Part A updates

Book | Quality Work in Higher Education: Organisational and Pedagogical Dimensions

The edited volume that summarises some of the key findings from the project was recently published with Springer.

About the book: This book focuses on quality work in higher education, and examines the relationship between the organizational and pedagogical dimensions of quality work in higher education. Bringing together different disciplinary traditions, including educational science, sociology, and organisational studies, it addresses the following principal research question: How is quality work carried out in higher education? The book addresses a wide variety of academic, administrative and leadership practices that are involved in quality work in higher education institutions. The chapters in this book examine core issues crucial in the design and content of study programs, such as modes of teaching, learning and curricula design, as well as institutional practices regarding assessment and quality enhancement. The introductory and concluding chapter present an overarching focus on quality work as a lens to analyse intentional activities within higher education institutions directed at how study programmes and courses are designed, governed, and operated.

The book contains following chapters:

  • Researching ‘Quality Work’ in Higher Education by Mari Elken and Bjørn Stensaker
  • Quality Systems in Higher Education Institutions: Enabling and Constraining Quality Work by Mari Elken, Nicoline Frølich, Peter Maassen and Bjørn Stensaker
  • The Relationship Between External Quality Assurance and the Work of Study Programme Leaders: A Comparative Study by Per Olaf Aamodt, Ebbe Krogh Graversen, Elisabeth Hovdhaugen, Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt, Peter Maassen, and Bjørn Stensaker
  • Technology as Quality Work? Educational Leaders and Teachers’ Use of Digital Technology by Trine Fossland and Cathrine E. Tømte
  • Layers of Consistency in Study Programme Planning and Realization by Tine S. Prøitz, Anne Line Wittek, and Thomas de Lange
  • Exploring Student Participation Challenges in Student-Centred Learning Environments by Monika Nerland
  • Making Group Learning Work. Processes and Pedagogical Designs in Higher Education by Crina Damşa and Anne Line Wittek
  • Plenary Teaching: Examining Opportunities for Student Involvement and Knowledge Exploration in Large Classroom-Settings by Thomas de Lange, Anne Line Wittek, and Trine Fossland
  • What Counts as Quality Feedback? Disciplinary Differences in Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of Feedback by Rachelle Esterhazy, Trine Fossland, and Odd-Rune Stalheim
  • Quality Work: Reflections and Refinements by Mari Elken and Bjørn Stensaker

The book is edited by Mari Elken, Peter Maassen, Monika Nerland, Tine S. Prøitz and Agnete Vabø.

There will also be an event associated with the publication later this autumn.

Edited volume coming in summer 2020

Researchers on the project have for the last two years been working on an edited volume. The book has now a release date, and is scheduled to be out by 6th of June. About the book:

This book focuses on quality work in higher education, and examines the relationship between the organizational and pedagogical dimensions of quality work in higher education. Bringing together different disciplinary traditions, including educational science, sociology, and organisational studies, it addresses the following principal research question: How is quality work carried out in higher education?

The book addresses a wide variety of academic, administrative and leadership practices that are involved in quality work in higher education institutions. The chapters in this book examine core issues crucial in the design and content of study programs, such as modes of teaching, learning and curricula design, as well as institutional practices regarding assessment and quality enhancement. The introductory and concluding chapter present an overarching focus on quality work as a lens to analyse intentional activities within higher education institutions directed at how study programmes and courses are designed, governed, and operated.

The book consists of 10 chapters by researchers in this project, covering a wide set of themes and empirical settings.

Working paper: What do the CAP data say about conditions for teaching in universities?

Research Professor Per Olaf Aamodt (NIFU)
Research Professor Per Olaf Aamodt (NIFU)

NIFU researcher Pr Olaf Aamodt has re-analyzed some of the data collected in the CAP study, with specific focus on conditions for teaching. Data collection for the CAP (the Changing Academic Profession) project was done in 2007-2008, thus Aamodt cautions that it is possible that there have also been changes in the last 8 years. At the same time, the data can provide valuable inputs to current debates on educational quality.

A key conclusion from the empirical data is that Norwegian professors in average work about 50 hours a week, with about equal share of time on education and research. While these patterns are rather similar to other countries, the data also shows disciplinary differences. The data also shows that there is also great variety in how many students academic staff teaches. Staff report high levels of satisfaction with technical and administrative facilities, but there is general dissatisfaction with lack of basic administrative support (i.e. assistants/secretary).

Educational practices are largely evaluated by students, in a sense rather natural as student feedback on teaching is mandatory. However, there is little evidence of peer feedback on teaching, and Aamodt questions whether such feedback could also contribute to increased quality in educational practices?

Download the working paper here (pdf, in Norwegian).

Need for more appropriate quality indicators in higher education

As a part of Project A in this study, project researchers have examined some of the existing indicators and data on higher education quality in Norway.

They have analysed existing data that is compiled by Statistics Norway (SSB) and Database for Statistics on Higher Education (DBH). The working paper examines some of the challenges of using these data sources as basis for indicators about quality in higher education.

Clipboard02The researchers highlight in the working paper that quality indicators have different kinds of functions – for system and institutional governance, as an information source for the public (incl students who apply to higher education), as a basis for quality enhancement practices in the institutions, and for purposes of conducting research.

While a substantial amount of data exists on Norwegian higher education, several aspects of quality in higher education are difficult to quantify and measure. Thus, the report argues that indicators should be based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative indicators. For instance, merely measuring resource use would not necessarily say anything about quality as it does not give indications about the pedagogical approaches used nor the study environment at the institution. Furthermore, the report highlights that there likely is considerable amounts of data regarding process quality, but that this is not part of the traditional reporting in current system.

Download the working paper here (in Norwegian).

Project meeting at NIFU 21-22 January

NIFU is hosting a comprehensive project meeting for parts A, B and C of the project, with project partners attending from Norway and from Finland (University of Helsinki) and Denmark (Århus University).

perolaf
Per Olaf Aamodt (NIFU)

Per Olaf Aamodt was presenting some of the key results of the comprehensive review of existing data sources in Norwegian higher education and their applicability for indicators on input, process and output quality. He argued that there is considerable data collected in the Norwegian system, but much of it is collected for other purposes than quality measurement.

“It is very exciting to see what data is available and what can it be used for, to have this comprehensive view on all data sources that we already have,” says Per Olaf Aamodt.

Project leaders for B and C also gave updates on the work done in the sub-projects. Monika Nerland, project co-leader for part C updated the whole project team on the preparatory work for case studies in part C. Currently, work is underway to map the field and prepare for empirical data collection period that is about to start shortly. Observation studies in project part C will be carried out in spring and fall of 2016, accompanied with interview and document studies. Peter Maassen, project co-leader for part B gave brief overview of status in project B regarding study programme dynamics, as well as plan for work in the institutional cases studied in part B where main emphasis is to examine how work on quality on institutional level is related to what is taking place on study programme level.

The six case studies in both sub-projects overlap, and will allow for a comprehensive analysis – from institutional strategies to quality work on various levels, as well as the actual teaching and learning practices that take place.

In addition to work with the whole group, the meeting included more detailed work in projects part B and C to discuss sub-project specific issues and current work in the sub-projects.

On Friday, the project meeting will continue with discussions in the sub-projects and plan ahead for the remaining of the work this spring.