Search results

The evaluation and continuous improvement of the quality of teaching and learning in higher education is an issue of sustained concern. While most universities are implementing systems of quality assurance, there is substantial variation in the principles underlying these systems. La Trobe University has developed and implemented a university‐wide system of quality assurance that ensures that each subject is systematically reviewed and enhanced by those teaching in the subject. While it incorporates compulsory student evaluation of teaching of each subject the result of this student evaluation is not the focus of the quality assurance system. The focus is on ensuring that those teaching the subject, reflect on and make recommendations for further improvement of the subject. Outlines the quality assurance system, the principles on which it is based and describes and analyses the processes engaged in during its development.

The issue of quality assurance in vocational and technical education (VTE) programs identifies a perilous need to develop a conceptual framework for teaching and learning standards. This study aims to identify standard components for teaching and learning to ensure quality delivery for the achievement of VTE objectives. The quality assurance framework for teaching and learning is envisioned as a closed-loop management process that functions as an effective operational scheme to coordinate teaching processes that support the structure for quality assurance in VTE programs.

Survey data were collected through a questionnaire developed to examine the quality standards for teaching and learning in VTE from 259 respondents from colleges of education. The identified quality components for teaching and learning and their quality indicators were analysed.

The conceptual framework for teaching and learning with the 12 quality components and 62 quality indicators is the key standard for improving quality teaching and learning to meet the desired goals of VTE programs.

The framework proposed is flexible and can be applied to many other programs to ensure that teachers are professional enough to teach effectively to provide adequate learning outcomes.

Although learning styles and teaching quality have been studied separately, the association between the association between the two has yet to be identified. The purpose of this paper is to establish the relationship between students’ learning styles with students’ perceptions of teaching quality.

The study used survey responses from 272 undergraduate students. All 80 items in the Honey and Mumford’s (1986) Learning Styles Questionnaire and all 46 teaching quality items (Thompson, 2002) were used to assess learning styles and perceptions of teaching quality, respectively. Structural equation modelling was used to investigate the relationships between learning styles and perception of teaching quality.

Results indicate learners with dominant reflector or activist styles are influenced in their perceptions of teaching quality of their teacher or lecturer. No perceptions of teaching quality relationships were found for students with dominant theorist or pragmatist learning style.

Recognising that perceptions of teaching quality impacts on some students, teachers and lecturers may consider and articulate the type of learning they would prefer students to adopt for a particular class. As an example, a teacher might ask students who would normally see themselves as active learners to relax into the lecture mode of delivery and reflect on what is said in the lecture, to take time to consider what is said.

This study combines the two important constructs of learning and perception of teaching quality to provide insight into the relationship between the two.

This study aims to examine six South African universities with a particular focus on the quality of teaching and learning.

A qualitative case study approach was adopted and data were mainly generated by means of open-ended questionnaires. The questionnaire was circulated to approximately 1,800 students and 746 completed it. The data were categorized and analysed thematically, using both national and international benchmarks for quality teaching and learning.

The findings reveal that teaching and learning in South African universities is marred by a plethora of challenges. Lecturers lack basic skills and essential resources to effectively facilitate teaching and learning. Furthermore, quality benchmarks set by the Council on Higher Education are only met on paper and little or nothing is done to translate this into practice.

The study proposes among others that clearer policies on funding are recommended to ensure proper allocation of resources, staff development and institutional comeliness. Finally, to enhance transformation, universities should prioritize teaching and learning and take steps to ensure that those teaching in the classroom are qualified to do so.

Sketches a number of issues implicated in the assessment of teaching quality in higher education. Argues that checklist approaches to measuring teaching quality have some limited value – and a more professional, developmental approach is preferred. However, the focus on teaching quality should not disguise the fact that the emphasis needs to be on enhancing the quality of student learning, and this is not simply a function of the quality of the teaching which they encounter. Discusses implications both for academic departments and for universities, the claim being that systemic action is necessary.

This paper aims to investigate student subgroups’ responses to the coercive digitalisation of teaching and learning processes during the pandemic. Respective variance is discussed in terms of digital inequality and is interpreted as a need to individualise teaching and learning and quality assurance practices.

This study uses data from surveys (N = 955) on student perceptions of the introduction of emergency digitalisation – an important aspect of higher education. The authors perform latent class analyses to identify student subgroups. The students were asked to rate digital learning processes and their overall learning experiences.

The identified student subgroups are proponents, pragmatics and sceptics of digitalised teaching and learning processes. These subgroups have different preferences with regard to teaching and learning modes of delivery, which implies the relevance of individualised educational services and respective quality assurance practices to reflections on improvement needs.

The data are from a single, typical German university; therefore, the scope of the results may be limited. However, this study enriches future research on the traits of student subgroups and students’ coping strategies in an ever-changing learning environment.

The findings may help individualise universities’ counselling services to enhance overall teaching performance and quality assurance practices in a digitalised environment.

The findings provide insights into students’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on teaching and learning. This paper enriches the research on student heterogeneity and relates this to development needs of quality assurance practice.

The paper aims to disseminate solutions to common problems in student evaluation processes. It proposes that student evaluation can be applied to quality assurance and improving learning and teaching. The paper presents solutions in the areas of: presenting outcomes as performance indicators, constructing appropriate surveys, improving response rates, reporting student feedback to students and student engagement as a feature of university quality assurance.

The research approach of this paper is comparative case study, allowing in-depth exploration of multiple perspectives and practices at seven Australian universities. Process and outcome data were rigorously collected, analysed, compared and contrasted.

The paper provides empirical evidence for student evaluation as an instrument of learning and teaching data analysis for quality improvement. It suggests that collecting data about student engagement and the student experience will yield more useful data about student learning. Furthermore, findings indicate that students benefit from more authentic inclusion in the evaluation process and outcomes.

Because of the chosen research approach, the research results may lack generalisability. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test the proposed propositions further and apply to their own university contexts.

The paper includes recommendations at the institution- and sector-wide levels to effectively use student evaluation as a university performance indicator and as a tool of change.

This paper fulfils an identified need to examine student evaluation processes across institutions and focuses on the role of student evaluation in quality assurance.

In Hong Kong higher education, students' learning outcomes are increasingly treated as evidence to inform course and teaching improvement. Therefore, outcome-based teaching and learning (OBTL) has been encouraged by the University Grants Committee (UGC) since 2007. OBTL has gradually been implemented by Hong Kong higher education institutions (HEIs) to enhance student learning outcomes. Relating OBTL to the social cohesion/regulation matrix, this chapter aims at analyzing how OBTL is being implemented by the HEIs in Hong Kong. Given the high institutional autonomy and academic freedom afforded to individual HEIs, each university has established its own systematic framework for integrating outcome-based approaches into its teaching, learning, and assessment. Unlike other higher education systems in Asia with strong government supervision, the government in Hong Kong acts as an enabler and facilitator, leaving the UGC to invite international experts as an independent audit body to assure the quality of student learning. As a result, this chapter chooses the eight UGC-funded universities to investigate how they engage their faculty members in OBTL, and what the enabling and hindering factors are. Based upon the social cohesion/regulation matrix, the Hong Kong higher education system is featured by the individualist way of promoting OBTL. Nonetheless, while universities are empowered with institutional autonomy to decide upon teaching, and student learning matters, their strong orientation with OBTL means they cannot simply do whatever they like. Adopting a robust quality assurance mechanism in evaluating university performance through University Accountability Agreements, the institutional autonomy that universities enjoy rests heavily upon their performance in teaching and student learning, which is assessed through rigorous international benchmarking via the Quality Assurance Audit conducted by the UGC and research performance through the Research Assessment Exercise. This chapter discusses the unique university governance of Hong Kong through the critical review of OBTL being adopted in teaching and learning in Hong Kong universities.

Australian universities have a rich history for enabling, promoting and evaluating innovation and excellence in learning and teaching. Universities have used this practice to respond to drivers from government and the changing global educational environment, as well as accommodating for the characteristics of Australian universities such as scale, equity of access and the balance of domestic and international students. Often through institutional collaborations, educators have challenged pedagogical practices and introduced and tested innovative ways to enhance student learning, which has contributed to an international reputation for quality learning and teaching. However, the recent removal of specific government funding to support innovation, the increased emphasis on student success and employability outcomes and the threat of performance-based funding means that Australian universities will need to commit to the ongoing development of learning and teaching and demonstrate the potential for learning gain.

This paper looks at developments in the use of learning technologies in UK higher education, particularly in recent years. It examines the agenda items for learning and teaching associated with the use of new technologies that have emerged in the context of the current agenda for quality assessment and assurance. The paper considers the ways in which the two agendas work in a complementary manner, and the ways in which they create tensions. Finally, it considers the likely path of future developments and considers a way forward in which existing tensions may be reconciled.