This document summarizes the key findings from a study on quality teaching initiatives at higher education institutions. It analyzed initiatives at 29 institutions across 3 phases: collection, observation, and analysis/reporting. The study found that definitions and conceptions of quality teaching varied between institutions and were always evolving. Quality teaching initiatives addressed the specific needs of each university and its local context. Evaluating the impact of such initiatives on learning outcomes proved challenging due to the complex relationship between teaching and learning. The document concludes that developing quality teaching requires long-term commitment, innovative evaluation, and harnessing synergies across university stakeholders and policies.
1. Quality Teaching,
lessons learned
Fabrice Hénard-
High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education, 28 March
2013, Dublin
2. Method 1st phase-overview
Dec Jan Feb March Apr May June Sept Dec Jan - Feb
46
Collection of 29 Quality Teaching
quality
teaching Institutions Initiatives
initiatives
Draft
report
Pilot
Review of Launching Online IMHE UOC
online
literature meeting questionnaire General Meeting
questionnaire
conference
8-10 Sept
Publication
Site visits 1st findings
Documentary Telephone interviews
analysis
Inception stage Observation stage Analysis- Reporting stage
3. UCL - Université VU University
University of CBS – Copenhagen Laurea – University of
Catholique de Amsterdam (The
Teesside (UK) Business School Applied Sciences
Louvain (Belgium) Netherlands) (Denmark) (Finland)
Arcada –
University of
Applied
Sciences
(Finland)
Dublin State
Institute of University, Hig
Technology her School of
(Ireland) Economics
(Russia)
The Institute Mykolas
of Education Romeris
– University of University
London (UK) (Lithuania)
Freie
Université de Univesität
Lille 2 Droit Berlin
et Santé (Germany)
(France)
Université de Pau UOC – Open University of Johannes Gutenberg
et des pays de University of Geneva University in Mainz Istanbul Technical
l’Adour (France) Catalunia (Span) (Switzerland) (Germany) University (Turkey)
4. Participating institutions
Université de McGill Université de Universidad
Montréal University Sherbrooke de la Laguna
(Canada) (Canada) (Canada) (Spain)
Tohoku
City Fukushi
University of University
Seattle (Japan)
(USA)
University Macquarie
of Arizona University
(USA) (Australia)
U21 Global
Universidad Universidad Alverno (Online University
Autonoma De Nacional del College – India)
Yucatan (Mexico) Nordeste (USA)
5. Method 2nd phase-indepth analysis
• International setting
Environment • Decision makers
Environment • National context
QT
• • Operators
initiatives Regional inclusion
• Beneficiaries
University
• Mission
• Mission
University • Strategies
Quality • • Strategies
University Specialties
teaching • Specialties
initiatives
• Decision makers
QT • International setting
• Operators
Environment • National context
initiatives
• Beneficiaries
• Regional inclusion
Document
Observation Interviews
Analysis
6. Participating institutions
Universidade Higher
Católica Laurea Eötvös
School of
Portuguesa University Loránd Univ.
Economics
(Portugal) (Finland) (Hungary)
(Russia)
Université
Laval (Canada)
UNAM
(Mexico)
Veracruz
University
(Mexico)
State University of
Campinas –
UNICAMP (Brazil)
Cape Peninsula Open University of University Catania
Univ. of Technology Catalonia (Spain) (Italy)
(South Africa)
7. Initiatives under scrutiny
Work-based pedagogical model
Future Centre for Teaching & Learning
E-platform
Curriculum officers
Extended curriculum programmes
Perception /Implementation of T&L strategy
Programme evaluation -usefulness
Professional development programmes- impact
Quality mechanisms for teaching and learning
8. Overview of quality teaching
initiatives
Institutional and Quality Assurance Policy
Institution-wide policy (strategy)
Dedicated body, Quality Assurance Systems
Programme Level Policy
Programme design
Programme evaluation
Teaching and Learning-focused activities
Support to pedagogy
Support to teaching and learning environment
Continuing education for teachers
Student support
Support to student learning
9. External incentives to quality
teaching
A favourable climate for change
Direct State incentives or regulations
International influence
Competition amongst institutions
The need for institutions to be recognized as a regular higher education
provider
Quality teaching “because Teaching is our mission so we must
demonstrate we are performing in that field”
Rebalancing Teaching-Research nexus
Quality Teaching, a future element of choice for students
10. Does Quality assurance
enhance quality teaching?
Yes No
• QA stimulates the awareness on • QA hardly embraces the
quality teaching complexity of teaching
• How to measure quality
• QA Agencies advise more than
control teaching ?
• How to grasp the entire
• QA enables a methodical learning process?
approach to quality teaching
12. 3 main approaches to operate
in quality teaching
Operational / Conceptual / Strategic A learning-focused
technical model
What the action of teaching
means for the academic
To help teachers operate community and what
added-value is gained by The function of teaching in
students? the learning process
15. Mission Composition
-To help on practicalities
-From 1 to 30
-To collect / process data
-QA staff
-To provides training -Project manager
-Practical
-Theoretical -Faculty of Education
Quality
office
Implicit role Good practice
-To preach! -Staffing
-A bridge between Top & Down -To combine research
with in-service training
-Political support
16. Organisational structure
Quality Office Rector
Support services (HR, finance…)
Head Head Head
Faculty of science Faculty of law Faculty of linguistics
Teachers Teachers Teachers
Students Students Students
New functions
New Roles
18. The evaluation of quality teaching:
accepted in principle,
challenged in reality
A clear awareness of the need for evaluation in teaching
The institutions appraise the progress of quality teaching
support, but not so much the quality of teaching as such.
19. Outputs, outcomes and
impacts
Inputs Outputs Immediate Intermediate Ultimate
outcomes outcomes outcomes
Hours of Knowledge Inclusion in Teaching Learning
training gain current practice improvement improvement
20. Why are Learning Outcomes
weakly measured?
The logical route from teaching input to learning outcome is unknown
or only experimentally scrutinized
The teaching-learning interconnection is overlooked by the traditional
evaluation and accreditation systems.
Unlike primary /secondary education, the higher learning results from
a wider array of factors external to the education provided by the
institution
21. How to better appraise the impacts?
1. Innovative teaching evaluation
2. Think in terms of synergy
21
22. 1) Innovative teaching evaluation:
some practices
More qualitative measurement tools
Opinion surveys
Descriptors
Interpreting the subjective results of the evaluation
Triangulation of information sources
Clarifying the aims of quality teaching initiatives
Making teaching explicit
before or along with any quality teaching initiatives
23. Innovative teaching evaluation:
some practices
Are the teachers aware of
Where do we want the outcomes of their teaching?
to lead our students?
What pedagogy would be appropriate
to the expected learning?
Do we have the skilled teachers?
Teaching Are students ready to gain
such teaching?
How can the institution support
teachers to achieve their mission?
24. 2) Think about synergy
Human Resources
IT
Quality
Teaching
Facilities
Learning support
25. The impacts of quality teaching(1)
Awareness of the teachers' role beyond their discipline
Discernible impact on pedagogy
Curriculum development (aims / contents of programmes
Work environment
26. The impacts of quality teaching (2)
Research feeds the theoretical background of quality teaching
Research, a promising development for QT
27. The impacts of quality teaching (3)
When QT boosts quality culture
When QT promotes the institution’s identity
QT is a promotional tool to attract and retain teachers
28. Main conclusions (1)
Definitions and conceptions of QT that are highly varied and in
constant flux
QT initiatives are empirical and address the institutions’ particular
needs
The university’s local environment shapes the extent of its commitment to QT
QT must be thought of dynamically
An effective institutional policy for the QT involves harnessing
synergy between external and internal institutional factors
29. Main conclusions (2)
Long-term, non-linear effort subject to multiple constraints
Commitment on the part of all university stakeholders
Balance between technical aspects of quality support and the
fundamental issues raised
Innovative evaluative approaches are needed to better
understand the correlation QT support/Learning outcomes
30. Corpus Global
Knowledge Overview
Learning In-depth
Outcomes Studies