Learning our lesson : review of quality teaching in higher education

116 Pages·2010·1.04 MB·English

by  OECD

Learning Our Lesson
REviEw Of QuaLity tEaChing in highER EDuCatiOn Learning Our Lesson
Leaders and academics can improve the quality of higher education teaching, and
REviEw Of QuaLity tEaChing
thereby the quality of their graduates, by reflecting on institution-wide practices.
This book explores the interplay between actors within institutions, organisational in highER EDuCatiOn
structure, commitment of senior leadership, involvement of faculty and students,
and evaluation instruments.
fabrice hénard
Based on an OECD review of 46 quality teaching initiatives in 20 countries, the report
highlights the significant impact of the institutions’ environment, trends in the quality
of academia, teaching methods and learning conditions. The sample represents
29 higher education institutions, from technological and vocational institutions L
tmT••••To hh tg ca ea hsu heebuvonnoulte uasddwniibbdd sltc auoo aiikqinsirinaoonimeeuncgetkksytaiai sseop t plbiaia si lntlotlhwiullc uyns eafistt lsa oa ioonciyowtnyr sdrrusaynssasaotl n -tte teyptpiuwieato.nmcouhrsli oyedstay tssithn;t eop h gebaeo npersaneimsra l phyd ft ddoih wpi cnqutilersl hhdouaso seee wtacaeae nflhciimif mn teqouhfygoicnouep n tstialsaafevssta lcteea, iccit otorrcfyastisrfnhno no iaqotig;r mni psbuef g q pae siwns ur.l ii mocnsita tytoiahltiai ticmt tauleyelh ttb xauii;tvo aiecnnenmahdesacie,dpnl h rc glsgeitnh oursogaa p enf,ldpl rn etouiohnhnmaresagttit e nerioat csouirnne otpt si otuotqeti ninouaitmduanca tlshlpt iiolht ileanyenea ngm stdwde, eeta rootnerchr stslheid,en i nf:ag agr cct huihnel t mya , earning Our Lesson REviEw Of Qua qqqthhtqqthhtheeuiuiieeuiguigugaagagahahachcaalalhehehehicicltltlrrriieeynynhihi i tt et egegrrhhiidddy yn yni i qquguugee ggucuchtchtddaaaaeae e etlhtlhutruraiiaiii to tooiicceegcygcynnndda a hhhhhuhutttticieceiegiegiinnaaaaoohhrrtctcggeeiinnh hoorree iin n nh hnqdeqde ggtditdiuuugu g eeuuqqaacaccachhuuccaaalalaaeehhttlliittiiiirrtitnoniottiign gyon yyoyee qtnhqtnhdtdteeuiui ge eguauaqaahchcaallcceuhehiictctraraiiaynyn h htt e geglhhdiidii ionioniqugtugucgnhcgnhyaaeae tltrrqhtqhiii to oeieuieuynggndda aa huuhth clil cecge haaiaihtttrctieiiynhyoo rei n n gntted gtd tee hueeuqaaaacicucgcccaaahhthhlhiiitinontieiignngnyor ggqthn euie g ahhaqdhcliiehuiuggtriyncah h eghlaede iiqtugrrtucih yo aaeeetl rndtdii to eeuyunqd a cchuutciceaagaaahthttcleiiiihioonortin ngnney gtd eqhtuqaceuiucgaaahatlhiicinolteghniytr iqthyn euieg agathdcl ehihutiaynicg cgha hhiqgtuiehinaoerlgrn i te e yhqdd hiuuugicgcaahhtlaeeioritrtn ie y oetd enudtac ecuqahatcuiicnoaagnht ltiiioe
members, quality units and students. Lit
y
Related reading t
E
a
C
Evaluating and Rewarding the Quality of Teachers: International Practices (2009) h
TeFuT T Srstohhoi oreaua s mwwtrrf euycSwwo l ewlorE wweOtiute d..hiEssrxnuc ooCtfao euuccoDrOrracmfcc eEtiteesahisoC ootsitiseehon D teccnbo @ ddf oOaoa..ooboolErlek orr COggt cuihDsE//dte9 e C.tao7doh Dvn8Kuirsalg 9ci bnina2l.aaoeow6tbo i4owlalikbe0nrsdl r7/e oa-o99wdrn7n2y ig8 7lnloii49nennf2e ie nb6 S vgos4io hoa0sokc 7etusrhi9e,vlid 2siptc7 yuee4li rsn i(aeok2n d:t0d hic 0ifsar8 elslie)n a ktnr:i da lss,t aatsiskt iycoaul dr alibtarbaraiasens, .o r write to ing in highER EDuCatiOn tthqqheeiugiuagaahcalehcthitlrieehny iet garihdn yci qugeg uhcthdaa eeihtlnuriiato igcgeycnd a hhhhuttiecegiiingaaorhctgeh inhoreq ie n nhdqeur gdtiauu g eulqecaiachtudcayaaleht ultihiiritonticigong yyeah nthqdetteiu rgieauqao hcealcuenhdictraiua ny hqcthe lghadiiu iitoniqtgugiaoucgynhhanlae tle triqhtiitto reeieuyyngaa d ae chuthctt hdliecgeeehiaianuahtacrtigcenicyhco rhqei gan nihtneud gt dgtaeihh niueul qioaqgaiicgtcuguchcnaya aaehth hlh hlriitqioneti iiitgingengyuorydh gthhaq uenheeiur clgiea ghad aqihcrehlttieuhdiuegi tyroeiurcnya hn c de gtea lhadet deuttiqiuegqrutiaioucachco yucanaceeaatlh nartdhtttiiitoi ne loeieuiyqnoganind at c chu utnqgthcyiecagaeu i aa nhqahtahtlctgcleiiiuiheioo inrhtgtqiaan niygynneuh g cldgta h eteiqhul hqitqgairectuituiuhcygaynaae aehtae alhcthgrliiicondlti ietehg hengyiuhytdahi r in thqncueiyhcg egiurcegi gaag ha taqhhcdethl teiuehdhieeiniutoraoiuarnryi lgnccg ec gnie htad ate hdhyht iquegtqudi eouaciihhcingucaunaorietagtlh grhatc ntehiiietoi neo leeeaa yhngdarqndi rtc ct h i uutquegith iyehcoegdeuciaaahn ahauidntctanglcleceiheu oi trhiagtqqritn taniicyneu oi yu g ohcdgetaah naneul qidihttqgagi c ltutieuhuicqaoyaenihaehatt calunhrligieiccoyntia iat grheng y hqythtldhi n tiiuuieongec
iSbn 978-92-64-07927-4 -:HSTCQE=U\^W\Y:
89 2010 04 1 P
www.oecd.org/publishing

Learning our Lesson:
REVIEW OF QUALITY TEACHING
IN HIGHER EDUCATION
by Fabrice Hénard
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION
AND DEVELOPMENT
The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 30 democracies work together to
address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at
the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments
and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an
ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy
experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate
domestic and international policies.
The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the CzechRepublic,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea,
Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of
the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD.
OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering
and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions,
guidelines and standards agreed by its members.
This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions
expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the
Organisation or of the governments of its member countries.
ISBN 978-92-64-07927-4 (print)
ISBN 978-92-64-07928-1 (PDF)
Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.
© OECD 2010
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications,
databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided
that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and
translation rights should be submitted to [email protected]. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for
public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at [email protected] or the Centre
français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at [email protected].
FOREWORD
Foreword
I
n the context of the sustained growth and diversification of higher education
systems, the higher education sector and wider society is increasingly concerned about
the quality of programmes offered to students. As a result, there is an increase in
public assessments and international comparisons of higher education institutions, not
only within the higher education sector but in the general media. However, evaluation
methods tend to overemphasise research, and to use research performance as a
yardstick of an institution’s value. If these assessment processes fail to address the
quality of teaching, it is in part because measuring teaching quality is complex and
difficult.
Institutions may implement schemes or evaluation mechanisms to identify and
promote good teaching practices. The institutional environment of higher education
institutions can also lead to enhancement of quality of the teaching in higher education
through various means.
The goal of the OECD-Institutional Management in Higher Education (IMHE)
project on quality teaching was to highlight effective quality initiatives and to
encourage practices that may help other institutions to improve the quality of their
teaching and thereby, the quality of their graduates. The project analysed the goal and
scope of initiatives, and the role of the faculty members, the department, the central
university and the state. Using institutions’ own experiences the work sought to
pinpoint the factors which lead to lasting improvement in the quality of teaching,
helping to fill the data gap in information on outcomes indicators for higher education.
This report examines the two main approaches to quality teaching: the top-
down approach (those quality teaching initiatives taken by the institution collectively
and determined by its leadership) and the bottom-up approach (those quality
teaching initiatives taken by the teachers and which may nevertheless have an
influence on the institutional policy on quality teaching). The focus of this review is
mainly on the reasons for, and the effectiveness of, those initiatives. It is less concerned
with the practical aspects and the concrete mechanisms used to put them into practice,
which are heavily dependent on the circumstances of each institution.
The findings of this report will be of interest to those concerned with the quality
of teaching in higher education and its impact.
LEARNING OUR LESSON: REVIEW OF QUALITY TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION © OECD 2010 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Chapter 1. Institutions and Quality Teaching Initiatives under Focus 15
Overview of the institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Distinctive features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Typology of the group of institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Involvement in quality teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Typology of the quality teaching initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Type of institution and influence on quality teaching initiatives . . . 23
Targeted audiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Chapter 2. The Origins of Engagement in Quality Teaching . . . . . . . . . . 27
The influence of national authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Increasing awareness of the importance of quality teaching . . . . . . . 34
Increasing student demand for quality teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Why do institutions engage in quality teaching? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Chapter 3. Implementing Quality Teaching Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
How do institutions support quality teaching? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Making teaching explicit: A conceptual framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
How can quality teaching be widely accepted? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Organisational structures supporting quality teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Departments: The proper level for action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
New functions and clear roles for staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Quality teaching at institutional level and synergy of policies . . . . . 69
Which institutions are better able to disseminate quality teaching
initiatives? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
How to disseminate quality teaching at institutional level? . . . . . . . 74
Chapter 4. Monitoring and Measuring Quality Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
The evaluation of quality teaching: Accepted in principle, challenged
in reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Lack of reliable evaluation instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
LEARNING OUR LESSON: REVIEW OF QUALITY TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION © OECD 2010 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The right structures with the right evaluation staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
The impacts of quality teaching on teaching effectiveness . . . . . . . . 91
The impacts of quality teaching on research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
The impacts of quality teaching on institutional quality culture . . . 97
Chapter 5. Conclusions and Implications for Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Implications for institutional actors of an engagement in quality
teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Annex A. Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Box
1.1. Participating institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figures
1.1. Size of the institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.2. Main disciplinary orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.3. Institutions’ profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.4. Main commitments of the institution to enhance the quality
of teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.5. Top targeted audiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.1. Engagement in quality teaching: Summary of implications
for institutional actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
6 LEARNING OUR LESSON: REVIEW OF QUALITY TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION © OECD 2010
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acknowledgements
T
he author, Fabrice Hénard, would like to thank the experts who
contributed to outlining the structure of the review, advised on the content
and sources, and reviewed the draft version: George Gordon (University of
Strathclyde), Cécile Lecrenier (Université catholique de Louvain), Philippe
Parmentier (Université catholique de Louvain) and Stanislav Stech (Charles
University). The final report includes the comments of Outi Kallioinen (Laurea
University of Applied Sciences) and Alenoush Sorayan (McGill University), and
Institutional Management in Higher Education members.Ellen Hazelkorn and
Amanda Moynihan (Dublin Institute of Technology) helped to refine the online
questionnaire while Bernadette Noël (Facultés Universitaires Catholiques de
Mons) and Gabriella Navarro (Asociación de Profesionales por la Democracia y
el Desarrollo) tested it and made it more user-friendly.
Special gratitude is due to the faculty members and staff of the higher
education institutions who completed the online questionnaire and provided
complementary information through telephone interviews and site visits. A
meeting organised with the Open University of Catalonia (UOC) on
15December 2008 allowed the participating institutions to delve into the
findings and enrich the conclusions.
This illustrative study will be usefulto institutions looking to invest in
quality teaching. The wealth of examples provided by the 29 participating
institutions covered all areas of this study. However, we have selected here
those examples that best reflected the recommendations, and could be easily
understood by readers around the world. As a result, examples provided by all
29 institutions are not necessarily described here. All responses from the
questionnaire can be found on the IMHE website: www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/
qualityteaching.
LEARNING OUR LESSON: REVIEW OF QUALITY TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION © OECD 2010 7