Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Quality teaching dublin_henard_2013


Published on

Fabrice Hénard; Modernisation Agenda; Quality Teaching; Mary McAleese; European Commission; OECD; Learning Avenue; High Level Group;

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Quality teaching dublin_henard_2013

  1. 1. Quality Teaching, lessons learned Fabrice Hénard-High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education, 28 March 2013, Dublin
  2. 2. Method 1st phase-overview Dec Jan Feb March Apr May June Sept Dec Jan - Feb 46Collection 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 findingsDocumentary Telephone interviews analysis Inception stage Observation stage Analysis- Reporting stage
  3. 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 StateInstitute of University, HigTechnology her School of(Ireland) Economics (Russia)The Institute Mykolasof Education Romeris– University of UniversityLondon (UK) (Lithuania) FreieUniversité de UnivesitätLille 2 Droit Berlinet 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. 4. Participating institutions Université de McGill Université de Universidad Montréal University Sherbrooke de la Laguna (Canada) (Canada) (Canada) (Spain) TohokuCity FukushiUniversity of UniversitySeattle (Japan)(USA)University Macquarieof Arizona University(USA) (Australia) U21 Global Universidad Universidad Alverno (Online University Autonoma De Nacional del College – India) Yucatan (Mexico) Nordeste (USA)
  5. 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 DocumentObservation Interviews Analysis
  6. 6. Participating institutions Universidade Higher Católica Laurea Eötvös School of Portuguesa University Loránd Univ. Economics (Portugal) (Finland) (Hungary) (Russia) UniversitéLaval (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. 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. 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. 9. External incentives to qualityteaching 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. 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
  11. 11. The implementation ofquality teaching initiatives& their related actors CBS
  12. 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 academicTo help teachers operate community and what added-value is gained by The function of teaching in students? the learning process
  13. 13. From scattered initiatives to a QTPolicy Quality A ssurance
  14. 14. Who are the players? • McGill University
  15. 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. 16. Organisational structureQuality 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
  17. 17. Evaluation and impacts Free University Berlin
  18. 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. 19. Outputs, outcomes and impactsInputs Outputs Immediate Intermediate Ultimate outcomes outcomes outcomesHours of Knowledge Inclusion in Teaching Learningtraining gain current practice improvement improvement
  20. 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. 21. How to better appraise the impacts?1. Innovative teaching evaluation2. Think in terms of synergy 21
  22. 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. 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. 24. 2) Think about synergy Human Resources IT Quality TeachingFacilities Learning support
  25. 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. 26. The impacts of quality teaching (2) Research feeds the theoretical background of quality teaching Research, a promising development for QT
  27. 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. 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. 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. 30. Corpus GlobalKnowledge Overview Learning In-depth Outcomes Studies
  31. 31. • Raising awareness1 • Excellent Teachers23 • Engaging students • Organisation for4 change-leadership • Aligning policies5 • Innovation6 •Assessing impacts7 31
  32. 32. • Evaluation • Capacity building • Quality