An important element of the process of moving towards a genuine European Higher Education Area (EHEA) is not only the mobility of students and mutual recognition of study credits by universities, but also some shared and common minimum understanding of the core elements of ‘what makes an excellent university teacher and PhD supervisor/mentor?’ and what kind of environment facilitates in an excellent manner students’ learning, development and flourishing. This is all the more important as a shared understanding would not only contribute to the build-up of common teaching standards converging towards European and international excellence, but it would also remove mobility barriers, fragmentation and inefficiencies in the higher education labour market. The fact that, for example, newly hired academic personnel in The Netherlands must complete the Dutch Basic Teaching Qualification scheme (BKO) within two years of appointment - irrespective of the candidates' prior teaching experience or knowledge - can in some cases lead to barriers in the higher education labour market.Conversely, the fact that some European countries have no formal higher education teaching qualification scheme poses questions about the coherence of the European Higher Education Area in the realm of teaching standards.
This gap is already prevalent at undergraduate and graduate teaching levels but is particularly persistent in the area of training of doctoral supervisors and standardized teaching excellence in terms of training and mentoring doctoral students. In its recent study the European University Association noted that “the results for doctoral supervisors training catch the eye due to the comparably low rate of institutional rules and regulations that are in place”. Finally, the recent effects of the Covid-19 crisis and its implications for the fast adoption of online and remote teaching across all universities in Europe will also further add to the need for reflecting on teaching excellence across BA/MA/PhD levels with and without the help of technologies.
There is thus a need for mapping the current state of how universities and national authorities define, train, promote and reward ‘teaching excellence’ and the extent to which different universities and national authorities follow standardised teaching qualification schemes. This foundational Intellectual Output 1 will provide a comprehensive mapping of these aspects in order to inform - in the next steps of the ENOTE project - the identification of best practices (ENOTE Output 3) and the development of a common curriculum (ENOTE Output 2).
The target groups for this mapping are university teaching staff, administrators tasked with teaching qualification schemes, heads of departments and academic managers tasked with rewarding and promoting teaching excellence, Vice-Rectors for education and teaching, directors, doctoral supervisors and administrative staff of graduate / PhD schools as well as national authorities dealing with higher education.
Internally, the mapping will be an important foundation for the project’s next steps and outputs in terms of a best practice guide and training curriculum. Externally, the mapping report will be an important tool for universities and national authorities beyond the partnership circle to stimulate further reflection on European approaches for teaching excellence, qualifications and reward.
An important aspect of this mapping report is that it also considers recent developments of the Covid-19 crisis on teaching excellence conceptions and policies in the wake of massive adoption of remote teaching and that it focuses in particular on teaching excellence and training schemes in the field of doctoral supervision - alongside the more prevalent discussions about different definitions, conceptions and training schemes at BA and MA levels. In addition, the mapping exercise will also explore not only teaching qualification schemes, but also incentive structures for the sustainable promotion and reward of teaching excellence in the partner universities. Most importantly, the E-NOTE authors view ‘teaching excellence’ in a broad frame and as an essentially contested concept that is dependent on a variety of individual, institutional, national, cultural and societal contexts and is subject to a variety of interpretations and critiques.
We start our project by compiling an extensive and detailed overview of teaching qualification schemes and promotion and reward mechanisms and policies in the four universities and their national contexts - complemented by research on practices across the European Union. The overview is essential to the next steps of the projects and lays the foundations for a European scheme for developing, evaluating and rewarding teaching excellence in higher education. The mapping will be produced as a result of the following tasks:
1. Defining and Measuring “Teaching Excellence” in Higher Education: how is excellence defined and measured in Denmark (University of Copenhagen), The Netherlands (Leiden University), Czech Republic (Charles University Prague) and Portugal (University of Coimbra) as well as across the European Union (GGI and Coimbra Group).
2. Which teaching qualification / doctoral supervision qualification schemes exist in the four universities and their national contexts and the European Union?
3. Which other training schemes (other than formal qualification schemes) exist in the four universities for BA, MA and doctoral supervision skills?
4. How has the Covid-19 crisis impacted the definition, training and future potential requirements and practices of teaching excellence in the four universities?
5. What are the specific reward and promotion schemes and incentives (formal or informal) in the four universities, their national contexts and other European examples?
The mapping was based both on extensive desk research and the results of a standardized survey sent out to teaching staff, administrators and higher education managers in the four priority countries (Czech Republic, Denmark, The Netherlands and Portugal) and further contacts in other European countries. The data was complemented by inputs from Coimbra Group Working Groups members, informal focus group follow-ups and desk research on some examples from beyond Europe for further insights on some global developments on Teaching Excellence.
