching session with the intention of offering feed-back as a ‘critical friend’ (Kinchin & Nicholls, 2005). The use of peer review of teaching inUK universities has become more prevalent in recent years, but there is not nearly so muchuse as, for example, in Australia and the USA. The purpose of its use has varied along acontinuum from accountability and individual performance review at the judgemental endof 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 ofproviding professional input based on experience and expertise into the lecturer evaluationprocess (Bingham & Ottewill, 2001). Blackwell and McLean (1996) view peer review ofteaching as an opportunity for academic staff to reflect critically upon their teaching, lead-ing to an improvement in performance. Lecturers’ professional associations, such as theNational Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE), have beenconcerned that peer review of teaching is one of a number of possible developmental toolsthat should not be linked in any way to appraisal or an accountability system such asperformance management (NATFHE, 2002).

The argument that peer review of teaching is a development tool is reinforced by evidencethat peer review also benefits the reviewer as well as the reviewee. The formal review (QAA,2001) of teacher observations, which were part of QAA’s subject reviews, noted that theassessors often had as much to learn from the experience as those being observed.

This paper considers the challenges of implementing quality-enhancing peer review ofteaching in universities.

Peer Review of Teaching and Quality Enhancement

Peer review of teaching has become more widespread in higher education for a variety ofreasons. Within the UK, peer review has been a response to QAA subject review. Morerecently, the debate has moved towards peer review being a quality enhancement toolrather than a quality assurance mechanism, with its main objectives being to help academicsexamine their teaching for the purpose of self-improvement and to establish good practiceas a means to enhancing student learning. Whereas quality assurance establishes systemsand processes that require conformance to externally imposed standards, quality enhance-ment aims to achieve improvements in quality by encouraging new approaches to teaching,learning and assessment (Biggs, 2003). Peter Williams (2002), Director of QAA, argued thatquality enhancement can occur as a consequence of the quality assurance process. Heclaimed that quality enhancement is an integral part of quality assurance by disseminating

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:35

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Peer Review 139

the mass of good practice collected through reviews and also by warning against the badpractice that is sometimes seen. However, Jackson (2002) suggested that quality enhance-ment is more transformative and is directly concerned with adding value and improvingquality. Harvey and Knight (1996) argued that quality education is transformative, leadingto change and enhancement in the participants themselves. These views are supported by aTeaching Quality Enhancement Committee (TQEC) report (TQEC, 2003) which concludedthat quality enhancement involves enthusing the students, responding to new technologiesas one of the many means of coping with the more diverse range of students and ensuringthat staff are recognised and rewarded for excellent teaching.

Bingham and Ottewill (2001) consider that developmental peer review of teaching is aformative rather than a summative process that links to lecturers’ continuing professionaldevelopment by identifying areas of teaching and learning that require in-depth consider-ation. Continuing this argument, peer review can be seen as a key factor in institutionalquality enhancement on a broader level. Formative peer review frequently involves directclassroom observation, followed by supportive feedback and constructive advice, elementswhich 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 onmastering information must give way to more active forms of learning; those that bringstudents to a deeper understanding (Hutchings, 1994). This form of teaching needs to beunderstood and disseminated by academics and managers throughout departments.Hutchings suggested that there are three main arguments for the peer review of teachingthat should be considered by the academic community:

• to encourage collaboration amongst academic staff in order to share ideas and goodpractice;

• to ensure that the enhancement of teaching is largely the remit of professionals ratherthan 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 ofteaching, to be directly involved in collecting the evidence to show what they actually doand so reveal the thinking behind the actions they take. Currently, the evaluation ofteaching rests largely on student feedback, and often the evaluation report is given to thedepartment. Consequently, academic departments and individuals within them becomeobjects 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 enhancethe quality of teaching and learning across departments. Academics and senior managersneed 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 wouldappear that formative peer review can be a positive means of enhancing teaching and learn-ing 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 teachinghas been the reluctance of academics to be involved or engage with the process. Keig andWaggoner (1995) cited some of the reasons for academics’ lack of involvement or engagement:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:35

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

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 institution’s rewards and incentives: incentives are

perceived as far greater for research than teaching.

Evans and Nation (2000) noted concern about ‘change overload’. This, together withexhortations to teach and publish more while the diversity and numbers of studentsincrease and resources fall, has made many academics suspicious and regard peer review ofteaching as yet another time consuming management initiative.

Massy et al. (1994) argued that academics will engage with any professional activity ifthey find it intrinsically valuable or if they are rewarded for it. However, The Future ofHigher Education (DfES, 2003) reminds us that most universities promote staff on their abil-ity to research and publish rather than their teaching and, consequently, academic staff areless likely to engage in activities related to the review of teaching. Therefore, it is imperativethat understanding, managing and implementing a peer review process takes account of therealities of academic life. The Carnegie Foundation’s research (Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancement of Teaching, 1989, 1990, 1994, 2001) has shown that academics are very oftenmore interested in their teaching than research, but feel forced to give up the intrinsic satis-factions 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 universitiescan recognise and reward good teaching, and this could lead to an increase in the commit-ment of academic staff to teaching. Essentially, it is for institutions to understand, accom-modate and support the enhancement of teaching and learning by demonstrating theintrinsic value of peer review.

Martin et al. (1999) raise the objection of some academic staff to peer review relating to theobservation 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 profes-sional autonomy. Resistance to change in organisations often surfaces through ‘boundarymaintenance’, with an uncompromising ‘not invented here’ attitude (Carnall, 1997; Knight,2002). Becher and Trowler (2001) contend that the acculturation which occurs within partic-ular academic ‘tribes’ serves to reinforce these boundaries and further increase the difficultyof the change management task.

Discerning effective ways to counter such views held by academics is the key to creating adevelopmental approach to continuing professional development and the enhancement ofteaching and learning within higher education. Research by Keig and Waggoner (1995) andHEFCE (2002) suggests that academics participating in formative peer review of teachinghave improved their understanding of the teaching process and increased their understand-ing of teaching actions and the level of collegiality in departments.

There are many reasons why academic staff might oppose the introduction of peer reviewof teaching schemes. By promoting the advantages of peer review to academic staff andtheir 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, withacademic 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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:35

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Peer Review 141

concerns about peer review of teaching. High levels of leadership skill, commitment andperseverance 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 thatpressure without support can easily lead to resistance and alienation whereas support with-out pressure can lead to drift and a loss of momentum.

Bell (2001), Ferren (2001) and Keig and Waggoner (1995) considered that departmentsthat undertake formative peer review raise the levels of understanding and engagement ininnovation in teaching-and-learning environments. These authors argued that peer reviewof teaching is more likely to be accepted by staff if:

• there is non-judgemental and developmental descriptions of academics’ teaching bycolleagues;

• 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 thatof research (Hutchings, 1994). Indeed, Elton (1998) is concerned that some academic staffregard 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 knowl-edge didactically to their students. In order to redress the balance between research andteaching, it was part of the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education’s(ILTHE) [1] strategy to fulfil its brief from the Dearing Report (National Committee ofInquiry 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 profilescheme that celebrates excellence in teaching by recognising individuals who are excellentteachers and promoters of learning’ (ILTHE, 2002) and under the auspices of the HigherEducation 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 supple-mented by the establishment of 74 Centres of Excellence for Teaching and Learning (CETL).The CETL initiative represents HEFCE’s largest ever single funding initiative in teachingand learning. HEFCE established CETLs to reward excellent teaching practice and tofurther 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 thatpeer review of teaching would be of value to them, the opportunity costs of such schemes asNTFS and CETL need to be considered. Opportunity costs gauge the efficiency of the alloca-tion of resources and are based on the premise that the use of resources in one wayprecludes their use in any other ways (Hay & Morris, 1991). The notion of opportunity costsprompts 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 anyinvolvement with peer review of teaching by a member of staff who is predominantly a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:35

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

142 L. Lomas & G. Nicholls

researcher ‘adds value’. It is also essential that it does not use time that could be moreprofitably used on research activity.

There are now major national initiatives that are designed to increase the status of learn-ing and teaching and, as a consequence, promote the value of peer review of teachingschemes to universities and their academic staff.

Changing Culture

When implementing a programme of peer review of teaching, the organisational cultureand 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 auniversity and Bowden and Marton (1998) supported this view, arguing that it is essentialto 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 bediscussed and, if necessary, challenged in an attempt to raise the status of teaching anddevelop an awareness of the importance of continuous improvement and, hence, the valueof peer review. The aim should be to seek to embed peer review of teaching as part of thedepartmental culture. To achieve this, the perception that teaching is a private activitywhich is shared with students but not colleagues needs to be tackled (Hutchings, 1994). Thechanging of this perception requires a different mindset leading to different behaviours.Clark (1998) found that universities that were successful in changing culture were charac-terised 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’ fromthe centre, with staff responding in a flexible and adaptable manner. Both Salford Univer-sity (Powell et al., 2001) and the University of Western Sydney–Nepean (Duke, 2001) madeuse of Clark’s work when seeking to transform their institutions’ predominantly bureau-cratic culture to one that was far more entrepreneurial. Although Clarke’s work focused onhow institutions could maximise their income, his generic strategy of galvanising the staffand ensuring ‘stronger steering’ from the centre could also be used in a similar way to helpbring about an organisational culture more conducive to innovations such as peer review ofteaching. Quinlan and Akerlind’s (2001, p. 27) comparative study of departmental peerreview of teaching in Australia and the USA demonstrated that cultural change is requiredif academic staff are to be committed to peer review and it is to be conceived as ‘collegialconversations and collaborations about teaching, rather than merely as peer judgementsabout teaching’. Harvey and Knight (1996) noted that collegialism is characterised byshared decision-making when considering academic matters, mutual support in upholdingthe academic integrity of the group and the preservation of a particular area of knowledgeand practice. Achieving this collegial approach to teaching is more likely when collabora-tive working, regular dialogue about educational issues and a history of educational inno-vation already exist in a department (Quinlan & Akerlind, 2001).

In attempting to change attitudes to peer review of teaching one can appeal to reluctantlecturers’ extrinsic or intrinsic motivation. Adopting the extrinsic approach, it can be arguedthat if a peer review of teaching scheme is not in place at the time of a university’sinstitutional audit, then the QAA review team will revert to a default position of conductingteacher quality assessments similar to those that were part of the QAA subject reviewmethodology (QAA, 2000, 2002). The strategy of the change agent here is to present analternative; either you have your teaching observed by a colleague or else you will beobserved, exceptionally, by an outsider from the QAA as part of an institutional audit.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:35

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Peer Review 143

Lecturers would be far more likely to prefer the former. However, the lecturers’ profes-sional association, NATFHE (2002), warned that if peer review of teaching is regarded asjust a mechanistic scheme designed simply to satisfy external requirements then there is adanger that apathy and cynicism rather than commitment will abound and lecturers andreviewers will discharge their respective responsibilities perfunctorily. Blackwell andMcLean (1996) believed that this cynicism could also be engendered by a scheme that wassimply mutually gratifying and complacent rather than rigorous in encouraging criticalreflection. Overall, consensual leadership and skilled management are required in order togain 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 isalso very likely to lead to resentment (Bennis, 1998) and the peer review of teaching schemenot being fully embedded.

Intrinsic motivational approaches are likely to be far more effective (Knight, 2002). Theargument can be made that peer review of teaching will contribute greatly to improvementsin lecturers’ teaching abilities. By adopting a normative-educative approach, one can appealto their professionalism and the ethos of the primacy of student learning and the teachingprocess, 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 alsobe extolled. One can also appeal to feelings of institutional loyalty by arguing that not onlywill peer review of teaching improve individual lecturer performance, it will also enhancethe work of the department and, as a consequence, the university.

As lecturers might reasonably feel anxious about the prospect of a colleague coming totheir classes and evaluating their teaching, it is essential that their fears and anxieties areswiftly allayed. One way of doing this is to introduce peer review as a support mechanismthat involves other members of the particular learning community and who are ‘criticalfriends’ (Melrose, 1998). It is important to appreciate that a defensive response to change isvery likely if care is not taken to adopt a human relations approach and implement anyscheme sensitively and supportively. Certainly, NATFHE is most concerned that lessons arelearnt from what they consider to be the employers’ ‘heavy-handed’ management duringtheir attempt in 1991 to insist upon some form of mandatory lecture room observationlinked to the appraisal schemes (Learning and Teaching Support Network, 2002). Burnes(1996) believed that the human relations school of thought is predicated on the assumptionthat people are generally emotional and the organisations to which they belong arecomprised 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 anyscheme if a ‘critical friend’ is, for example, to suggest ways of dealing with a colleague’sproblems in coping with large groups of students in lectures or possible strategies forencouraging 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 modelsenior staff observe the other staff, whereas with the development model educationaldevelopers observe the lecturers. The peer review model involves lecturers observing eachother. The status of the evidence is also very different. The more hierarchical evaluation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:35

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

144 L. Lomas & G. Nicholls

model is based on the authority of senior staff. Expert diagnosis is fundamental to the devel-opment model, while the peer review model is far more collegial and involves the sharedperceptions 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 non-judgemental, developmental and formative in its approach and adopted Gosling’s (2002)peer review model. The case study described here is used as a means of illustrating many ofthe challenges facing universities when attempting to enhance teaching quality throughpeer 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 ofthe participants by using multiple sources of data (Yin, 1993). The essential element of casestudy 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 actionrather 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 isbeing examined. Case studies are multi-perspective analyses (Tellis, 1997). This means thatthe researcher considers not just the voice and perspective of the participants but also of therelevant groups of participants and the interaction between them. These are the majorreasons why case study was considered to be the most appropriate methodology for theresearch. This methodology has allowed the research to describe the real-life context inwhich 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 Gosling’s models ofpeer observation of teaching. All case studies require a protocol. The protocol used in thestudy 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 observationof peer review interventions, participant observations and institutional reports on the peerreview process. The documents were used to corroborate the evidence from the sources.Archived evidence produced quantitative data in relation to participation and the inter-views were used to establish data about certain events within the peer review process andto corroborate evidence obtained from other sources. Data collected from direct observationof the peer review process gave additional information about behaviour. The reliability ofthe process was enhanced as seven observers were involved in the process. Glesne andPeshkin (1992) suggested that reliability is increased when more than one observer isinvolved in the task.

The university is large and diverse in its delivery of both subject areas and teachingmethodologies. The peer review scheme at the university involves a formative and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:35

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Peer Review 145

developmental process that is designed to enhance the quality of teaching and the studentlearning experience. The process is considered to be an integral part of lecturers’ continuingprofessional development. The scheme was implemented after a 6 month pilot phase thatwas fully evaluated. Senior management encouraged and supported the view that all staffshould be involved at the earliest opportunity, reflecting Clark’s (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 meetingfollowed by a teaching observation. After this, a confidential discussion occurs between thelecturer and the observer based on the university’s observation criteria and any issuesraised at the pre-observation meeting. The lecturer keeps the completed record sheets. Thescheme was designed to be developmental rather than judgemental, with an emphasis on amutually beneficial learning experience for the lecturer and the observer. To identify anddisseminate good practice and distinguish development needs in a department, theobserver completes a summary form that details the good practice or development needsbut not the lecturer’s name. These summary forms are sent to the departmental schemecoordinator who collates the information and this is integrated into the department’sannual report on teaching. General good practice and development needs are identified ona department-by-department basis and are circulated to the appropriate academic membersof staff. Unlike the procedures of some higher education institutions noted by the EducationSubject Centre: Advancing Learning and Teaching in Education (ESCALATE) programme,there is no direct linking of the lecturer’s observation to future training (Education SubjectCentre, 2000). This is because the university is keen, at this stage, to keep the processconfidential and formative. The university’s structure is based on subsidiarity of decision-making within individual departments, and the heads of department have overall responsi-bility for implementation, monitoring and management of the peer review of teachingprocess. As Bell (2001), Ferren (2001) and Keig and Waggoner (1995) noted, peer review ofteaching is much more likely to be accepted by staff if departments take leadership in thedesign and implementation of a scheme.

The above authors also argued that schemes are more likely to be successful if staff areprovided with ‘training’ in the peer review process. Seminars were provided at the casestudy university on a departmental basis. These made use of video extracts of a variety ofteaching scenarios within higher education; they were chosen to best represent the needs ofdepartmental staff that are being ‘trained’. A normative-educative approach (Trowler, 2002)was adopted for the seminars. To date, approximately 50 seminars have taken place andover 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 isa formative and developmental process that involves collegial conversations and collabora-tions about teaching and not just peer judgements. Also, successful embedding of peerreview is more likely if a normative-educative approach is adopted with the advantages ofpeer review and concerns and anxieties discussed fully in ‘training’ seminars. Departmentshaving an active part in the design, development and implementation of the schemetogether with strong support from the senior management at the centre of the university areother 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 theobserver through ‘local learning’ and the reflection and detailed discussion that are key

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:35

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

146 L. Lomas & G. Nicholls

elements of the process. The scheme also identified general university-wide developmentalneeds, as well as providing opportunities for good practice to be disseminated. Before theintroduction of the university-wide scheme only a small number of departments had imple-mented peer review. Overall, provision was very patchy and there tended to be few writtenrecords of the outcomes from these reviews, which meant that the dissemination of goodpractice and the identification of general development needs had been very limited. Theimpact of the scheme has been greater in certain departments than others, but in general thewhole university has moved a long way forward in the 18 months or so that the scheme hasbeen in place. Although reactions to the notion of peer review of teaching varied, the major-ity of staff said that they found all aspects of the process (pre-observation, observation andpost-observation meetings) to be highly valuable and that it helped their practice by provid-ing them with constructive criticism within a supportive environment. Staff alsocommented on how the process had given them an opportunity to reflect and considerways in which their teaching could be improved. Some staff appeared to be willing to takepart in the scheme because they appreciated that it was expedient for the university toimplement their own internal systems to enssure the quality of teaching. Despite therebeing a generally positive approach to the peer review of teaching scheme, a few staff wereopenly hostile to the idea. These staff constituted a small minority group. The followingresponses from staff as part of the scheme evaluation process give a clear indication of thegeneral perceptions of peer review of teaching:

‘Peer review offers the opportunity for constructive criticism in an informal andsupportive 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 reviewmodel has been adopted and where a confidential rather than an open approach of report-ing has been chosen. It is acknowledged that there are other models of peer review andseveral other approaches that can be implemented. The study has been used to illustrateand illuminate the key underpinning concepts and issues related to peer review of teachingand there has been no attempt to over-generalise from this case study. Nevertheless, it ispossible to make some inferences.

It has been argued that peer review of teaching can be a quality-enhancing tool that is anintegral part of individual lecturers’ continuing professional development and the profes-sionalisation of the teaching process. If the full benefits of peer review of teaching are to beachieved and it is to enhance the quality of teaching and learning, the implementation andmaintenance of any scheme has to be managed thoughtfully and skilfully. The particularconcerns and anxieties of academic staff need to be addressed fully, with decisions onsystems, structures and procedures being contingent upon the organisational culture andsub-cultures of a particular department. The dominant behaviours, beliefs, values and basicassumptions need to be taken into account. Having taken full cognisance of these concernsand the prevailing organisational culture, it is probable that there will be a positive responsewhen the advantages of peer review of teaching to individual lecturers and the organisationare clearly, robustly and appropriately set out. Lessons can be learnt from the examples ofsuccessful implementation of cultural change strategies discussed earlier.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:35

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Peer Review 147

The case study discussed here demonstrates that raising awareness, management ofchange and the implementation of a scheme are time-intensive processes in which thenormative-educative approach is not successful with all staff. However, the literature andthe case study do suggest that the careful and sensitive management of change does lead toa peer review of teaching scheme that is far more likely to enhance the quality of teachingand 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 metacceptance? Where Dearing went that Robbins didn’t dare’, Teacher Development, 6(3), pp. 433–57.

BELL, M., 2001, ‘Supported reflective practice: a programme of peer observation and feedback for academicteaching development’, The International Journal for Academic Development, 6(1), pp. 30–9.

BECHER, T. & TROWLER, P., 2001, Academic Tribes and Territories, 2nd edn. (Buckingham, SRHE/OpenUniversity 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. 32–9.BLACKWELL, R., 2003, ‘The future of quality enhancement’, Educational Developments, 4(3), pp. 10–11.BLACKWELL, R. & MCLEAN, M., 1996, ‘Peer observation of teaching and staff development’, Higher Education

Quarterly, 50(2), pp. 156–71.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: Atti-

tudes 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: Atti-

tudes and Trends (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press).CLARK, B., 1998, Creating Entrepreneurial Universities—Organisational 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. 31–43.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. 3–11.EVANS, T. & NATION, D., 2000, Changing University Teaching—Reflections 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. 9–17.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:35

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

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. 1–6.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 2003–2008—For consulta-

tion (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. 3–7.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. 1–6.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. 51–83.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 andoutcomes 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. 10–20.MELROSE, M., 1998, ‘Exploring paradigms of curriculum evaluation and concepts of quality’, Quality in Higher

Education, 4(1), pp. 37–43.NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS IN FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION (NATFHE), 2002, Consenting

Adults in Private—Union 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 LearningSociety: Report of the National Committee (London, HMSO).

POWELL, J., HARLOE, M. & GOLDSMITH, M., 2001, ‘Achieving cultural change: embedding academic enter-prise—a case study’, Higher Education Management, 13(3), pp. 45–64.

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 develop-ment: two cases in context’, Higher Education, 40, pp. 23–52.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:35

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Peer Review 149

RANDLE, K. & BRADY, N., 1997, ‘Managerialism and professionalism in the Cinderella Service’, Journal of Voca-tional Education and Training, 49(1), pp. 121–39.

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 environ-

ments (Buckingham, SRHE/Open University Press).WILLIAMS, P., 2002, ‘Anyone for enhancement?’ QAA Higher Quality, no. 11, pp. 1–2.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).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:35

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14