Implementation Of Reward Systems For Excellence In University Teaching : – Critical Aspects From A Nordic Perspective

• The importance of teaching skills and excellence in university teaching is acknowledged across many countries in contemporary higher education and several reward system initiatives have been implemented (Skelton 2004 and 2007, Land & Gordon 2015), especially in Australia, the UK and the Nordic countries. This development is also driven by an increased focus on quality assurance and development in times of change. Australia and the UK reward excellent teachers on a national level through prices, scholarships and professional frameworks (Chalmers 2011, Skelton 2004, Turner & Gosling 2012). These initiatives focus mainly on individuals whereas reward systems in the Nordic countries are more focused on institutional development (Olsson & Roxå 2013, Meld. St. 16 2017). The Nordic countries are at the forefront internationally, and more than 20 institutions of higher education have implemented reward systems and at least 10 more are in the development process (Winka 2017).In this paper, we use close-up research to investigate implementation of reward systems. We are academic developers and although our focus is development of education, this process must be backed up mainly with fine-graded research. Based on case studies from different universities, combined with self-study research (LaBoskey 2004) and an autoethnographical approach (Adams et al. 2015, Ellis et al. 2011), we show how significant critical aspects influence systems and processes from both individual and institutional perspectives. We are aware of on-going methodological discussions but self-study research is an excellent way to get detailed knowledge about practices and developmental processes. The data used are documents and narratives combined with interviews within relevant networks in Nordic higher education, and personal experiences from actual processes. The first aspect to consider is if a reward system should enclose on one or two levels of competence. Models with two levels could be open or additive, which means that either you apply for any of the levels or you have to be appointed at the lower level to be allowed to apply at the higher level. We will show that two levels engage more academics and focus more on institutional quality development whereas one higher level promotes excellence and scholarly research-based teaching that might be somewhat frightening for some teachers.A fundamental aspect of a reward system is the criteria that form the basis for the assessment. Teaching portfolios are used in the application process and include descriptions and analyses of the teaching practice (Olsson and Roxå 2013). Concretion is of fundamental importance, and a portfolio is about an applicant’s teaching in relation to the students’ learning of the actual discipline. Furthermore, the importance of the discipline is imperative, and it is the pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman 1986) that is crucial. Although the criteria used for assessment differ between reward systems, it is possible to cluster them into different categories (Ryegård et al. 2010). We can identify at least six categories: focus on student learning (including evidence for learning results), ability to incorporate the discipline in a teaching and learning context (pedagogical content knowledge in practice), professional development over time, scholarly approach to teaching and learning, and pedagogical leadership (actively leading and promoting educational development). What evidence we should look for in a teaching portfolio depends on how we interpret the different criteria behind these categories. Results show that universities and faculties use criteria or specific indicators to show their definition of teaching excellence and they often do this to highlight explicit institutional priorities. The assessment process is another key aspect often performed by assessors from other universities. However, the assessment can also be an internal process, or it can be a combination. If we focus on quality development, an internal or partly external process is preferable. An entirely external process is closer to research assessments but the assessors’ lack of institutional understanding is often a serious shortcoming.Aspects on a more general level include systems at university level or faculty level. Both models are common and we will show that systems at faculty level are more effective as quality drivers. Finally, monetary incentives are important especially as they are evidences for the seriousness of the university. Models with increased salary for the individual as well as extra funding for the department are particularly powerful.In his “think piece” related to the conference keynote, Tristan McCowan discusses how unbundling of higher education might influence teaching and learning. We argue strongly in favour of integrated universities where teaching, research and community engagement are kept together and supporting each other as important parts of a comprehensive institution. Nordic universities are essentially not moving in the direction of unbundling and we will show that the pedagogical arguments in favour of unbundling are questionable and that reward systems do support the structure and benefits of traditional universities. An illustrating example is that (after 15 years in Lund) rewarded teachers are significantly overrepresented at important positions within the university (Olsson 2018, personal communication). The fact that rewarded excellent teachers are seriously involved in policy and decision-making is of profound importance for the development of university teaching. We also recognise that of more than 120 rewarded teachers more than a third are full professors leading active research groups.Further examples from Lund University comprise increased knowledge of how reward systems influence institutional development. We have shown that rewarded teachers are responsible for courses that support high quality learning and a deep approach to this learning (Olsson & Roxå 2008, Borell & Andersson 2014), and we recognise, through examination results and course evaluations, that teaching develops positively over time. The quality of teaching portfolios has increased in relation to the complexity of reflections about disciplinary teaching practices, the scholarly approach, effects of teaching on student learning, and sharing/dissemination of expertise and best practice (Larsson, Anderberg & Olsson 2015). The assessment process has also been researched which has resulted in better criteria and assessment procedures, and new models for defining teaching quality and excellence (Olsson & Roxå 2013, Olsson & Roxå 2012). Lund University was the first Nordic university to launch a reward system in 2001 (Olsson & Roxå 2013) and our experiences and our research point toward engaging and well adapted teaching that is not old-fashioned or restrictive and where the engagement between teachers and students is essential for the quality of learning.

Ämnesord

SAMHÄLLSVETENSKAP  -- Utbildningsvetenskap (hsv//swe)

SOCIAL SCIENCES  -- Educational Sciences (hsv//eng)

Publikations- och innehållstyp

vet (ämneskategori)

kon (ämneskategori)