Higher Education Institutions as Space for the Quality Development of Teaching and Learning? Educational Development in the Light of Theory and Practice
Type
conference contribution
Date Issued
2016
Author(s)
Research Team
CEDAR
Abstract
For quite some time, the quality of teaching and learning at Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) is being widely debated. In Europe, the Bologna reforms further intensified these discussions (Fell & Haines, 2009). Parallel to this political process, research on and innovation concepts for teaching and learning in HE have adopted the paradigm of a “shift from teaching to learning” coined by Barr and Tagg (1995). In this regard, students are expected to be active, motivated, and self-regulated learners who eagerly engage in learning processes rather than “consume” precast knowledge. Teachers are supposed to become facilitators of learning (Clifford, 1999; Zimmerman, 2002). This “shift” addresses several dimensions of higher education: first individual learners and teachers with their conceptions of and approaches to education, second actual teaching practices and third organizational aspects. However, neither research nor educational development practice are based on a coherent framework integrating (a) The individual level of teaching and learning addresses students’ as well as the faculty’s personal prerequisites (such as their motivation or approaches to learning and teaching) (e.g. Kember et al., 2004; Vanthournout et al., 2013). Furthermore, this level includes the exemplary design and implementation of (innovative) learning environments (Gosling, 2009; Land, 2001, 2004). (b) The curricular level includes the design and development of study programmes (e.g. definition of programme goals, creating a coherent teaching and learning experience) (Patrick & Lines, 2005; Biggs, 1999). (c) The strategic level refers to the positioning of teaching within a HEI. Increasingly, mission statements and strategic plans can be found in HEI. Thus, “[educational] development provision has also become more strategically aligned” (Blackmore, 2009, 665).
Up to now, empirical research has emphasized the level of teaching and learning (e.g. Gijbels, et al., 2008; Ginns, et al., 2008; Schwieler & Ekecrantz, 2011; Wang, et al., 2014) rarely addressing the interplay between the different levels of educational development. This symposium tackles this issue presenting three research and development projects linking the different levels. The following questions guide the symposium: How can educational development in HEIs be designed at the different levels? What role do disciplinary differences play in educational development activities? Which approaches are suitable to investigate educational development?
Up to now, empirical research has emphasized the level of teaching and learning (e.g. Gijbels, et al., 2008; Ginns, et al., 2008; Schwieler & Ekecrantz, 2011; Wang, et al., 2014) rarely addressing the interplay between the different levels of educational development. This symposium tackles this issue presenting three research and development projects linking the different levels. The following questions guide the symposium: How can educational development in HEIs be designed at the different levels? What role do disciplinary differences play in educational development activities? Which approaches are suitable to investigate educational development?
Language
English
HSG Classification
contribution to scientific community
Event Title
The Higher Education Conference (HEC) 2016
Event Location
Amsterdam
Event Date
13.-15.07.2016
Subject(s)
Eprints ID
248992