Quality Teaching, lessons learned

Fabrice Hénard-High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education, 28 March

2013, Dublin

Method 1st phase-overview

Review of literature

Documentaryanalysis

Collection of quality

teachinginitiatives

Launching meeting

Online questionnaire

Site visits Telephone interviews

Pilot online

questionnaire

Jan Feb Apr MayDec March June Sept Dec Jan - Feb

IMHEGeneral

conference 8-10 Sept

UOCMeeting

1st findings

Draft report

Publication

Inception stage Observation stage Analysis- Reporting stage

29Institutions

46Quality Teaching

Initiatives

Arcada – University of Applied Sciences (Finland)

Laurea – University of Applied Sciences (Finland)

Freie Univesität Berlin (Germany)

Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz (Germany)

Mykolas Romeris University (Lithuania)

VU University Amsterdam (The Netherlands)

State University, Higher School of Economics (Russia)

Istanbul Technical University (Turkey)

UCL - Université Catholique de Louvain (Belgium)

CBS – Copenhagen Business School (Denmark)

Université de Pau et des pays de l’Adour (France)

Université de Lille 2 Droit et Santé (France)

UOC – Open University of Catalunia (Span)

University of Geneva (Switzerland)

Dublin Institute of Technology (Ireland)

The Institute of Education – University of London (UK)

University of Teesside (UK)

Universidad Nacional del Nordeste (Argentina)

Macquarie University (Australia)

McGill University (Canada)

Université de Sherbrooke (Canada)

Université de Montréal (Canada)

Tohoku Fukushi University (Japan)

Universidad Autonoma De Yucatan (Mexico)

Universidad de la Laguna (Spain)

Alverno College (USA)

City University of Seattle (USA)

University of Arizona (USA)

U21 Global (Online University – India)

Participating institutions

Environment

University

Quality teaching

initiatives

Observation Interviews Document Analysis

QTinitiatives

University

Environment

• Decision makers• Operators• Beneficiaries

• Mission• Strategies• Specialties

• International setting• National context• Regional inclusion

QTinitiatives

University

Environment

• Decision makers• Operators• Beneficiaries

• Mission• Strategies• Specialties

• International setting• National context• Regional inclusion

Method 2nd phase-indepth analysis

University Catania (Italy)

Participating institutions

UNAM (Mexico)

Universidade Católica

Portuguesa (Portugal)

Eötvös Loránd Univ.

(Hungary)

Laurea University (Finland)

Higher School of

Economics (Russia)

Cape Peninsula Univ. of Technology

(South Africa)

Open University of Catalonia

(Spain)

State University of Campinas –

UNICAMP (Brazil)

Université Laval (Canada)

Veracruz University (Mexico)

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

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

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

Does Quality assurance enhance quality teaching?

Yes• QA stimulates the

awareness on quality teaching

• QA Agencies advise more than control

• QA enables a methodical approach to quality teaching

No• QA hardly embraces

the complexity of teaching

• How to measure quality teaching ?

• How to grasp the entire learning process?

The implementation ofquality teaching initiatives & their related actors

CBS

3 main approaches to operate in quality teaching

Operational / technical

To help teachers operate

Conceptual / Strategic

What the action of teaching means for the academic community

and what added-value is gained by students?

A learning-focused model

The function of teaching in the learning process

From scattered initiatives to a QT Policy

QualityA ssurance

Who are the players?

• McGill University

Mission

Implicit role

Composition

Good practice

Quality office

-To help on practicalities

-To collect / process data

-To provides training-Practical-Theoretical

-From 1 to 30

-To preach!

-A bridge between Top & Down

-Staffing

-To combine research with in-service training

-QA staff

-Political support

-Project manager

-Faculty of Education

Organisational structure

Quality Office Rector

Sup

port se

rvice

s (HR

, finance

…)

Head Head Head

Teachers

Students

Teachers

Students

Teachers

Students

Faculty of science Faculty of law Faculty of linguistics

New functions

New Roles

Evaluation and impacts

Free University Berlin

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.

Intermediateoutcomes

Intermediateoutcomes

Outputs Outputs Immediateoutcomes

Immediateoutcomes

InputsInputs Ultimateoutcomes

Ultimateoutcomes

Hours of training

Inclusion in current practice

Knowledge gain

Teaching improvement

Learning improvement

Outputs, outcomes and impacts

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

How to better appraise the impacts?

21

1. Innovative teaching evaluation

2. Think in terms of synergy

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

Teaching

Are the teachers aware of the outcomes of their teaching?

What pedagogy would be appropriate to the expected learning?

How can the institution support

teachers to achieve their mission?

Where do we want to lead our students?

Do we have the skilled teachers?Are students ready to gain

such teaching?

Innovative teaching evaluation: some practices

2) Think about synergy

Quality Teaching

IT

Human Resources

Facilities

Learning support

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

The impacts of quality teaching (2)

Research feeds the theoretical background of quality teaching

Research, a promising development for QT

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

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

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

Global Overview

Corpus Knowledge

In-depth Studies

Learning Outcomes

31

1 • Raising awareness

2• Excellent Teachers

3 • Engaging students

4• Organisation for

change-leadership

5• Aligning policies

6• Innovation

7•Assessing impacts

fhenard@learningavenue.fr

• Evaluation• Capacity

building• Quality

expertise