Pathways to quality in higher education : Case studies of educational practices in eight courses

(1)

Pathways to quality in higher education

Case studies of educational practices in eight courses

Edited by Monika Nerland and Tine S. Prøitz

Report

2018:3

(2)

(3)

Report 2018:3

Pathways to quality in higher education

Case studies of educational practices in eight courses

Edited by Monika Nerland and Tine S. Prøitz

(4)

Report 2018:3

Published by Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU) Address P.O. Box 2815 Tøyen, NO-0608 Oslo. Office address: Økernveien 9, NO-0653 Oslo.

Project No. 20483

Funded by The Research Council of Norway (RCN)

Photo Shutterstock

ISBN 978-82-327-0319-7

ISSN 1892-2597 (online)

Copyright NIFU: CC BY-NC 4.0 www.nifu.no

(5)

This report is produced in the framework of the project “Quality of Norwegian HigherEduca- tion: Pathways, Practices and Performances”, funded through the program Research and In- novation in the EducationalSector (FINNUT), Research CouncilNorway (RCN). The focus of the study ison exploring quality issuesrelated to the educationalprovisionofhighereduca- tion. The overarching questions in the project are: What factors and mechanisms are important for realizing the aims ofquality work inNorwegian highereducation? What isthe relationship between structural/systemic and institutional conditions, and educational practices?Thisreport presentsfindingsfrom one ofthesub-projects with focuson educational practices. The reportpresents eight indepth case studiesfocusing on teaching and learning practicesatthe courselevel. These studies were designed to focusonaspectsthatmatter for the quality of education in course design that employ student-centred approaches.

The report has been written by projectmembers from five institutions: the Department of Education atUniversity of Oslo(IPED/UiO), InlandNorway University of Applied Sciences (INN), Nordic Institute for StudiesinInnovation,Research and Education(NIFU), University of Tromsø,The Arctic University of Norway (UiT) and the University of Helsinki.The following researchers havecontributed to the report: Crina Damşa, Rachelle Esterhazy, Thomas de Lange, Anne Line Wittek (allIPED/UiO), Trine Fossland (RESULT/UiT), Yngve T. Nordkvelle and OddRune Stalheim(INN), Heidi Hyytinen andAnne Haarala-Muhonen (University of Hel- sinki), andCathrine Tømte (NIFU).Monika B.Nerland (IPED/UiO) and TineS.Prøitz(NIFU) have been project managers for the subproject on educational practices and this report.

Mari Elken (NIFU)provided support infinalizing this report and is the project leader of the overall project, while Peter Maassen (IPED/UiO) has been leading the overall project at UiO.

Oslo, January 2018

Sveinung Skule Nicoline Frølich

Director Head of research

Preface

(6)

(7)

Thisreport presents mainfindings from eightcase studies in higher education,focusingon educationalpractices at the courselevel. The casestudieswere designed to investigate as- pectsthat matters for the quality of educationalpractices incoursedesigns that employ student-centred approaches. Whilst ways of engaging students more actively in their learning processes are high on the political agenda and a variety of pedagogical approaches are developed for these purposes, less is known about howsuchapproachesare enactedinpractice and the challenges teachers and students face inthis regard. Thecases presented hereillus- trate different pedagogicaldesigns and approaches and how they play out in different domains and program contexts. Each case study addresses three research questions:

• ^Whatcharacterizes the teaching approaches and ways of engaging students in the course?

• ^Whatchallenges do students and teachersface with the given pedagogical approaches and learning activities?

• ^Whatcan welearn from this case about issues that matter for quality ofeducationalpractices?

This multiple case study draws on several methodological approaches, among otherpartici- pant observation and interviews. The methods employed inthis study require a well-functioning team of researchers engaged intime-consuming fieldwork and detailedhandling of a range of data from variedsources. Whilst individualresearchers havebeen responsible for each case study, asexpressed in the authorship ofthe chapters, the development ofinstru- ments and discussions of analyses andinterpretations has been a collaborative endeavour. Thus, this report is the result of the combined efforts of a team of highly committed researchers. The project leaders want to thank all project members for their contributions.

The members of the project group want to express their gratitude to all teachers and students that havebeen so kind to allowus to enter into their various educationalsettings and activities. Without your interest and willingness to participate these studies had simply not been possible. Thank you! It is our sincere hope that the experiences and insights we present inthis report will be useful for the further work of teachers, programme leaders and students in Norwegian higher education.

Thisreport can be read in severalways. It can be readas a whole by those interested in quality issues related to teaching and learning in large and as a pressing issue in highereducation. Those who want aquickoverview can read the introductorychapter and the final chapter, and then continue withselected chaptersthey take interest in. The report can also

Editors’ preface

(8)

be read more selectively by theme, eitherdefined by interest inparticularteaching and learning approaches and/or byacademic fieldofstudy. In any case it is ourhopethat the report will serve as a source for reflection or inspirationonhowdifferent elements and activities of teaching and learning environments represent potential drivers or barriers for quality in educational practices and the way they foster opportunities for student learning.

Monika Nerland (University of Oslo) and Tine S. Prøitz (NIFU) Oslo, January 2018

(9)

Preface ... 5

Editors’ preface ... 7

Sammendrag ... 13

Summary ... 17

1 Introduction ... 21

1.1 Background and aims...21

1.2 Quality aspects of educational practices...23

1.3 Research design and methodology...26

1.4 Analytical approaches...32

1.5 Presentation of the cases and structure of the report...37

2 Project-based learning in Computer Engineering Education ... 39

2.1 Introduction...39

2.2 Previous research on project-based learning in engineering education...40

2.3 Empirical context and data ...42

2.4 Characteristics of the teaching and learning environment...43

2.5 Discussion...53

2.6 Conclusions and recommendations...57

3 Portfolio assessment in an undergraduate course in ecology ... 58

3.2 Previous research on portfolio assessment and higher education in biology...59

3.5 Students’ and teachers’ experience of teaching and learning activities...69

3.6 Discussion...73

3.7 Conclusion and recommendations...77

4 Group assignments and roleplay in Organisation and Management ... 79

Enviktig side ved kvalitet ihøyere utdanning handler om hvordan undervisningsformerog læringsaktiviteter i emner/kurs kan bidra til å fremme studentenes læring.Deteretsterkt fokus på å engasjere studenter i utforsking og utvikling avkunnskapsamt å forberede dem påfremtidige arbeidssituasjonerpregetavkomplekse problemer, skiftende samarbeidsfor- hold og nye kompetansekrav. Mer varierte læringsaktiviteter og vurderingsformer, mer sys- tematisk og konstruktiv tilbakemelding, utvikling avgodelæringsmiljøergjennom teknologibruk, oginvolvering avstudenter i forskningsaktiviteter elleri læring gjennom utforskning blir fremhevet som viktig for å utvikle kvalitet påprogram og emnenivå. Vi har imidlertid begrenset kunnskap omhvordan slikeintensjonerrealiseres i praksis,hvilkeutfordringer læ- rereog studenter møter i arbeidet ellerhvordan disseideene tilpasses tilulike kunnskapsfelt og deres læringsutfordringer. Formålet med rapporten erderfor å undersøke hvordan undervisnings- og læringsaktiviteter organiseres, praktiseres og erfares i ulike fag og programmer, med etoverordnet fokuspåhvordan såkalte "studentsentrerte" undervisningsformer brukes til å fremme studentengasjement og læring.

Forskningsdesign og metoder

Undersøkelsenbyggerpåcasestudieravåttestudieemner som gir innsikt i bruken avulike studentsentrertetilnærminger i ulikefag og studieprogrammer. Utvalgetavundervisnings- og arbeidsformer inkluderteforelesninger kombinert medseminarer, prosjektbasert læring, problembasert læring,case-basert læring, simuleringsøvelser med og uten bruk avteknologi, feltarbeid, mappevurdering og online aktiviteter. Casestudiene girinnsikt i hvordan lærere og studenterarbeidermeddisseulikearbeidsformene. Sammenbidrardeogså tilåidentifi- sereaspekter som har betydning for kvaliteten påutdanningspraksis. Hvertcasestudie adres- serer tre forskningsspørsmål: 1) Hvakjennetegner undervisningsformene i kurset og måtene studentene engasjeres på? 2) Hvilkeutfordringer møterstudenter og faglærere i arbeidet med deulike pedagogiske tilnærmingene og læringsaktivitetene? 3) Hva kan vilæreavcase- studien om aspekter som har betydning for kvaliteten på utdanningspraksis?

Metodene fordatainnsamling inkluderer deltakende observasjon avundervisnings- og læ- ringsaktiviteter i emnene, intervjuer med faglærere før og etter observasjonsperiodene, grup- peintervjuer med studenter, og innsamling avkursdokumenter, arbeidskrav, kunnskapsres- surser og annet materiale. Et spørreskjema ble også distribuerttilstudentene for å få infor- masjon omdereserfaringer med undervisningsdesignet og aktivitetene. Analysene kombine- rer innholdsanalyseravundervisnings-og læringsaktiviteter med prosessanalyseravmåten

Sammendrag

(14)

deforskjellige elementene (undervisningsformer, læringsaktiviteter, oppgaver, vurderings- kriterier etc.) samvirker i gjennomføringen avemnet, samt analyser av deltakernes erfa- ringer. For å identifisere og diskuteremuligheter og utfordringer som oppstod ideulike undervisnings- og læringsmiljøene, trekker vi påteoretiske perspektiver og begreper om studentenes læring og former for engasjement, pedagogiske design og relasjoner mellom lære- planelementer, og kunnskapsformer og læringsutfordringer i ulike fag.

Sentrale innsikter

Når det gjelderkjennetegn ved undervisningsformene og måter å engasjere studenter på, visteanalysene atalle emnene haddekompleksedesign sominkluderte flere typeraktiviteter og pedagogiske tilnærminger. Ingen av emnene var helt konsistente når det gjelder underliggende ideer om undervisning, læring og tilnærminger tilkunnskap. For eksempelkunne et emne inneholde noen aktiviteter som primært rettetseg mot å utvikle studenters forståelse av gitt kunnskapinnenfor fasterammer, og andre aktiviteter som forutsatte åpen kunnskaps- utforsking og kunnskapsbygging. Denne variasjonen kan være fruktbar hvis aktivitetene samvirker i læringen, og dersom studentene erklarover hva som kreves i ulike situasjoner. Va- riasjonen kanogså gi rom for studentersulike måter å engasjere seg i faget. Samtidig krever slik variasjon atfaglærer(e) erbevisstpå den underliggende logikken i emnets ulike aktiviteter for å vurdere hvordan de kan samspille og understøtte læring påproduktive måter. Slike overveielser kan forhindre atemneplanene blir overbelastet med aktiviteter og vanskelig å realisere i praksis. De kan også gjøre forholdene mellom elementene mer eksplisitte for både studenter og lærere.

Når det gjelderutfordringene studenter og faglærere møter i arbeidet, visteanalysene utfordringer knyttet til å etablere en fellesforståelse av formålet med aktivitetene og hva som forventes avde som erinvolvert. Spesielt ved utforskendearbeidsformer, der studentene job- ber aktivt med å undersøke ellergenererekunnskap, visteanalysene utfordringer knyttet til læring i enmangfoldig studentgruppe med ulike forutsetninger. Det var tildelsstorvariasjon både i studentens forkunnskaperog i deres deltakelse i aktivitetene. For eksempel varierte det mye omstudentenedeltok påvalgfrie aktiviteter som plenumsforelesninger og ved tilbud om tilbakemeldinger og veiledning, hvordan debenyttet seg avtilbakemeldingerpåarbeidet, og også hvordan deengasjerte seg i samarbeid og gruppebaserte aktiviteter. Læring gjennom utforskning harpotensialtil å imøtekomme ulike studenters forutsetninger og behov, men slike aktiviteter ersamtidig sterkt avhengigeavstudentenes deltakelse. Analysene indikerer ataktiviteter som strekkerseg over tid og somerorganisert påmåter som inkludererinstruk- sjon og veiledning i flere faser, girbedremuligheter for aktiv kunnskapsutvikling og for å gjøresentrale kunnskapspraksiser i fagettilgjengelige for studentene. Aktiviteter som invol- verer studentene i utvikling avprodukter (for eksempel, hvor studentene utviklertekster, løsninger, modellerellernoe sommaterialiseres) girogså bedre muligheter for å synliggjøre læringsprosessen og utviklingen for både studenter og lærere.

Visåogså utfordringer knyttet tildet å leggetilrette for diskusjoner mellom studentene og i læreresforsøkpå å stimulere tildiskusjon. Et interessant funn var atstudentene gjen- nomgåendeser ut til å foretrekke andre sosiale medier og teknologier for å samarbeide, fram- for dearenaene somtilbys i emnet eller istudieprogrammet. For eksempel dannet mange

(15)

studenter Facebook-grupper for slike formål, og verktøy som Google Docs blebrukt til samarbeid om oppgaver. Selv i det nettbasertekurset som inngikk i denne studien syntes studentene å foretrekke andre sosiale medier for å dele ressurser, stille spørsmål og diskuterepro- blemerknyttet til læringsarbeidet. Disse funnene eritråd med andre studiersom har vist hvordan digitale verktøy nå erintegrert i studenters livsstil og omgangsform. Samtidig peker det pådet åpenbare, men likevelviktige forhold,atviikke kansettelikhetstegn mellom studenters teknologibruk for studieformål og den teknologibruken som organiseres avfaglærere ellerstudieprogrammet. I sin turreiser dettespørsmål om hvordan lærere kan ta høyde for og understøttedelæringsprosessene som foregår i sosiale romutenfor det organiserte læ- ringsmiljøet.

Flere avcasestudiene visteatfaglærere, studenter og andre involvertehadde ulikforstå- else av hensikten med ulike undervisnings- og læringsaktiviteter. Dette tyder på at formål og begrunnelser for etundervisningsdesign og dets ulike aktiviteterikke bør tas for gitt. Med andre ord, det som er nøye planlagt og tenkt avansvarlig faglærererikke nødvendigvis like tydelig for studenter og medlærere i emnet. Undervisningsdesign og dets begrunnelser må kommuniseres og gjøres eksplisitt for ulike aktører for å kunne bli realisert. Dette omfatter også tydelig kommunikasjon avhvilket ansvar som hvilerpålærere, studenterog andre som medvirker i kurset, og hva som forventes av de involverte aktørene.

Hva har studien lært oss om utdanningskvalitet på praksisnivå?

Ensentral innsikt eratstudentsentrerte tilnærmingerikke ergeneriske. De bør snarere for- stås som etsett avpedagogiske prinsipper som må tilpasses fagets karakter ogtildet spesi- fikke emnets formål og plassering i studieprogrammet. Problemløsing vil for eksempel bety forskjellige ting og ha forskjellige kriterier for god utøvelse i ingeniørfag, sammenlignet med kritiske litteraturstudier. Mulighetene for atstudentene kan tadelireelle yrkessituasjoner eller i forskning vilogså variere mellom kunnskapsfelt. Casestudiene illustrerteogså utfordringer i form av brudd og konflikter som oppstår mellomulike emnerinnenfor etprogram, men også mellom ulike elementer og aktiviteter innenfor et emne. Dette gjelder plasseringen av emner og kunnskapsinnhold i den overordnede programstrukturen, som for eksempel hvordan emnet bygger på tidligere emner eller forbereder studentene for hva som skal komme. Noen avaktivitetene som ble studert i casestudiene var basert påklareprogresjons- prinsipper for bådeinnhold og arbeidsformer i studieprogrammet, mens detteikkevar like tydelig i andre case. Konflikter kunne også oppstå mellom parallelle emner i studentenes hverdag, for eksempel når flere emner toppet seg i arbeidsbelastning samtidig og mange stu- dentervalgte bort aktiviteter som ikke varobligatoriske. Studienunderstrekerviktigheten av å seundervisningsoppleggene frastudentenes perspektiv. Den fremheverogså viktigheten av å skape progresjonbåde i fagets innhold og i måter å jobbe på, innenfor et emne og over flere emner. Dette krever i sin tur samarbeidpåtvers avemner og samarbeid mellom faglærere i studiets og emnenes planleggingsfaser.

Samletsett viser casestudiene som presenteres i denne rapportenatstudentsentrerte til- nærminger blir møtt med interesse av faglærere i høyere utdanning, og at slike tilnærminger gir en rekke muligheter for studenters læring. Samtidig bringerde med seg utfordringer og dilemmaersom ikkeertilstrekkelig tatt høyde foripolitiske oginstitusjonelle føringer for

(16)

kvalitetsarbeid påemne- og praksisnivå. Disse dilemmaene inkluderer å finne en god balanse mellom obligatoriske og frivillige aktiviteter, å håndterespenningermellom å gi studenter faglige utfordringer og å holdealle studenterombord, degjeldervalg som må tas mellom mer styrte og mer åpne prosesser i læring basertpå utforskning, og å balansere forventninger mellom det å "vite påforhånd" hva etkurs viltilby og beholdefleksibilitet for justeringer og ikke-planlagt læring. Dette innebærer atdet erviktig å holdeplaner og læringsutbyttebeskri- velser tilstrekkelig åpne til at faglærere og studenter har nødvendig fleksibilitet i gjennomfø- ringen, samtidig som slikeplaner må værespesifikke noktil å gi retning for arbeidet. Videre bør det legges vekt på hvordan kurs og aktiviteter står i sammenheng med studieprogram- mets overordnede struktur og til fagspesifikke utfordringer.

Rapporten avsluttes med åsammenfatte disseinnsiktene i en liste med anbefalinger for utvikling avemneplaner og studieprogrammer. Den girdermedsværtrelevante innspill til dagens debatter om kvalitet i høyere utdanning og om hvordankvalitet kan fremmespåprak- sisnivå. Vi gir også anbefalinger for videre forskning.

(17)

The eight case studies presented in this report were undertaken for identifying issues that matter for the quality of educational practices in higher education. They consisted of doing close-up research on how different ‘student-centred’ pedagogical approaches are used and experienced in different course contexts. An overall aim was to learn more about the opportunities and challenges teachers and students face in their everyday educational activities. Across the case studies we have seen how a range of activities and pedagogical approaches were combined in courses, forming com- plex environments for teaching and learning. The case studies illustrate the importance of course designs that are well planned but also flexible enough to be adapted to students’ emergent activities. Another insight is that pedagogical approaches are not generic, but rather form a set of principles and guidelines that need to be adapted to the specific discipline and course setting. The analyses undertaken illustrate challenges in the form of gaps and conflicts that arise between course elements and activities in which students are engaged. We conclude that higher education practices, and especially their more student-activating modes, are imbued with a range of dilemmas and challenges that cannot be resolved once and for all. Recommendations are provided for the development of course designs and study programmes, as well as for further research.

A key issue for the quality ofeducationalpractices in highereducation ishow theteaching and learning approaches that are used incourses affect student learning. This issue is ad- dressedinhighereducation policies aswellasin academic research through a strong focus on engaging students inprocesses of knowledgeconstruction and preparing them for future work situations characterized byopen-ended problems, shiftingcontexts ofcollaborationand new demands for expertise. Consequently, calls for morevariegated activities and assessment forms, for providing more systematic and constructive feedback to students, for creating more supportive learning environments throughtechnology use and forinvolving students in research and research-like activities,are frequently brought to the fore as ways of enhanc- ing the quality of higher education at the study programme and course levels. However, there is limited knowledgeonwhat thesecalls mean in practice, that is, the extent to which these ideas are realized inpractice, whichchallenges teachers and students face that might impede their realization, or which roles the structures and learning challenges of different knowledge domains play in their implementation. Therefore, this report discusses howeducationalprac- ticesare organized, enacted and perceived in different domainsand programme contexts, withanoverall focus on how‘student-centred’ pedagogical approaches are used to enhance student engagement and learning.

Summary

(18)

Research design and methods

In the underlying research project, a multiple-casedesign comprised of eight highereducationcourses was employed. The cases were selected to provide insights intothe use ofdiffer- ent pedagogicalapproaches within various types of programmes and knowledge domains.

Following the categoriesfrom the literature review presented in a previous project report (Damsa et al., 2015) the approaches addressed inthe casestudies included larger lectures combinedwith seminars; project-based learning in smallergroups; problem-based learning, case-based learning; simulationexerciseswith and without technology use; field work; portfolio work; and online activities. Ineach casestudy three research questions wereaddressed:

1) What characterizes the teaching approaches and ways of engaging students in the course? 2) What challenges do students and teachers face with the given pedagogical approaches and learning activities? 3) What can we learn from this case about issues that matter for the quality of educational practices? Rather than serving as a comparative analysis, together the cases contribute to identifying aspects that matter for the quality of educational practices.

The methods for datacollectioninclude participant observation of teaching and learning activitiesinthe courses, interviews with teachersbefore and after the course/observation periods, group interviews withstudents, and collection of coursedocuments, assignments, knowledge resources andothermaterials. A questionnairewas also distributed to the students to get informationabout theirexperiences withthecourse and the course design. The analytical strategy aimed atrevealing both content dimensions of the coursedesigns and activities, and the way the different course elements (types of instruction,learning activities, assignments, assessment criteria, etc.) worked together in the enactment ofthecourse. In or- der to make sense of the participants’ conceptions and experiences, and to identify and discuss differences and challenges that emerged in the various teaching-learning environments, the project team has drawn on theoretical notions and concepts thatrelate to student learning and forms ofengagement, coursedesigns and relations between curriculum elements, and the disciplinary context and learning challenges of different domains.

Key findings

When it comes to characteristics of the teaching approaches and ways of engaging students, in allthecourses studied severalactivities and pedagogicalapproacheswere combined. Strik- ingly, none of the courses was fully consistent with respect to the underlying rationales for teaching, learning and knowledgeengagement related to different activities. For instance, a course could includesome activities that primarily addressed students’ understanding of given knowledge within restricted frames for interpretation, andotheractivities that encour- agedstudents’ open-ended exploration and knowledge construction. This variationmight be fruitful if the activitiessupport rather than contradict one another, and it might offerspace for different ways of student engagement. At the same time, such a variationrequires that the teacher(s) pay attention to therationales involved in thevariousactivitiesinorder to con- siderhowthey can interplay and support learning inproductive ways. Such insights may prevent coursedesigns from becoming overloaded and difficult to realise inpractice, and they may contribute to making the relations among course elements more explicit.

(19)

Interms of the challenges students and teachers face with the given pedagogicalapproaches and learning activities, the case studies revealedchallenges related to establishing a shared understanding of thepurpose of theactivities and of what isexpected from the participants.

Especially in forms of inquiry-based learning, the analyses revealed challenges related to supporting learning in a diversegroup of students. Diversity wasmanifested bothin the students’

prior knowledge and informs of engagement. For instance, it varied extensively whetherstu- dents attendedoptionalactivities, suchaslectures and supervision sessions, howtheytook advantage of feedback opportunities, and also how they invested incollaborative activities. Inquiryactivitieshave the potential of accommodatingvarious students’ needs, but they are at the same time heavilydependent on the participation of students. The analyses indicated that activities that stretch over time and that are sequenced in ways that include greater teacher supportacross several phasesprovide better opportunities for active knowledgeconstruction and for making ways of ‘doing knowledge’ in the discipline explicit to the students.

Moreover, activities that involve theconstruction of products, that is,students creating or making something that ismaterialised, offeropportunitiestoexplicate the learning process and monitor achievements for students and teachers alike.

We also identifiedchallengeswith respect to facilitating productive discussions among students and the teachers’ support of such discussions. An interesting finding in this regard was a tendency ofstudents to prefer other and/or supplemental social media, and generic technologies for sharing and communicating around their work, rather than the spacesofferedby the courses in theLearningManagement Systems orelsewhere. For example, many students formedFacebook groups for thesepurposes, and technologiessuchasGoogleDocs were used for collaborative writing and work onassignments. Even inthecourseactivitiesprovided online, students seemedto prefer social media for sharing resources, asking questions and discussing issues related to their learning. These findings are inline with other studies that haveshown how digitaltools are becoming integral to students’ wayoflife,whilesimultane- ously pointing to the obvious, yet important fact that students’ use of digital technologiesfor learning isnot equal to thatoffered by the course or study programme. In turn, this raises the questionhowteachers can account for, and support, learning processes that take place in social spaces beyond the course settings.

Several cases showed that the rationale for a design and its various activitiesshould not be taken for granted;inother words, what is carefully planned and understood by one teacher is notnecessarily transparent for students and fellowteachers. Hence, this, too, needs to be communicated and madeexplicit for different actors, with a cleardelineation of the division of responsibilities among teachers, students and any otherparticipants inthecourse, and an outline of what is expected from the various actors involved.

What is learned about the quality of educational practices?

Intermsof what can we learn from the case studies about issues that matter for the quality of educational practices, one centralinsight is that pedagogicalapproaches are not generic, but rather a set of pedagogical principles that needto be adapted to thecharacteristics of the knowledge domainandthe specific course setting. For instance, problem solving will mean

(20)

different things and comes with different criteria for good performanceinengineering com- paredwithcriticalliterature studies, and theopportunities for students totake part in ‘real- world’practices or inquiry processes that resemble research will vary across knowledgedomains. Further, the cases also illustrate challenges in the form of gaps and conflicts that arise between courses and activities in which students are engaged. This relates to the placement of a course and itsknowledge content in the overall programme structure, such as how the coursebuilds onprevious courses and prepares for what comes next. Conflicts may also arise between parallel courses in the students’ life worlds, for instance, when several courses have leaps in workloadatthesame time.Theoverallstudy underscores the importance ofseeing the courseactivities from the students’ perspective and of creating progression in ways of working across courses. This, in turn,requirescollaborationacross courses and collaborative investments in the planning phase.

In sum, the case studies presented inthis report indicate that student-centred approaches are embraced by highereducation teachers and provide a range of opportunities for student learning, but also involve challenges and dilemmas that have not been sufficiently accounted for in current policies and guidelines for qualitywork in practice, that is, atprogramme and courselevels. These dilemmas includethe balance between mandatory and voluntary activities, tensions between challenging students andkeeping everyone on board, choices between more steered and more open-ended explorative processes, and expectations between the need for ‘knowing in advance’ what a coursewill offer and leaving space for unexpected learning. In thisregard, it isimportant to keep plans andintended learningoutcomes sufficiently open to allow courses to have the necessaryflexibility in their enactment, butsimultaneously specific enough to direct participants’ engagement. Moreover, attentionshould be givento the ways in which courses and activities relate to the overallstructure of the study programme and to the characteristics of the knowledge domain.

The report ends withcrystallizing theseinsights in a list of recommendations for the development of course designs and study programmes, which are highly relevant in today’s de- bates about quality in highereducation.We also provide recommendations for furtherrese- arch.

(21)

Monika Nerland and Tine S. Prøitz

1.1 Background and aims

This report is written as part of the larger project Quality of Norwegian Higher Education:

Pathways, practices and performances,which is funded by theResearch Council ofNorway through the FINNUT programme(2014–2017).Theproject is jointly conducted by the research institute NIFU and the Department of Education,University of Oslo,with collaborative partnersat the University ofTromsø,The Arctic University of Norway (UiT) and InlandNor- wayUniversity of Applied Sciences(INN), aswell asinternationalpartnersatthe University of Helsinki and CFA atAarhus University. Theproject has a multi-level and multi-casedesign, in which quality aspects and strategies are investigated on institutional, programme and courselevels, respectively,indifferent institutions and knowledgedomains. The project asa whole pays special attention to study programmes as a key unit where regulations and efforts to develop educational quality meet and relatesthis to policies and practices atnational, institutional and courselevels. The overallproject structure is illustrated inFigure 1. More information about the project is available through the project webpage: www.qnhe.no.

The report we present here concerns analyses of educationalpractices at the courselevel,

located in Part Cof the project. A critical issue for the quality of educational practices involves how theteachingapproachesandlearning activities that are used in courses mayenhance

1 Introduction

Figure 1 Overview of the QNHE project

(22)

student learning. In policies aswellasinresearch on highereducation, there is astrong focus on engaging students inprocesses of knowledgeconstruction and preparing them for future work situations characterized byopen-ended problems, shiftingcontexts ofcollaborationand new demands for expertise. Calls for morevariegated activities and assessment forms, for providing more systematic and constructive feedback to students, for creating more supportive learning environments through technology use and for involvingstudents in research and research-like activitiesare frequently brought to the foreasways of developing the quality of highereducation atthe programme and courselevels. However, there is limitedknowledge on howsuchintentions are realized inpractice, what challenges teachers and students face that might impede their realization or how these ideas interplay with the structures and learning challenges of different knowledgedomains.Current knowledge of Norwegian higher education,as of highereducationmoregenerally, relies to alarge extent onoutput measures and on self-reported data whereteachers and students report on educational activitiesinret- rospect (Haggis,2009;Lodge & Bosanquet,2013;Nerland & Jensen,2014; Damsaetal.,2015).

This has provided useful insights intohowprogrammes and courses are experienced and how this varies across groups and institutions. Less is known about how education is done in everyday practice in the interactions between teachers, students and the wider instructional environment.

Taking a process view on educational quality (Gibbs,2010) activities in partCofthe QNHE project thereforeexamine howeducational practicesare organized, enacted and perceived in differentdomains and programmecontexts, withan overall focus on howso-calledstudent- centred pedagogical approaches are used to foster student engagement and learning. The aim was to identify aspectsthatmatter for educationalquality andways of supporting learning in different types of coursedesigns and pedagogical approachesthatintend to engage students inknowledge construction,in the creation of products, and/or inactivitieswheredisciplinary knowledge can be applied to practical situations. As such, this report is primarily directed towardsteachers, courseleaders, programme leaders and students inhighereducation asthe key actors who are involvedindeveloping quality teaching and learning in their everyday work. However, by providing insights into thesepractices, the report is also useful for actors and stakeholdersinvolved increating framework conditions for teaching and learning aswell as in monitoring the quality of such practices.

To learn more about the opportunities and challengesrelated to different coursedesigns and learning activities, and about howthis plays out in different knowledgedomains, we conducted eight case studies of selected higher education courses, six in Norway and two in Fin- land. The multiple case design allowed us to investigate the relations between the course design and pedagogicalintentions, the enactment of teaching and learning activities and the experiences of teachers and students. Moreover, it provided a basis for exploring relationships between domain-specific features and moregeneric criteria affiliated with the pedagogical approaches. The courses we havestudied are embedded indifferent programmes and institutions and included both bachelor’s and master’s levels. They were selected to provide a variety of commonly used approaches toengage students inknowledge construction and inquiry, suchasproblem-based learning, case-based learning, project work, portfolio-organized

(23)

work, fieldwork and different types of simulation exercises. At the same time, they also included more traditionallectures and seminaractivities. Welooked for well-functioning cases to learn from, and included cases that exemplify different kinds of technology use. The two Finnish cases were studied in domainsparallel totwo of theNorwegian cases; besides providing astronger empiricalbasis, thisallowedustoconsider the way in which varieties inthe educationalsystems and regulations mayinfluenceeducationalpractices onthe production floor.

The research questions we addressed in the case studies are as follows:

• What characterizes the teaching approaches and ways of engaging students in the course?

• What challenges do students and teachersface with the given pedagogical approaches and learning activities?

• What can welearn from this case about issues that matter for quality ofeducationalpractices?

To investigate thesequestions,we used methodscombining participant observation, interviews with teachers and students, document analysis ofcoursedocuments, and a question- nairegiven to the students with items targeting their courseparticipation and experiences.

The selection of cases aswellas the methodologicalapproach are describedindetailinsec- tion 1.3.

The findings from the case studies are used to discuss the overallquestionregarding the important quality aspects and challenges in educational practicesat the courselevel inhigher education, and how theseaspects and challenges relate to coursedesigns and disciplinary contexts. We commence, however, by outlining how we understand quality aspects of educational practices.

1.2 Quality aspects of educational practices

The relationship of teaching to student learning is a key to educational quality, although not of a linear ordirect kind. Research has shown that teachers’ approaches to teaching are related to theway in which students engage inlearning activities(Trigwell,Prosser & Water- house, 1999; Baeten etal., 2010) and that the internalcoherencein a coursebetween learning activities, anticipatedoutcomes and assessment forms matter for the quality of student learning (Biggs & Tang,2011).Hence, to investigate quality aspects of educationalpractices we need to see the instructionalenvironment and students’ engagement in learningactivities as interrelated. Moreover, the role of teaching instudent learning haschanged in many ways during the last decades. From a situation in whichlectures and teacher-ledactivities served assignificant access points to information and knowledge, the learning challenge of today is not aboutaccess to information butrather about making sense of increasingly specialized knowledge from a multitude of sources.Furthermore, knowledge is not understood as a sta- ble entity, but ratherasunfolding and as changing over time as it is employed,adapted and furtherdeveloped indifferent contexts of practice. It is therefore widely acknowledged that learning is related to performative actions and to students’ active construction of knowledge, through which the achievedinsights become consequential for further action(Säljö,2010).

(24)

Attention should thus be given to what the students are doing with knowledge, the intended coursecontent and what potentials for learning theseprocessesentail, rather than focusing solely on what is conveyed by the teacher.

These developments haveled to a call for creating student-centredlearning environments and on organizing educationalpractices among scholars ineducationsciences aswellasin education policy. Ways of engaging students in explorative activities, in open-ended problem- solving, inthe construction of knowledgeproducts and incriticalreasoning are seen as the maincomponents of learning activitiesin such environments. At the same time, such activities may be challenging for bothteachersand students. Theyaltertraditional roles of students and teachers, and in some cases contribute to increasing both teachers´ and students´ work- load aswellas differences instudentachievements. Such newer trends inteaching andlearn- ing approaches require shifts in teachers’ understandings of how the various elements of learning environments may work to enhance student learning and alter often longstanding traditions for teaching practice that take time. For example, students will needdifferent kinds of support to engage in productive ways, and even more so if we take into account that many programmes nowaccommodate a more heterogeneous group of students. Further, whilst students generally may learn morefrom taking an active role in exploring and constructing knowledge, such activities may be less beneficial for students who do not have a highlevel of prior knowledge about the topic (see, for instance, Gil etal., 2010). Questions of quality in teaching and learningprocesses are thus not onlyrelated to howstudentengagement and opportunities for learning are supported through specific instructional approaches, but also to how feedback and assessment provide supportive learning situations for students.

In a previousreport from the QNHE project,we reviewed research focusing onpedagogical approaches and assessment in highereducation,with emphasis given to student-centred ap- proachesand how they may foster learning (Damsa etal.,2015). The review showed that different pedagogical approaches such asproblem-based learning, case-based learning, project- based learning and inquiry-based learning havedifferent strengths and that all have potential to engagestudents in exploration and knowledgeconstruction in productive ways, depending on how theyare enacted. Group discussions and peerinteraction show positive effectson student understanding and motivation;interactions that involve collaborative exploration and require justified arguments from the participants are particularly beneficial to develop students’ conceptual understanding. At the same time, the students often report that the most productive discussions areorganized and guided by the teacher. Inactivitiesthat involve students incollaborative problem solving and knowledge production, the pedagogical support provided from teachersand the instructional environment is crucial. This concerns the importance of providing support in both the framing and solving ofproblems, monitoring student-ledprocesses and interveningwhen necessary, encouraging the materialization of outcomes ofdiscussions sothat the learningprocess become visible and interim products can be furtherexplored and developed, and supporting the social organizationofcollaborative processes.

Across pedagogical designs, the forms of feedback and assessment are essential for the learning environment and how it supports student learning. Previously labelled ‘the Achilles heel of quality’ in highereducation (Knight,2002),assessment has gainedextensiveattention

(25)

inefforts todevelop educational practices. Ways of providing students with moreformative assessment and regular feedback on their work has been emphasized, for instance through peerassessment and portfolio-based coursedesigns. The reviewpresented in the abovemen- tionedreport (Damsa etal.,2015) identifieddifferent ways ofconceptualizing feedback, assessment and‘assessment feedback’ inthe literature and emphasized the importance of ‘feed- ing forward’ to support students in making use offeedback in their furtherlearning process.

It alsoshowed that neither giving nor taking advantage of feedback is a straightforward, but rather demanding process that needs to be learned.

Quality in educationalpractices is dependent onproductive relations between various cur- ricular elements in the course design. A common notion is that pedagogical approaches and activitiesshould be ‘constructively aligned’with intended learning objectives, assignments and assessment forms(Biggs & Tang,2011), toensure that thecourse elements support each other and work inthe same direction.Moreover, the intended outcomes and assessment criteria should be clear to the students to enhance their engagement and motivation.Employing theseprinciplesincoursedesign has been found to improvestudent experiences aswellas their academic grades(Larkin & Richardson,2013;Wang etal.,2013; Reaburn etal.,2009).

At the same time, it has been arguedthatexcessively-detailed learning outcomes may under- mine flexibility to adjust activities to students’emerging needs and prevent unplannedbut productive forms of engagement from being recognized (Allan,1996;Eisner, 2005;Havnes &

Prøitz,2016).

One of themain purposes of highereducationcourses is to supportstudents’ learning of domain-specific knowledge and skills.In a widercontext, activitiesshould also support their development of generic skills and competencies needed for work in the 21st century, includ- ing problem-solving, creativity, ethical understanding, collaboration, information-handling and digital literacies.Strategic use of ICT for educationalpurposes is often assumed to enhance such development. However, technology-rich environments can take very different forms and include a variety ofpurposes and practices. Howtechnologies are used in educational practice shouldtherefore bestbeseen as an aspect of the overallcoursedesign. The review pointed to different ways in which digital tools and resources can support student engagement and learning, for instance through simulations, online discussions, digital story- telling, digitalcases and so forth.Courses may also be more or less extensiveintheir technology use, ranging from technologyas an integral part of campus-based activities, to blended models and purely online environments. The ways in whichtechnologiesare used seem in part to be related to theparticipants’ conceptions of teaching and learning. Hence, careful incorporationof digital tools andtechnologies in thecoursedesign is an issue for the quality of educational practice.

Insum,we regard the following characteristicsasdenoting the quality of educational practices at the course level:

• Learning activities that engage students in the exploration and construction ofknowledge, such as through forms of inquiry-based learning, or tasks that require the integrationof knowledge forms and critical reflection;

• Coursedesign that allows students to employ conceptual knowledgein new contexts and makes learning explicit through the performance and/or the construction of products;

(26)

• Pedagogicalsupport and feedback that are alignedwith the learning challenges and pro- gressionprinciples in the domain, andwhich alsofeed forwardin students’ learning process;

• Coherence inhowthedifferent activities and elements of the coursesupport each other, such as through the constructive alignment of objectives, activities and assessment, or through other clear principles for the integration of learning activities and achievements;

• Activities that link students to their wider prospective disciplinary or professional knowledge culture;

• Balance between the underlying curriculumlogic, the course elements, teaching and learning activities and assessment and opportunities for adaptation to student groups and emerging needs

In the case reports,we take these aspects as points of departure in examining and discussing characteristics of thecoursedesigns and the use of pedagogical approaches. Theoverallaim is to learn more about howstudent-centredapproaches are used to facilitatestudent learning in highereducationandabout thedilemmas andchallengesteachers and students face in this regard. The emphasis given to the different aspects willdepend on theoverallpurposeand intentions with the courses, aswill the specific forms of teacher and student engagement. Sec- tion1.4provides more information about theanalyticallenses and concepts we employ to examine characteristics of the courseactivities and approaches and to interpret participants’

experiences and challenges. Before this,the next section presents the overallresearch design and methodology.

1.3 Research design and methodology

As pointed out above, quality ineducationalpractices is processual and relational, and there- foredifferent to measure based on fixed, specific criteria. Inconsequence, the topic rather calls for qualitative approaches to investigatehowpractices are organized and enacted, how their various elements relate to each other and how they are perceived by participants. To investigatethese issues, we employed amultiple-case design (Stake 2006)comprised ofeight highereducation courses. These cases were understood assettings for the organization and enactment of educational practice and selected to provide variation in thesense that they offeredopportunities to study educationalpractices inrelationto different pedagogicalapproaches, indifferent types of programmes and knowledgedomains (seebelow).Rather than serving as a comparative analysis, thecases provide exemplarycases that together contribute to answering the overallresearch question of aspects that matter for the quality of educational practices.

As displayed in Figure 1, the key elements of educational practices are course designs, teaching and learning activities, and feedback and assessment. In line with a practice-focused perspective (e.g. Trowler, 2014), educational practices incorporate artefacts and tools as well as institutionalrules and regulations.Such artefacts and toolsconcern, for instance, the type of texts and tools withwhichteachers and students engage, technologies that are used inteach-

(27)

ing or instudents’ learning activities, assignment texts, evaluationcriteria and discipline-specific concepts and methods. Practicesare developed based on howtheseelements are related, and suchrelations are partly formed in the planning of the coursedesign and partly emergent in the situated enactments of the course activities. Inthe research design, we therefore emphasized the collectionofinformation about the intended, the enacted and the experienced dimensionsof the courses. Inaddition, wewere concerned to understand the cases asembed- ded inlarger programme contexts and disciplinary contexts to account for howthesecontexts matter for how student-centred approaches are employed.

1.3.1 The contexts of higher education in Norway and Finland

The report consists of sixNorwegian cases and two Finnish cases. The combinationofNor- wegian and Finnish cases has been selected based on thesimilarities and differences between the higher education systems of the two countries. Relevant for our study are the similarities interms ofhow both Norway and Finland haveimplemented the degreestructureagreed upon in the Bologna process, consisting of three-year bachelor’sprogrammes (180 ECTS) and two-yearmaster’sprogrammes (120ECTS). Both countries have also adopted wider Euro- pean curriculumframeworks in their highereducation policies, whichinclude expectations to stateintended learning outcomesin curriculum documents atcourse and programmelev- els and to align these with national and European qualification frameworks.

At the same time,there are interesting differences between the countries that may havean impact on how to work with quality in teaching at the courselevel. For example, this can be seen in how the higher education systems are organized and inthe characteristics of the student body. One difference between the educationalsystems is how the Finnish divide their highereducationsystem into scientific universities(yliopisto) and universities of appliedsciences (polytechnics,ammattikorkeakoulu).Thedualsystem leads to twodifferent higherin- stitutionprofileswherethe universities focus on scientific research and education,whereas universities of appliedsciences adopt a more practical and professional-oriented approach.

The institutional profile is also reflected in different student selectioncriteria decided by the autonomousuniversities. There were altogether182,000 applicants tohighereducation in the academic year2013–2014;90,000 applied to universities, 122,000 topolytechnics and 30,000 toboth sectors. Around 35 per cent oftheapplicants were selected, butthere is great variationinthe admissionrates betweendifferent higher education institutions and fields of study¹.Student admissionis highly competitive, and recruitment is based on matriculation examinations and merits in entrance examinations².

InNorway, the institutional landscape is currently in transformation,asseveral institutions are merging and atleast two university collegeshaveapplied to become full-fledged universities. In themoment ofwriting the public HEsectorcomprises nineuniversities, seven university colleges and fivespecialized schools and university collegeswithine.g. the areas of business studies, sports, arts and architecture. Inaddition, there are privatecolleges that also

1 All numbers come from the EuroEducation.net The European Education Directory, retrieved 21.12.17 http://www.euroeducation.net/prof/finco.htm

2Ministry ofEducationand Culture, http://minedu.fi/en/higher-education-and-degrees , and FinnishNational Agency for Educationhttp://www.oph.fi/english/education_system/higher_education , both retrieved 21.12.17.

(28)

receivepublicfunding and that areregulated by national law. Admission tohigher education requires fulfillingthree years ofupper secondary school witha general university admissions certification. Admission iscoordinated throughthe NorwegianUniversities andColleges Ad- mission Service based on a point scale, with thehighest ranking students offered admission.

During thelast decade, the number of studentsinNorwegianhigher education hasincreased by 51,000 students, especially on the master’s levelwhere thenumber of students has increased by 52% since 2006, compared to27% on the bachelor’slevel³. Thisisaccompanied by growthinthe number ofoffered studyprogrammes and a more diverse student body. What this growth impliesforquality work and challenges to qualityinthe design and enactments of educational practicesis a topic in need of more research.

Whenit comes toeducational programmes and practices, we find similaritiesin how education isorganized andin experienced challenges. InNorway,the Bologna framework was implementedin parallel with the ‘Quality Reform’ in 2003. Inaddition to changes in thede- gree structure, this reform requested that students should be followed up more regularly through more feedback during courses, more frequent assessment and more learning-ori- entedforms of assessment. An evaluation of the reform showed that, according to academics’ self-reports, the use of seminar-organized teaching increased, and more time was spent on supervision and assessment. Teaching in the formerlarger lectures decreased in theuniver- sity colleges,but not necessarily in the universities. The number of assignmentsgiven to students as well as thefeedback on their work alsoincreased (Aamodt et al.,2005;Dysthe et al., 2006). Despite this, challenges related tothroughput continue. Students in both bachelor’s and master’sprogrammes tend to be delayed,with 43% completing on time and about 60%

completing one year after the scheduled time per 2015. Whilst the amount of feedback provided on students’ work apparently has increased,students still report needs for more feedback as well as more thorough andconstructive feedback (see,forinstance, the reports from the national studentsurvey Studiebarometeret⁴). This isin linewithfindings ininternational studies (McLean et al.,2015; Evans,2013), and calls for more research into how and what such feedback processes actually entailin practice.

In Finland,polytechnics anduniversities designtheir own instruction accordingto national statutes and their own degree regulations, and teachers andlecturers havefull autonomy re- garding their teaching, as well as thematerials and methods used. Thereis a tradition offre- quently using the resultsof evaluations to develop study programmes andinstructionalprac- tices, andstudents’ routesthrough higher education are followedthroughtheuse ofcommon research instruments that servethe dual function of monitoring their experiences and providing a basis for targeted support (see, for instance, Parpala and Lindblom-Ylänne, 2012). Alongside the traditional forms of teaching – lectures, demonstrations and examinations based on lectures and literature– a stronger emphasis on instructionalapproaches has increased theuse ofother methods, such as essays, projects, seminars andgroup work. The use of newinformation technologiesininstruction has alsoincreased.In recent years, both poly-

3All numbers relate to2015,and are taken from‘Tilstandsrapport for høyere utdanning 2016’(Statistics Norway 2016).

4http://www.studiebarometeret.no/en/

(29)

technics and universities havestrongly developed their instruction.The aim has been toin- crease students’ independent and self-motivated study. There are various forms of projects and teamwork, and studies have also increasingly been transferred outside the institution⁵. The knowledgewe have about educationalpractices in both country contexts, as for higher education moregenerally, is largely based onself-reporteddata from academics and students through survey research.This means that the veryprocesses of teaching, ways of engaging students in learning activities, andassessment practices are more or less black-boxed. Tar- geted studies on different topics suchasacademic writing, formative assessment and inquiry- based learning havebeen conducted in selected disciplinary and professional contexts (see Damsa etal., 2015), but few studies haveconducted an in-depth examination of howhigher education courses are composed and enacted by teachers and students. An overall aim ofthis project was therefore to learn more about the opportunities and challenges teachers and students face intheir everyday work inhighereducation, within the context of increased emphasis onstudent-centred learning environments. Byincluding twocases fromFinnish higher education, we obtain a richer empiricalbase and gainopportunities to investigate similar phe- nomena in a country context in which the quality ofhighereducationpractices has been an issue for strategic development over time.

1.3.2 Selection of cases

Inline with the resources of theoverallproject, we decided to include eight in-depth cases on the course level in the project. The selection of cases was based on the following criteria:

• The courses shouldcomplement each otherintheirtypes of pedagogical approaches uti- lized, and include common approaches to activating students in knowledge construction

• The courses should give insight in different kinds of technology use

• The courses should be selected from different institutions anddisciplinesand be distributed on bachelor’s and master’slevels

• The selection of cases should include coursesinprogrammes that arecommon and accom- modate many students in the higher education sector

• Cases to learn from: Welooked for well-functioning courses that could provide rich information onimportant quality aspects, opportunities and challenges ineducational practices at the course level in higher education, rather than ‘typical’cases in their provision.

Assuming that qualityaspects may be morepressing on thebachelor’slevel and that this level accommodates a majority of today’s students, we decided to include more courses from bachelor programmes. However, asmoreprogrammes are organizedas five-yearintegrated programmes and some courses are offered both to bachelor’s and master’s students, these boundaries are not clear cut. Wedecided to stay with the publichighereducation sector, as the majority of HEIs are public in Norway.

5EuroEducation.net The European EducationDirectory,http://www.euroeducation.net/prof/finco.htm , retrieved 21.12.17

(30)

Following the main categories from the literature review report (Damsa etal.,2015), the pedagogicalapproaches we haveanalysed were traditionalformats of larger lectures combined with seminars,project-based learning insmaller groups,problem-based learning,case- based learning and simulationexercises. We also aimed to includeone caserelyingheavily on online activities to account for the distinct aspects of suchlearning environments and were concerned that the set of caseswould give rich informationoffeedback and assessment practices.

The six Norwegian cases included in the project areas follows:

Table 1 - Overview of the Norwegian cases

Course Level Programme context Key pedagogical approaches

Programme development

BA Computer Engineering, Oslo and Akershus

University College

Project-based learning

Ecology BA/MA Biology, University of Bergen Portfolio-based course, comprising dif- ferent assignments

Personnel management

BA Organisation and Management, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences

Case-based learning and Role play sim- ulations

Supervised practice in nursing

BA Nursing education, NTNU-Gjøvik Technology-based simulation Criminal law MA 5-year integrated master pro-

gramme in law, Arctic University Norway

Moot courts, collaboration with the professional field

Economic management and financial analysis

MA Experience-based Master of Business Administration, Arctic University Norway

Online teaching and learning, combined with campus activities

Inline withthe overallproject design, parallel cases were studied by one ofthe interna- tional partnersin the project. Two cases were included from the University of Helsinki,from programmes in biology and law,respectively:

Table 2 - Overview of the Finnish cases

Course Level Programme context Key pedagogical approaches

Field course in ecology research

BA Biological and environmental sciences, University of Helsinki

Problem-based learning, in collabora- tive research projects

Research methods in Law

MA Law, University of Helsinki Lectures and essay writing

For the last decade, the University of Helsinki has had a strategic focus ondeveloping the quality of teaching and study programmes (University ofHelsinki,2006), and the selected cases involve experienced teachers whotake interest indeveloping their teaching and course designs. The domains of law and biology are both large, discipline-based university programmes that experience different challenges in their educational practices. The Finnish cases are conducted in parallel domains to two of the Norwegian cases and provide opportunities for exploring variation in educational practices within related programmecontexts.

(31)

For all thecases, participants were recruited based on interest in the project and informed consent. Course teachers were contacted on the advice of study programme leaders and invited to participate. Wereceived positive responsesfrom all teacherswhowere contacted.

Students in the selected courses were then collectively informed about the project and invited to sign up for active participationin the research.Groups of students who volunteered forthis were followed more closely in their activities, through observation of group processesand interviews. The empirical strategy was approved by the Data Protection Official for Research at NSD. The cases and their participantsare furtherdescribedinthe reports from each case that follow in the next chapters.

1.3.3 Methods for data collection

The methods for datacollectioninclude participant observation ofteaching and learning activities in thecourses, interviews with teachers before and after the course/observationpe- riods, group interviews with students and the collection of coursedocuments, assignments, knowledge resources and other materials. In addition, a questionnaire was distributed to the students in most courses towards the end of their course/semester. These datasources allowed us toobtaininformationaboutthe intentionsof the coursedesign aswellas how itwas enacted and experienced by students and teachers; they alsoprovided opportunities for data triangulation in relation to the research questions.

Teacher interviews were conducted in the beginningand towardsthe end of the course periods. The firstinterview aimed atgaining informationabout the intended coursedesign and focused on aims, purposes and plannedactivities. It was also used to agree upon a strategy for informing and recruiting students toparticipate and to gainaccess to moreinfor- mationthrough coursedocuments, teaching materials and otherresources. The end interview focused on teachers’ experiences of the course and the various activities. Teacherswere in most cases interviewed individually; however,incourses that were collaboratively offeredby a team of teachers, or included teaching assistants, theseparticipants were also included. In- terviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Participant observation was used tocollect informationabout thefirstresearch question:

‘What characterizes the teaching approaches and ways of engaging students in the course?’

The minimum time span of the observationperiod was2–3weeks, or around 12 hours in each course, but this variedas it wasadapted to coursedesign. We aimed atobserving different kinds ofactivities that were central in the course. Withintheseframes, we selected some activities for in-depth examination that were significant in the coursedesign and followedthese from a starting point (i.e. introduction of new knowledge content or an assignment) through students’ work withthecontent/assignment andto acompletion in theform ofanassess- ment. The form of these processes varied between the courses, but it could, for instance, be a group assignment, asimulationexercise or a PBL session. Dueto the different organizationof the courses and activities, the time span of theseactivitiesvaried. The observations were reg- istered by way offilling jointobservationprotocolsfor teacher-led and student-driven seminars(see appendix3forinformationabout observationcategories). Theprotocol for teacher- ledactivitieswasdesignedtoregister pedagogicalstrategies employed by theteacher, ways

Pathways to quality in higher education : Case studies of educational practices in eight courses

Pathways to quality in higher education

Case studies of educational practices in eight courses

Edited by Monika Nerland and Tine S. Prøitz

Report

2018:3

Report 2018:3

Pathways to quality in higher education

Case studies of educational practices in eight courses

Edited by Monika Nerland and Tine S. Prøitz

Preface

Editors’ preface

Contents

Sammendrag

Summary

1.1 Background and aims

1 Introduction

1.2 Quality aspects of educational practices

1.3 Research design and methodology

1.3.1 The contexts of higher education in Norway and Finland

1.3.2 Selection of cases

1.3.3 Methods for data collection