This paper examines the notion of consistency in teaching observations, as they become increasingly widespread in higher education. These observations can either be used by observers to enhance learning and teaching or to measure standards. These two perspectives raise questions: How far do observers explicitly relate the observations to the development of the scholarship of teaching and how do they apply the criteria relating to standards and quality measures? By teaching observation we mean direct observation of teaching by colleagues, as a means of enhancing the quality of teaching and learning (Fullerton 2003). Despite the growth of interest into teaching in higher education, literature on the subject remains limited with respect to teaching observations. What exists suggests two very different rationales: 1) supporting the enhancement of learning and teaching 2) measuring standards in higher education teaching The first focuses more on academic enquiry and formative elements and can be identified within the developing interest in the notion of the scholarship of teaching. Much of the research literature has equated scholarship in teaching with excellence (Boyer 1990). Those building on Boyer's original work have suggested that scholarship can be recognised by being open and subject to witness by our peers outside the insular environment we sometimes inhabit (Glassick 1997 and Kreber 2002) an aspect of which can be evaluating teaching performance by observed teaching. The second seems to align itself more towards a summative approach. There is an increased interest in internal and external quality assurance scrutiny of teaching standards in higher education institutions and a desire to measure teaching performance. The utilisation of teaching observations therefore can focus on accountability and competencies that suggest notions of the professionalisation of teaching and provide an evaluation of performance against standards. Building on the initial focus on participants' views this research examines how consistent the approach of the observers within a small team has been. Evidence drawn from two programmes at a research based institution (qualitative data from interviews and observation forms) suggests that the formative nature of the process was particularly valued by those exposed to it as "observees" and this reflects findings by Hodgkinson (1994) and MacKinnon (2001). During this research however it became apparent that the summative aspect was also a key component for observers. Further research was undertaken to assess which of the perspectives was more dominant. The conclusions provide a view of whether this notion of consistency has greater implications for formative notions closely related to the scholarship of teaching or summative elements focused on measuring quality which sometimes may result in simply "ticking boxes". Bibliography Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered Jossey- Bass, San Francisco Fullerton, H. (2003). Observation of Teaching in Fry, H, Ketteridge, S, Marshall, S (Eds) 'A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Enhancing Academic Practice'; Kogan Page, London. Glassick, C. (1997). Scholarship in Higher Education HEC Australia, Canberra Hodgkinson, M. (1994). "Peer Observation of Teaching Performance by Action Enquiry" Quality Assurance in Education 2 (2) 26-31 Kreber, C. (2002) "Teaching Excellence, Teaching Expertise, and the Scholarship of Teaching" Innovative Higher Education 27(1), 5-23 MacKinnon, M. (2001) "Using observational feedback to promote academic development" The International Journal for Academic Development 6 (1) 21-28