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

11. The implementation of
quality teaching initiatives
& their related actors
CBS

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

13. From scattered initiatives to a QT
Policy
Quality
A ssurance

14. Who are the players?
• McGill University

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

17. Evaluation and impacts
Free University
Berlin

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

31. • Raising awareness
1
• Excellent Teachers
2
3 • Engaging students
• Organisation for
4 change-leadership
• Aligning policies
5
• Innovation
6
•Assessing impacts
7 31

32. • Evaluation
• Capacity building
• Quality expertise
fhenard@learningavenue.fr