Unravelling quality culture in higher education: a realist review

There is a growing belief that higher education institutions should nurture a ‘quality culture’ in which structural/managerial and cultural/psychological elements act in synergy to continuously improve education. Notwithstanding the positive connotation of the ‘quality culture’ concept, its exact configuration remains subject to debate. A realist review was conducted to identify inhibiting and promoting organisational context elements impacting quality culture, its working mechanisms and associated outcomes. Leadership and communication were identified as being of key importance in binding structural/managerial and cultural/psychological elements. Leaders are central ‘drivers’ of quality culture development through their ability to influence resource allocation, clarify roles and responsibilities, create partnerships and optimise people and process management. Adequate communication is considered a prerequisite to diffuse quality strategies and policies, evaluate results and identify staff values and beliefs. It is proposed that the working mechanisms of quality culture comprise increased staff commitment, shared ownership, empowerment and knowledge. Associated outcomes related to these mechanisms are positive effects on staff and student satisfaction, continuous improvement of the teaching–learning process and student and teacher learning and development. Institutions striving for the development of a quality culture should best operate from a contingency approach, i.e. make use of quality management intervention approaches which are tailored to the organisational context.     

The development and validation of a framework for teaching competencies in higher education

In higher education, approaches to teaching are becoming more student-centred, which demands different teaching competencies. Therefore, it is necessary to have an adequate framework of teaching competencies that can be used for evaluation purposes. The weaknesses of the existing frameworks are that they do not pay attention to the person as teacher, they are too narrowly defined, they are not validated and they are not adjusted to modern approaches to teaching. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a framework of teaching competencies in higher education. A framework for teaching competencies was therefore constructed containing the following domains: The Person as Teacher, Expert on Content Knowledge, Facilitator of Learning Processes, Organiser and Scholar/Lifelong Learner. The framework was validated using a Delphi method. Educational experts (N = 63) were asked: ``How important are the following teaching competencies in each domain for an experienced teacher in higher education?'' A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess the adequacy of the domains. After two rounds, the shift in ratings was minimal, so the results were considered stable. The response rate was 82%. From the original list with 134 items, 30 items were omitted because many experts failed to respond to them. The experts reached consensus on 61 out of the resulting 104 items (59%). A confirmatory factor analysis on the three best scoring items in each domain confirmed the model. A framework of teaching competencies was developed and validated that can be used as a starting point for teacher evaluation in higher education.     

The relationship between student-generated learning issues and self-study in problem-based learning

A major assumption of problem-based learning (PBL) is that learning issues, generated by students while discussing a problem, are used as guides for self-directed learning activities. This assumption, though basic to PBL, has never been tested. At the University of Limburg, the Netherlands, two procedures have been developed that reflect the extent to which students are able to identify important learning issues given a particular problem, and whether subsequent, independent, learning corresponds with these learning issues. The focus of the present article will be on the relationship between the two. We have explored to what extent student-generated learning issues are a major factor influencing the nature of students' self-study, or whether other factors may be involved in decisions on what to study and how much time to spend on topics selected. First, the production of learning issues was studied and represented as the percentage of overlap between learning issues raised by students and pre-set faculty objectives for each problem. The second procedure consisted of the administration of a Topic Checklist (TOC) which purports to measure students' actual self-directed learning activities. The TOC consists of a list of topics specifying the intended course content. Students were asked to indicate on a five-point Likert scale how much time they had spent studying each topic and to what degree they had mastered that topic. Third, learning issues and TOC topics were compared directly in a qualitative sense. Comparisons between the procedures revealed that a low proportion of variance of TOC scores could be predicted from the percentage of faculty objectives identified for each problem and the direct match between learning issues and TOC scores. It is concluded that scrutinizing student-generated learning issues and topics covered during self-study may provide information about what content is covered by students in tutorial groups. The discrepancy between the results of the measurements suggests, however, that learning issues produced during group discussion are not the sole source on which students base self-study decisions. Several other factors may be involved, such as tutor guidance, content already covered in previous units, issues raised during sessions with resource persons, and the nature of the learning resources available. Therefore, the relationship between learning issues and content covered during self-study is not as straightforward as is suggested.     

Teachers’ conceptions of quality and organisational values in higher education: compliance or enhancement?

Teachers are often assumed to have a negative attitude towards quality endeavours of their institutions and to hold defensive organisational values. However, there is little empirical research on this issue. This study focuses on teachers’ conceptions of quality, on their preferred organisational values and on the relationships between the two. A written questionnaire was presented to the teaching staff from 18 departments of universities of applied sciences in the Netherlands (N?=?266). It comprised 18 questions about teachers’ conceptions of quality, representing two quality scales: compliance and accountability and enhancement and improvement. A further 24 questions, related to organisational values, represent two scales that typify flexible organisations, and two that typify control-oriented organisations. The results reveal a neutral score on the compliance and accountability conceptions of quality and on the control-oriented organisational values, and a high score on enhancement and improvement and on the flexibility-oriented values. Both pairs appear to be moderately positively correlated. Despite the need for further qualitative research, it can be concluded that teachers perceive quality first and foremost as enhancement and improvement, rather than as compliance to external standards and accountability. These findings offer interesting perspectives for the further development of an internal quality culture in higher education.