Supporting Students through High-Quality Teaching: Inspiring Practices for University Teachers (Springer Texts in Education) 3031398432, 9783031398438

Citation preview

Springer Texts in Education

Satu Tuomainen

Supporting Students through High-Quality Teaching Inspiring Practices for University Teachers

Springer Texts in Education

Springer Texts in Education delivers high-quality instructional content for graduates and advanced graduates in all areas of Education and Educational Research. The textbook series is comprised of self-contained books with a broad and comprehensive coverage that are suitable for class as well as for individual self-study. All texts are authored by established experts in their fields and offer a solid methodological background, accompanied by pedagogical materials to serve students such as practical examples, exercises, case studies etc. Textbooks published in the Springer Texts in Education series are addressed to graduate and advanced graduate students, but also to researchers as important resources for their education, knowledge and teaching. Please contact Yoka Janssen at [email protected] or your regular editorial contact person for queries or to submit your book proposal.

Satu Tuomainen

Supporting Students through High-Quality Teaching Inspiring Practices for University Teachers

Satu Tuomainen University of Eastern Finland Kuopio, Finland

ISSN 2366-7672 ISSN 2366-7680 (electronic) Springer Texts in Education ISBN 978-3-031-39843-8 ISBN 978-3-031-39844-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39844-5 # The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

This book is a practitioner look into higher education teaching and learning and high-quality teaching practices to support students’ learning. The book is intended for both new and experienced teachers to reflect on and aspire to good teaching. The qualities of good or excellent teaching in higher education have remained similar for decades. Research will also show that most students rely on effective teaching to progress with their studies, and many students value their education for their experiences with teachers and the support provided for learning. Still, teaching at universities continues to be second best compared to research, and many who teach have no formal pedagogical training required from teachers at other educational levels. High-quality teaching does not necessarily require formal teacher qualifications, and experts in their field at universities can be proficient instructors without formal training. Still, having a sound pedagogical understanding of the foundations of teaching and learning will do wonders. Many who teach at universities have a passion for teaching, they care about the learning outcomes and processes of their students and actively aim to develop themselves to be better teachers to support their students. This book is for and about those teachers. Thank you to all colleagues, good teachers past and present, who have been an inspiration over the years. Thank you to my department, University of Eastern Finland Language Centre, for allowing me to develop my teaching and expertise in various ways. Thank you to my family and friends for their patience during the writing of this book. The completion has been aided by the Association of Finnish Nonfiction Writers (Suomen tietokirjailijat ry). Kuopio, Finland

Satu Tuomainen

v

Contents

1

Teacher First . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Becoming a (Good) University Teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 About the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Introduction to the Chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 3 6 7 10

2

Teaching in Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Finnish Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 The Finnish Education System and Its Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Finnish Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Teacher Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 The University Teacher in Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Finnish University Teacher Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Pedagogical Advancements in Finnish University Teaching . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 13 16 16 17 19 21 23 25

3

Teaching Quality, Good Teaching and Excellent Teaching . . . . . . . 3.1 Quality in Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Defining Good or Effective Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Excellent Teaching and Teaching Excellence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Teaching Awards: Who Decides on Excellence? . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Students as Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Finnish Students’ Views of Teaching Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29 29 31 34 35 37 38 39

4

Professional Development for Inspired and Inspiring Teaching . . . 4.1 Various Methods for Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Higher Education Research as Professional Development . . . . 4.3 Importance of Reflective Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Pedagogical Education and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Supporting Peers Through Pedagogical Development and Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

45 45 47 50 51

. .

52 54 vii

viii

5

Contents

Student-Centred Teaching to Support Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Student-Centred Teaching and Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Learning Theories to Support Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Applying Learning Theories to Teaching and Learning . . . . . . . 5.4 Recognising and Valuing Students’ Non-formal and Informal Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Engaging Students in the Learning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Case Example of Engaging Finnish Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.1 Set the Tone Pre-course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.2 Break the Ice in the First Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.3 Establish Your Course Values Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.4 Second Session and Onwards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.5 Assess and Reflect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59 60 60 63 66 68 70 70 71 71 72 73 73

Supportive Assessment and Feedback Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Assessment as Part of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Clear and Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Assessment Methods for Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Student Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Peer Assessment and Self-Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Feedback and Feedforward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 Finnish Views on Higher Education Assessment and Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77 77 79 80 82 83 85

7

Supporting Diverse and International Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Diversity in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Inclusive Pedagogy to Address Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Eight Steps Towards Inclusiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Diversity in Finnish Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 The Joy and Challenge of International Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 Internationalisation in Finnish Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 Considerations in English-Medium Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 Be There for All Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95 96 97 98 100 101 102 103 104 106

8

Instructional Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 The Impact of Effective Communication in Instruction . . . . . . 8.2 Clarity in Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Promoting Active Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 8.4 Positive Atmosphere Through Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 Adapting Approach and Content to Disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 Example Discipline: English for Academic Purposes . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

109 109 111 112 113 115 117 118

6

. . . . . . . .

86 89

Contents

9

10

Interviews with Award-Winning University Lecturers . . . . . . . . . 9.1 Vesa, Biology, 20 Years of Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Minna, Translation Studies, 20 Years of Experience . . . . . . . . 9.3 Erkki, Computer Science, 34 Years of Experience . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 Terhi, Nurse Teacher Education, 22 Years of Experience . . . . . 9.5 Remarks on the Interviews and Their Connections with Skelton’s (2005) Notions on Teaching Excellence . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

. . . . .

123 124 126 129 132

. 135 . 137

The Future Teacher, Student and University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 Constantly Changing Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 The Future Is Now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 Is the Future (Again/Still) Online Teaching and Learning? . . . . . 10.4 Inspiring, Supporting and Engaging Students in Online Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 Quo Vadis University, Teacher and Student? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

139 139 140 141 143 145 147

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

About the Author

Satu Tuomainen has taught in Finnish higher education for 20 years and currently works as an Adjunct Professor (Docent) and Senior Lecturer of Academic and FieldSpecific English, with a PhD in Applied Education. She teaches courses using a variety of methods through classroom, blended, and online learning. Recently her teaching has focussed on scientific writing and presentation skills and university pedagogical training for teaching staff. Her teaching has been recognised with accolades such as Teacher of the Year, Excellent Teaching Practitioner, and Honourable Mention for Equality and Equal Opportunities in Teaching. Her research interests are varied within higher education and include approaches to both teaching and learning. With students, she has researched non-formal and informal learning, perceptions of learning, recognition of prior learning, the role of reflection, learning difficulties and anxiety, and quality in university teaching. With teachers, her studies include effective teaching practices and teaching quality, the role of instructional communication in teaching, professional development of university lecturers, and English-medium instruction in teaching. Outside of work, Satu enjoys travelling, kayaking, gardening, and vintage. Email: satu.tuomainen@uef.fi

xi

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1

Book chapters, their structure and topic development . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fig. 2.1

Three main aims and components of Finnish teacher education. (Adapted from Niemi et al., 2018, pp. 42–43) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Finnish teachers’ oath of ethics, Comenius’ Oath. (The Trade Union of Education in Finland OAJ, 2020) . . . . . . . . . . . . Four levels of teachers at Finnish universities. (Adapted from Korhonen & Törmä, 2016) . . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . Positive and negative elements in Finnish university teachers’ work. (Adapted from Laiho et al., 2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fig. 2.2 Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.4 Fig. 5.1

8 18 19 20 22

Fig. 5.2

Main principles of learning in constructivism. (Adapted from Groccia et al., 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Variety of teaching methods for various learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61 66

Fig. 6.1

Potential methods for assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81

xiii

List of Tables

Table 2.1

Finnish university student groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

Table 3.1 Table 3.2

Qualities of good higher education teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qualities of good teachers from the student perspective in previous higher education studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32

Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 6.1 Table 6.2

37

Eight focus areas for higher education research (based on Tight, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Activities and actions for teachers’ professional development . . .

48 53

Main tenets of behaviourism and cognitive and social constructivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elements to engage students during a course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62 69

Eight principles for fit-for-purpose assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case examples of course assessment tasks and feedback provided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

80 88

xv

1

Teacher First

Abstract

This chapter introduces the premise of the book, i.e. a practitioner approach to university teaching with the intent of supporting students. Teaching at any educational level is challenging but for most teachers, the best part of their profession is working with students. Most teachers also wish to develop in their profession through pedagogical training although it is usually not required in higher education, a curiosity within the teaching world. Modern universities also pose various challenges for teachers, from research and administrative demands, increased student intake and student diversity to the changing society. Yet many university teachers remain passionate about their profession and prioritise their students. This book is for and about those teachers. Keywords

Higher education teaching · Practitioner approach · Teacher development · Teacher identity · Pedagogical training

Passion, hope, doubt, fear, exhilaration, weariness, colleagueship, loneliness, glorious defeats, hollow victories, and, above all, the certainties of surprise and ambiguity; how on earth can a single word or phrase begin to capture the multilayered complexity of what it feels like to teach? (Brookfield, 2015, p. 1)

1.1

Introduction

I always wanted to be a teacher. This is somewhat unusual for someone who has spent the last 20 years working in Finnish higher education, but first and foremost I am a university teacher. However, for many in universities around the world, # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Tuomainen, Supporting Students through High-Quality Teaching, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39844-5_1

1

2

1

Teacher First

teaching is perhaps not the main interest, forte or priority, which is unfortunate because without teaching universities would essentially be research institutes. Also without teaching, there would be no students and again, no universities as they exist today. Still, the multiple roles teachers, lecturers, researchers and administration take on in today’s universities force us to multi-task and focus on what we deem most significant. For many it will be research and publications, for some it will be funding obtained and for some, it will be the learning experiences provided for students. All are equally important, and all intertwine in most university positions. All are also mentioned in this book. The main focus of this book, however, is on teaching and students. When as a child I wanted to be a teacher, it was not for higher education or university, but I was fortunate to begin my career in university teaching in 2002. Since then I have specialised in English for field-specific and academic purposes and included pedagogical studies and university pedagogy training in my areas of expertise. While I view myself as a language teacher, the great variety of students and staff I meet and teach every year has given me a unique look into higher education teaching and learning. In fact, as English language educator Alan Maley has noted, teaching people does not mean only teaching the field or subject, but it also means to “teach them how to think, and feel – show them inspiration, aspiration, cooperation, participation, consolation, innovation. . . (Maley & Peachey, 2017, p. iii). This is a good indicator of what teachers, at any educational level, including university, should aspire to, regardless of their field or orientation. I have immensely enjoyed my time with students and staff and sought to support their learning processes and academic, pedagogical and professional development. This approach has been recognised with accolades such as Teacher of the Year, Excellent Teaching Practitioner, and Honourable Mention for Equality and Equal Opportunities in Teaching. These, together with receiving my PhD in applied education, and being granted a Title of Docent have so far been the proudest moments of my academic career. In Finland where I teach, the teaching profession is generally revered and appreciated (Sahlberg, 2021). It continues to be one of the most popular and competitive fields of study in higher education and thousands of hopefuls each year apply to be either classroom teachers, early education teachers or subject teachers. This involves extensive education to a master’s degree and includes practical training in schools (i.e. practicum) in preparation for future jobs (Niemi et al., 2016). Schatz et al. (2017) in fact point out that while many countries, such as the UK and US, have applied education branding to their university systems, Finland has the rare status of enjoying a positive image on its basic education, the education system in general and the university-based teacher education. At Finnish universities, however, all you need to teach is a university degree. All you need is to show your qualifications for scientific study and research, and you are set to go. This is naturally similar to most other higher education systems in Europe. Providers of the highest education are typically not required to have teaching

1.2 Becoming a (Good) University Teacher

3

qualifications and often do not have didactic or pedagogical training, only a master’s or PhD degree suitable for the task (Korhonen & Törmä, 2016). The same peculiarity can be seen in Finland and most Western universities (Devlin & Samarawickrema, 2010) as it often adheres to the Humboldtian tradition of teaching subject knowledge (Laiho et al., 2022). Still, pedagogically it may seem strange and thankfully, most universities and higher education institutions (HEIs) around the world, including Finland, have sought to address this by introducing training for higher education teaching and university pedagogy (Murtonen & Vilppu, 2020). Still, the official requirements, criteria or qualifications have not changed, and in most countries, one can still very much teach at the highest level of education without any teacher training or pedagogical education. For some individuals, this could be an issue. Many of those could be students, who have become accustomed to high-quality teaching and teaching technology in their comprehensive and upper-secondary schools. When they then arrive at university they can be stunned by the old-fashioned, teacher-centric, memory-based, pento-paper and chalk-on-board teaching methods and materials. There may be some old-timey charm to it, at least in some fields of study, but many students voice their disappointment. In a study I conducted in 2019, many Finnish university students were discouraged by their teachers’ methods and instead had to rely on their own study skills and help from their peers to learn effectively (Tuomainen, 2019). Against this background, it is unsurprising that university teachers who have training in pedagogy and/or didactics, who work hard to develop their teaching methods, materials, philosophy and technology, who consistently collect student feedback and who treat students as equal partners in the collaboration of teaching and learning, are considered so-called good teachers. After all, various studies over decades have indicated that students value good teachers in their university education and often place value on their education, particularly for meaningful learning experiences (e.g. Hill et al., 2003; Kandiko Howson, 2018; Larkin et al., 2016; Rowan & Townend, 2017). Naturally, university systems and teacher qualifications around the world differ and many HEIs are exemplary in recruiting and retaining skilled and personable professionals for teaching. Many university positions, however, are not exclusively for teaching but are often earmarked for research and publications and teaching on the side may be a necessary evil to the scholar. Yet many who teach at universities also have a passion for teaching, they care about the learning outcomes and processes of their students and they actively aim to develop themselves to be better teachers for their students. This book is for and about those teachers.

1.2

Becoming a (Good) University Teacher

The paths through which one becomes a university teacher may be long, winding and varied. Some teachers may be determined it is their destiny while others gradually move into more teaching-orientated positions. Some may be teaching

4

1

Teacher First

against their will. In my 20+ years in teaching, I have encountered many a colleague and scholar from these paths. Some teachers have little interest in developing their skills, even if student feedback suggests it. Some by nature have a good inclination towards their students and seek to communicate clearly and support students’ learning. Others, while already good and accomplished teachers, wish to develop their expertise in a variety of ways, including attending pedagogical training and courses on teaching, learning and technology. They also research their own teaching and their students’ learning to develop their expertise and reflective practice. Arguably most university teachers are somewhere in-between these three models. Also, teacher identity is not fixed but fluid, similarly as we can consider any expertise dynamic, fluid and also contested (Kaasila et al., 2021; Tennant et al., 2009; Van Lankveld et al., 2017). Still, anyone who works with knowledge in an academic community should have an interest in discussing and passing on information or even inspiring the next generation of students and scientists (Ramsden, 2003). I would also argue that most academic staff in universities today want to teach well and to have an impact on their students and their learning, and not leave students solely responsible for their learning. It is perhaps the pressures of modern academic life that take us farther away from the O Captain! My Captain! type of teachers we may wish to be, especially in higher education. After all, most of us have at least three responsibilities: teaching, research and administration (Trautwein, 2018). We should be robust researchers, collaborative colleagues, proficient publishers, nimble networkers, admired administrators. . . and good teachers. We must produce credits, publications, numbers and statistics on how effective we are in our positions and how we can justify our existence, salaries, and reputations to our supervisors, faculties and society. In the midst of all this, being a good teacher can be a minute piece of the puzzle. There is extensive literature about the challenges facing higher education in the near future (e.g. the extensive The Promise of Higher Education by van’t Land et al., 2021). There is, however, less research and literature about the challenges facing university teachers and their teaching. Light et al. in 2009 suggested that the five main challenges facing modern university teachers in teaching and learning are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The increasing number of students, The increasing diversity of students, The curriculum of transferability, Technology, and The shift in thinking from teaching to learning.

These are very much challenges still in the 2020s. Hénard and Roseveare (2012) have also noted that challenges for university teachers are created especially by the increasing diversity of students, both younger and older, and more public pressure to demonstrate the work relevance of education and the value of formal education to society. For instance, even before the Covid-19 pandemic, universities had begun to evolve in more international and digital directions, and these require constant

1.2 Becoming a (Good) University Teacher

5

development from teachers and other stakeholders in higher education (Byrne & Clarke, 2020; Engwall, 2020). In fact, Gannon (2020) maintains that teaching in higher education has never been as challenging as it is now. Herein perhaps lies the essence of the problem: how can we become great teachers if it is more challenging than ever but still a minor part of our work? Where does one find the time to develop, create, innovate and educate? This is naturally a common issue in modern working life in general where we should multitask ad nauseum and be available 24/7/365 (Peifer & Zipp, 2019). Yet it should not require sacrifices to health and well-being to develop skills that are integral to success at work. Instead, professional development should be a fundamental, consistent and versatile part of work for every university staff member. For teachers, ideally pedagogical professional development would be the main priority (cf. Tuomainen, 2022; Ödalen et al., 2019). Many university teachers have enjoyed some pedagogical training either at the pre-service level or in-service. Some have diverse professional backgrounds and have entered university with experience in many fields and practices. Yet regardless of previous experience, most university teachers are new to the position in which they begin. They may be experts in their field but teaching academic content to new sets of students is still a new experience. Hence many universities in Finland and around the world provide in-service training to teach, ranging from practical support courses to more formal university pedagogy education (Aškerc & Kočar, 2015; Vilppu et al., 2019). I have been fortunate to take part in and teach both types of training and it has been essential to my own development as a university teacher. In Finland, one can currently complete 30–60 ECTS credits of university pedagogy education which provides more formal qualifications. To teach in high school or vocational education, however, one would have to complete the full 60 ECTS or more commonly, 60 ECTS of subject teacher education (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2022). The 60 ECTS for subject teachers include studies in the science of education with an emphasis on didactics and also several supervised teacher training periods in schools or other educational institutions (Niemi, 2016). However, official qualifications alone never made anyone a master of their trade, so the role of active professional development is paramount. I would argue that becoming a good university teacher requires a mixture of will and skill. Every teacher should understand the context in which they operate, i.e. the higher education system, how it works and what type of piece they are within the system. Understanding the system also helps to understand how to support the students in the system and to develop professionally, including career advancement. These, I would argue, can go hand in hand. However, higher education also continues to evolve and change and keeping up with the developments and the changing student population is necessary to provide high-quality support for increasingly international and diverse students (cf. Grapin & Pereiras, 2019). As we strive to be better teachers we can also learn from research on teaching and learning. Teaching quality and excellence in teaching have been researched since the 1960s and while results differ, common qualities of good-quality higher education

6

1

Teacher First

teachers persist: clarity, sincerity, interaction, and emotional support (e.g. Bolkan et al., 2017; Goldman et al., 2017; Tuomainen, 2023). Now someone may argue that at university we do not raise children or educate the young but instead adult students who are responsible for their own learning. So why do students still need and want good-quality teaching and the interaction, clarity, sincerity and support that follow? I would argue that it is because learning is a human process, a collaboration between the teacher and the student and we must approach it as human interaction. Not a cold, disjointed relay of facts, but a versatile exploration and discussion of concepts, ideas and arguments. Some of the qualities of a good teacher are also in the persona. What type of person makes a good university teacher? Admittedly personal characteristics cannot be identical and a good teacher in one country, institution or field of study may not be similarly successful in another. Also, can an introverted academic make a good teacher (cf. Rashtchi & Sanayi Mashhour, 2019)? I would say yes as I am an introvert, and some have called me a good teacher. Therefore, being willing to engage in conversation and engage with students is a path towards being a good teacher but will you have to reveal everything about yourself along the way to function effectively in your teaching position? Certainly not.

1.3

About the Book

All these issues are explored in this book in more detail and from a Finnish practitioner perspective on university teaching and learning. Most scholarly books on higher education teaching and learning have a very similar list of themes and topics: teaching methods (lectures, small groups), learning theory, reflective practice and/or the scholarship of teaching, inclusive learning and diverse students, online learning, assessment and feedback. The same themes have been repeated in various books in recent decades. My approach in this book is slightly more practical, personal and practitioner based as the focus is on teachers and their development and how to support students in the new modern universities of today. I believe this book will serve various readers, from pedagogical leaders in HEIs to new and established in-service teachers, pre-service teachers within teacher education, students of education in various educational levels, and scholars and researchers of teaching and learning. This book can also provide a useful look into Finnish higher education and universities from a teacher or lecturer perspective, for instance as the number of international researchers and teaching staff increase in Finnish HEIs. The structure of the book develops from the basics of teaching at university and becoming a good university teacher to a look at Finnish education and higher education teaching. This will provide details on how the Finnish university system operates and how those with teaching-oriented positions are situated and can develop within the system. Next, as the name of the book indicates, is an exploration of what high-quality teaching usually includes, from both scholarly and student perspectives. The themes that follow, professional development, student-centred

1.4 Introduction to the Chapters

7

teaching, and assessment and feedback, are qualities of good and excellent teaching and therefore explored more fully. Teachers are also encouraged to acknowledge the diversity of their students and what diversity and internationalisation mean for our changing classrooms and our teaching practices. This also applies to how teaching takes place, i.e. instructional communication. Towards the end of the book, four accomplished and experienced teachers share their practical advice and views on what is means to provide high-quality teaching and to connect with students. The future of university teaching and students is also explored as the final theme of the book. The content of the book is summarised in Fig. 1.1. The book can be accessed as all the chapters or whichever chapter is most interesting, valuable or inspiring to you. I hope you will share my passion for good teaching, professional development, research and supporting students and find something useful on these pages.

1.4

Introduction to the Chapters

After this first Chapter, the book continues with Chapter 2, Teaching in Finland. The chapter introduces the principles of Finnish higher education and universities and their teaching. The Finnish education system is discussed in connection with the approach to teaching, teacher education and the highly valued profession of the teacher. This is juxtaposed with the higher education system where, as in most of Europe, there are no official requirements for teachers or required pedagogical training but instead many academics end up teaching merely based on their research and publications. This chapter also discusses the Finnish approach to teaching students in higher education and the pedagogical advancements actively sought and implemented in recent years. Chapter 3, Teaching Quality, Good Teaching and Excellent Teaching, will explore in more detail the qualities of award-winning teachers as indicators of teaching excellence, and how in all the connection to students is integral. Many higher education systems around the world apply more formal or informal criteria to evaluate teaching excellence, some assessed by peers and some from student perspectives. I will refer in this chapter to various studies on teaching quality and excellence, including my own, and discuss how the qualities are interwoven with student considerations. After all, ultimately, when the audience decides if a presentation has been successful, it should be the students who decide if a teacher is successful. The role of the teacher has naturally changed from authority to facilitator in the past decades and the post-Covid-19 time in education has created challenges to create meaningful connections and learning experiences. Chapter 4, Professional Development for Inspired and Inspiring Teaching, discusses how a significant part of quality in teaching is connected to active and systematic professional development. It is important for pre-service and in-service teachers to seek varied opportunities for professional development, including official programmes on pedagogical training. This is warmly encouraged in countries such

8

1

Ch 1: Teacher First • Introduction to the book, the content, and on becoming a teacher first in a university setting. Ch 2: Teaching in Finland • An overview of being a teacher in Finnish higher education and university, with details on teacher identity and development. Ch 3: Teaching Quality, Good Teaching and Excellent Teaching • This chapter provides definitions for high-quality and excellent teaching at universities, with scholar and student views. Ch 4: Professional Development for Inspired and Inspiring Teaching • For any high-quality university teacher, professional development, reflective practice and pedagogical training are essential. Ch 5: Student-Centred Teaching to Support Learning • Supporting students often relates to student-centred teaching and understanding learning theories and various ways of learning. Ch 6: Supportive Assessment and Feedback Practices • To support students in their learning, teachers' assessment and feedback practices should be clear, fair and supportive. Ch 7: Supporting Diverse and International Students • Students' diversity that should be taken into consideration, including inclusivity and international variations. Ch 8: Instructional Communication • Instructional communication relates to how we connect with students through delivery, clarity, approach and communication. Ch 9: Interviews with Award-Winning University Lecturers • Interviews to provide a practical view into what award-winning, high-quality university teaching can be in different fields of study. Ch 10: The Future Teacher, Student and University • Predicting the future is difficult but university teachers face constant changes facing, including supporting students online.

Fig. 1.1 Book chapters, their structure and topic development

Teacher First

1.4 Introduction to the Chapters

9

as Finland but there are no official criteria or requirements for pedagogical studies or training in most Finnish higher education. Still, training opportunities are increasing, and both participating in training and conducting research on teaching practices, experiments and students’ perceptions can be a significant part of teacher development. This is also connected to strong pedagogical leadership within higher education institutions and departments and developing teaching through reflective practice and collaboration with peers. Chapter 5, Student-Centred Teaching to Support Learning, continues from the previous by exploring theories on learning, various learning styles, recognition of students’ prior learning and actively engaging students to support their learning through student-centred teaching. In one of my studies on teaching quality students highlighted the learning environment, the location, the group and the teacher. This is an interesting premise for good teaching as it connects the teacher, the individual student, the student group and the location and the various learning environments in which teaching and learning take place in higher education. The chapter also further explores the notion proposed by some scholars that students in higher education may not require particularly effective teaching as adults they are responsible for their own learning and studying. Still, other studies show that effective, compassionate, skilled and humanistic teachers will leave their mark on students. Chapter 6, Supportive Assessment and Feedback Practices, discusses how assessment, often highlighted as the most stressful part of students’ educational experience, can be used to support students, their learning and development. Many scholars and practitioners today refer to assessment for learning, instead of assessment of learning and emphasise the role of clear, fair, transparent and holistic assessment practices to support students. Peer assessment and self-assessment are also commonly used to engage students in assessment and expand their assessment and feedback literacy, necessary for future working lives. Another crucial part of any assessment is providing detailed feedback, or feedforward, in which the focus is to help students learn from the feedback, take action and develop their skills and competencies through the process. Chapter 7, Supporting Diverse and International Students, will discuss in detail the student perspective and how the varied student body demands attention and consideration from teachers. Higher education institutions around Europe and Finland are increasingly heterogenous and international and all students should be considered in approaches to teaching, materials, locations, tasks, language use and course selection through inclusive pedagogy. International classrooms also require specific considerations even though many teachers in higher education still do not recognise this. Similarly, the use of English as the language of teaching and learning requires attention as studies on English-medium instruction continue to indicate. As students are more diverse and methods to include all students are needed in today’s higher education, the responsibility cannot rest solely on the learner. This is also connected to supervision and guidance provided by teachers, formally and informally, to support their students as persons, learners and future academic experts. Chapter 8, Instructional Communication, discusses how communication and interaction with students are the cornerstones of effective connections and

10

1

Teacher First

supporting students’ learning. The foundations of classroom interaction, whether live or online, are similar and rely on the clarity and organisation of teaching, promoting active learning, recognising the differences between various disciplines, and encouraging a positive learning atmosphere, interaction, and rapport. Chapter 9, Interviews with Award-Winning University Lecturers, provides more perspectives on university teaching and learning through interviews with awardwinning Finnish university teachers from various disciplines. These lecturers have all received an award for their excellent university teaching. With over 20 years of teaching experience in their fields, they have encountered various students and situations but are all still actively and systematically developing their teaching. In the interviews we talked about what they enjoyed most in teaching, their perceived qualities of good teachers and their qualities as excellent teachers, their students in various disciplines and their learning styles and the support they needed, and other elements such as professional development and English-medium instruction. The final Chap. 10, The Future Teacher, Student and University, provides a look into the future of higher education teaching and learning. The Covid-19 pandemic forced a substantial transfer to online and blended learning, also in fields where previously this approach was limited. Have we moved permanently to a new normal, i.e. extensive online learning and blended learning in higher education, and what damage, if any, has the remote presence of both teachers and students inflicted on the teacher-student connection, support, quality teaching and effective learning? If we continue to provide more online and blended learning in higher education, how do we continue to successfully bond and connect teachers and students in virtual environments? Can quality teaching exist online, or have we passed the baton to students to be in charge of their learning, and to study even more independently? Recommended Reading Brookfield, S. D. (2015). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Collini, S. (2012). What are universities for? Penguin Books. Fanghanel, J. (2012). Being an academic. Routledge. Pokorny, H., & Warren, D. (Eds.). (2021). Enhancing teaching practice in higher education (2nd ed.). Sage. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). RoutledgeFalmer.

References Aškerc, K., & Kočar, S. (2015). Teaching and the pedagogical training of university teaching staff– practice and opinions under Slovenian higher education legislation. Education Inquiry, 6(2), 25591. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v6.25591 Bolkan, S., Goodboy, A. K., & Myers, S. A. (2017). Conditional processes of effective instructor communication and increases in students’ cognitive learning. Communication Education, 66(2), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1241889

References

11

Brookfield, S. D. (2015). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Byrne, E., & Clarke, C. (2020). The university challenge: Changing universities in a changing world. Pearson. Devlin, M., & Samarawickrema, G. (2010). The criteria of effective teaching in a changing higher education context. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(2), 111–124. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07294360903244398 Engwall, L. (Ed.). (2020). Missions of universities: Past, present, future. Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-030-41834-2 Finnish National Agency for Education. (2022). Recognition of teaching qualifications and teacher education studies. https://www.oph.fi/en/services/recognition-teaching-qualifications-andteacher-education-studies Gannon, K. M. (2020). Radical hope: A teaching manifesto. West Virginia University Press. Goldman, Z. W., Cranmer, G. A., Sollitto, M., Labelle, S., & Lancaster, A. L. (2017). What do college students want? A prioritization of instructional behaviors and characteristics. Communication Education, 66(3), 280–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1265135 Grapin, S. L., & Pereiras, M. I. (2019). Supporting diverse students and faculty in higher education through multicultural organizational development. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 13(4), 307–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000226 Hénard, F., & Roseveare, D. (2012). Fostering quality teaching in higher education. Policies and practices: An IMHE guide for higher education institutions. OECD. https://learningavenue.fr/ assets/pdf/QT%20policies%20and%20practices.pdf Hill, Y., Lomas, L., & MacGregor, J. (2003). Students’ perceptions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880310462047 Kaasila, R., Lutovac, S., Komulainen, J., & Maikkola, M. (2021). From fragmented toward relational academic teacher identity: The role of research-teaching nexus. Higher Education, 82(3), 583–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00670-8 Kandiko Howson, C. B. (2018). Student engagement and perceptions of quality and standards. In R. Ellis & E. Hogard (Eds.), Handbook of quality assurance for university teaching (pp. 296–303). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315187518 Korhonen, V., & Törmä, S. (2016). Engagement with a teaching career – How a group of Finnish university teachers experience teacher identity and professional growth. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2014.895301 Laiho, A., Jauhiainen, A., & Jauhiainen, A. (2022). Being a teacher in a managerial university: Academic teacher identity. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(2), 249–266. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13562517.2020.1716711 Larkin, K., Rowan, L., Garrick, B., & Beavis, C. (2016). Student perspectives on first year experience initiatives designed for pre-service teachers in their first weeks of university study. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 13(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.13. 1.7 Light, G., Cox, R., & Calkins, S. (2009). Learning and teaching in higher education: The reflective professional (2nd ed.). Maley, A., & Peachey, N. (2017). Integrating global issues in the creative English language classroom: With reference to the United Nations sustainable development goals. British Council. https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/PUB_29200_Creativity_UN_ SDG_v4S_WEB.pdf Murtonen, M., & Vilppu, H. (2020). Change in university pedagogical culture – The impact of increased pedagogical training on first teaching experiences. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(3), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.3.20 Niemi, H. (2016). The societal factors contributing to education and schooling in Finland. In H. Niemi, A. Toom, & A. Kallioniemi (Eds.), Miracle of education: The principles of teaching and learning in Finnish schools (pp. 23–40). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-946300-776-4

12

1

Teacher First

Niemi, H., Nevgi, A., & Aksit, F. (2016). Active learning promoting student teachers’ professional competences in Finland and Turkey. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 471–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1212835 Ödalen, J., Brommesson, D., Erlingsson, G. Ó., Schaffer, J. K., & Fogelgren, M. (2019). Teaching university teachers to become better teachers: The effects of pedagogical training courses at six Swedish universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(2), 339–353. https://doi. org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1512955 Peifer, C., & Zipp, G. (2019). All at once? The effects of multitasking behavior on flow and subjective performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(5), 682–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1647168 Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). RoutledgeFalmer. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203507711 Rashtchi, M., & Sanayi Mashhour, H. (2019). Extravert and introvert EFL teachers: How do reflective teaching and burnout relate. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 6(3), 73–88. https://www.jallr.com/index.php/JALLR/article/view/1012/pdf1012 Rowan, L., & Townend, G. (2017). No hugs required: University student perspectives on the relationship between excellent teaching and educational rapport. In L. Rowan & P. Grootenboer (Eds.), Student engagement and educational rapport in higher education (pp. 105–130). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46034-5_7 Sahlberg, P. (2021). Finnish lessons 3.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press. Schatz, M., Popovic, A., & Dervin, F. (2017). From PISA to national branding: Exploring Finnish education®. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(2), 172–184. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1066311 Tennant, M., McMullen, C., & Kaczynski, D. (2009). Teaching, learning and research in higher education: A critical approach. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203875919 Trautwein, C. (2018). Academics’ identity development as teachers. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(8), 995–1010. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1449739 Tuomainen, S. (2019). Pedagogy or personal qualities? University students’ perceptions of teaching quality. American Journal of Education and Learning, 4(1), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.20448/ 804.4.1.117.134 Tuomainen, S. (2022). University lecturers’ perceptions of the role of English in their teaching. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 16(1), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.47862/apples. 107857 Tuomainen, S. (2023). University students’ perceptions of teaching quality before and after the Covid-19 pandemic. European Journal of Education Studies, 10(7), 37–60. https://doi.org/10. 46827/ejes.v10i7.4863 Van Lankveld, T., Schoonenboom, J., Volman, M., Croiset, G., & Beishuizen, J. (2017). Developing a teacher identity in the university context: A systematic review of the literature. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(2), 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016. 1208154 Van’t Land, H., Corcoran, A., & Iancu, D. C. (Eds.). (2021). The promise of higher education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67245-4 Vilppu, H., Södervik, I., Postareff, L., & Murtonen, M. (2019). The effect of short online pedagogical training on university teachers’ interpretations of teaching-learning situations. Instructional Science, 47(6), 679–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09496-z

2

Teaching in Finland

Abstract

This chapter introduces the principles of Finnish higher education and universities and their teaching. The Finnish education system is discussed in connection with the approach to teaching, teacher education and the highly valued profession of the teacher. This is juxtaposed with the higher education system in which, as in most of Europe, there are no official requirements for teachers or required pedagogical training but instead many academics end up teaching merely based on their research and publications. This chapter also discusses the Finnish approach to teaching students in higher education and the pedagogical advancements actively sought and implemented in recent years. Keywords

Finnish higher education · Teacher education · Teacher ethics · University teacher identity · Pedagogical advancements

In twenty-first century Finland it is commonly accepted that equality is based on the idea that society provides equal educational opportunities and helps guarantee good educational outcomes for every citizen, regardless of gender, socio-economic background, or geographical location. (Välimaa & Muhonen, 2019, p. 364)

2.1

Finnish Higher Education

Finland, one of the Nordic countries with a population of 5.5 million, has 13 universities with a focus on research and education and 22 universities of applied sciences (UASs, or polytechnics) for higher vocational education (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2022). Higher education in Finland is based on the # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Tuomainen, Supporting Students through High-Quality Teaching, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39844-5_2

13

14

2

Teaching in Finland

commonly held notion that education is essential to civilise, educate, and build a nation and the best guarantee for success for a small nation (Välimaa, 2019). Finnish HEIs are fairly evenly distributed across the large but sparsely populated country. The regional policies applied for Finnish higher education mean a person is not far away from a university, a UAS, or a university centre, including open university or summer university locations. In fact, the expansion of Finnish HEIs in the 1970s related to a welfare-state agenda which aimed at developing all regions of the country (Välimaa, 2012). The purpose was to provide equal education opportunities to all citizens regardless of their socioeconomic status or geographical location. This approach to equality permeates Finnish education and is still present today at all levels of education. The principles of Finnish education policy also include high-quality education for all, flexible educational structures and equity and lifelong learning at all educational levels (Niemi et al., 2018). Education is understood as a public service and a civil right, not a commercialised product or consumer good (Välimaa & Muhonen, 2019), and thus also Finnish higher education is free of charge to all Finnish and EU citizens (Ursin, 2019b). In today’s global higher education students are often referred to as customers, typically paying customers who demand value for their investment and therefore HEIs and teachers are expected to meet those demands (Wood, 2017). However, in most Nordic higher education systems, students are not paying customers as education is funded by the government. Some may argue that non-paying students can be easier to please (cf. Woodall et al., 2014) but in the Nordic countries, students have also become accustomed to a high level of education and instruction before their entry to higher education. In 2009–2010 Finnish universities underwent reform with a formal separation from the nation-state structure with universities changing from government-led institutions to independent actors or foundations (Välimaa, 2019; Wilhelmsson, 2021). The purpose was to steer universities in a more international, competitive and global direction. This reform increased the autonomy of the universities and the role of outside funding and turned positions at universities from state-governed posts to regular work positions. The purpose of the reform was to allow universities to develop themselves how they wished, typically to be more international and competitive, with aims for increased quality and functionality (Wilhelmsson, 2021). First, national quality assurance systems were implemented and later HEIs begun implementing their own quality systems, with legal obligations for auditing the systems (Ursin, 2019a). The reform also led to new structures for leadership at universities at various levels, with more attention paid to good leadership to support the work community and well-being at work. While initially the reform caused major upheavals in Finland about the role of science, the autonomy of research and the potential influence of outside or commercial interests (Gustafsson, 2012), in over a decade the system seems to have primarily settled. While universities have to rely even more on outside funding, financing and commercial appeal, for the university staff the situation seems somewhat positive. Efforts have been made in many universities to increase

2.1 Finnish Higher Education

15

the stability of positions and well-being at work although differing opportunities persist (Tapanila, 2022). Some universities also still report opaque management practices and arbitrary decision-making (Nikkola & Tervasmäki, 2022) so work continues on the overall impact of the reform. Studies in Finnish HEIs can be organised as for instance as contact teaching, blended learning or online teaching. Contact teaching can take place in lecture halls, seminar classrooms, small groups or laboratories. Even before the Covid-19 pandemic, blended learning, the mixture between contact classes and online components, was becoming popular in Finnish higher education, particularly because of technological advancements and the wide range of students with varying needs and preferences (Tuomainen, 2016). Online learning then increased dramatically during the Covid-19 years 2020–2022 as it meant teaching and learning had to be organised primarily remotely with either scheduled online classes or more unscheduled independent online learning (Ministry of Education and Culture, n.d.). Online and blended learning continue to be popular as Finnish university students are fairly heterogenous compared to their European counterparts. Student ages range considerably, students’ backgrounds and previous education can vary greatly, and their goals for their studies also differ (Nori, 2018). The median age to begin university studies in Finland has been 21 years (Saari et al., 2020) so as studies begin relatively late, students also graduate older than in most other EHEA and OECD countries (Nori, 2018; Välimaa & Muhonen, 2019). Some 51% of university students and 53% of UAS students in Finland work during their studies (Statistics Finland, 2022) as the flexibility of the studies allows them, and many wish to supplement their monthly student allowance with income rather than rely on the government-provided student loan. Nori (2011, 2018) has categorised Finnish university students into four main groups, differing slightly in purpose, as seen in Table 2.1. In Nori’s 2011 listing the ages of these groups 1–4 grow in order so that students freshly graduated from upper secondary school are the youngest and most inexperienced, and the adults seeking further education opportunities are the oldest, as is common in most higher education systems. Nori’s 2018 listing, on the other hand, was based on master’s students in 2014. The first two groups again represented younger students, with a median age of 26–27, while the latter two groups averaged around 34–37 years. This demonstrates well the variety in university students in Finnish higher education and thus the diversity in learning and opportunities and challenges for teaching. Table 2.1 Finnish university student groups Nori (2011) 1. Young upper secondary school graduates 2. Taking a second higher education degree 3. Accumulating their education capital 4. Adults supplementing their education Adapted from Nori (2011, 2018)

Nori (2018) 1. Climbing the educational ladder 2. Refreshing their education capital 3. Eternal students 4. Second-chance takers

16

2.2

2

Teaching in Finland

The Finnish Education System and Its Teachers

The principles of Finnish higher education rely on the basics of the entire Finnish education system. Equity, learning and education are very much part of Finnish national history and identity. The current level of the Finnish education system has been strongly influenced by teacher education and a focus on teacher professionalism (Sahlberg, 2021; Toom & Husu, 2021). The education of both comprehensive and upper secondary school teachers to the master’s level has been the responsibility of universities since the 1970s (Simola et al., 2017), and access to the profession has been limited to those with proven ability, willingness and an upper secondary school diploma. Finnish basic education varies distinctly from public education in countries such as the UK, Australia, the United States, and Canada. Finnish schools have minimal supervision compared to many international counterparts; there has never been nationwide standardised testing, and teachers have great freedom without evaluative control (Niemi, 2016; Simola et al., 2017). There is no school inspection, or external standardised testing about school performance or teacher effectiveness (Hammerness et al., 2017; Sahlberg, 2021). In fact, teacher effectiveness is usually not discussed as part of Finnish basic education since all schools are considered equally suitable and all teachers equally competent, trained and qualified to teach (Maaranen & Stenberg, 2021). One of the foundations of Finnish education is that teachers in all educational levels enjoy extensive pedagogical freedom and autonomy. This stems from the Humboldtian tradition of teachers being educated to appreciate research, pedagogy and didactics and then they carry out their profession in the practical manner best suitable for them (Maaranen et al., 2019). While the main school curriculum is created on a governmental or agency level, the curriculum policy can be handled by each school’s principal and teachers so that the local curriculum can support the school’s development and teacher autonomy (Niemi et al., 2018). In essence, although Finland has no formal measures for teacher evaluation, the education system is built to educate teachers to be knowledgeable and highly trained so that all full-time teachers have a similar educational and pedagogical background for their teaching. Further, in-service, the education system allows teachers to work together, learn from each other, reflect on their own teaching and build professional leadership and shared accountability (Sahlberg, 2021).

2.3

Finnish Teacher Education

In Finland, teachers can be divided into five categories: kindergarten teachers, primary school teachers, subject teachers, special education teachers, and vocational education teachers (Sahlberg, 2021). Being a teacher is a valued and popular profession in Finland, with only 8–15% of the applicants accepted to the various teacher education programmes (Niemi, 2016; Toom & Husu, 2021). To be a teacher one must go through a rigorous and very selective admission process and receive a

2.4 Teacher Ethics

17

high-quality education up to a master’s degree, including conducting educational and pedagogical research. Teacher education relies on the principles of Humboldt’s educational premise of the unity of research and teaching (Tjeldvoll, 2008), and as a result, teachers are viewed as academics and pedagogical experts which in turn contributes to the culture of trust, respect and teachers’ high status in Finnish society (Pollari et al., 2018). Since access to Finnish teacher education is highly competitive, particularly for classroom teachers, universities can select the most motivated and talented applicants for teacher education programmes, leading to a strong moral and professional foundation for teaching with knowledgeable professionals. Finnish teacher education also aims to be ethically sustainable and humane with an emphasis on critical thinking (Timonen & Kantelinen, 2017). The Finnish Teacher Education Forum has created holistic aims for teacher education whereby teachers should have (1) a broad and solid knowledge base, (2) expertise in generating novel ideals and education innovations, and (3) competence for the development of their own and the school’s expertise (Niemi et al., 2018). More specific elements related to the three main aims are listed below in Fig. 2.1. Outside of classroom teacher education, those who wish to teach subjects in permanent positions at various education levels must complete 60 ECTS credits of teachers’ pedagogical studies. These include philosophy, history, psychology, pedagogy and educational research (Maaranen & Stenberg, 2021). The studies, completed in addition to the student’s main subject master’s degree, include education theories, pedagogical content knowledge, subject didactics and practice, and are obligatory to be qualified to teach in permanent positions in primary, secondary, vocational and adult education schools (Niemi, 2016). The studies can be completed during the bachelor’s or master’s degree studies or later separately after graduation. For instance, during my university studies, my main focus was on English language and literature and at the time I was not envisioning teaching at the school level, so I completed my 60 ECTS of subject teacher education after my master’s degree while I had already been teaching at university some 5 years. The pedagogical studies were organised as blended learning for one academic year so I was able to complete the studies flexibly alongside my teaching position, and apply many practical elements of the training, including the teaching practicum, directly to my work.

2.4

Teacher Ethics

As part of the freedom, autonomy and pedagogical education connected to teaching in Finland are the ethical principles of teaching. Regardless of the school level, all teachers in Finland should adhere to the professional ethics of teachers (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2019). These include dignity, truthfulness, fairness, responsibility and freedom. In essence, teachers should respect every person, regardless of their age, gender, religion, origin, appearance, sexual orientation, social standing, abilities, achievements and opinions.

18

2

Teaching in Finland

1. Broad and solid knowledge base • • • • • • • • •

Subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge Pedagogical content knowledge Contextual knowledge Interaction skills Knowledge about diversity in learning Competence to act autonomously Competence to act in physical and digital learning environments Professional ideology Awareness of the various dimensions of the teacher profession

2. Expertise in generating novel ideals and education innovations • Positive attitude • Willingness to create a positive attitude for learning • Implementing creative processes and ideas • Research skills

3. Competence for the development of personal and school’s expertise • • • • • • •

Supportive attitude to multidisciplinary groups Self-regulation skills Competence for networking and teams Competence for curriculum design Ability to mentor and coach other teachers Competence to reflect on teaching (reflection for, in, and on action) Competence to develop expertise

Fig. 2.1 Three main aims and components of Finnish teacher education. (Adapted from Niemi et al., 2018, pp. 42–43)

In the ethical principles, truthfulness involves guiding learners as they navigate life and their environments. Another aspect of teachers’ work is honesty and mutual respect. Fairness, on the other hand, is essential to deal with individuals, groups and the work community and it includes promoting equality and non-discrimination. Naturally, all teachers are entitled to their own opinions and values, but at work, their responsibilities link to the legislation, the curriculum and their main tasks as an educator. The principles of Finnish teachers’ professional ethics were listed by the Ethical Committee for the Teaching Profession in the so-called Comenius’ Oath, named after the prominent seventeenth century pedagogue Jan Amos Comenius. The objective of the oath is to strengthen professional ethics and teacher identity, and it can be taken by any qualified teacher in Finland, from early childhood education to

2.5 The University Teacher in Finland

19

Comenius’ Oath As a teacher, I am engaged in educating the next generation, which is one of the most important human tasks. My aim in this will be to renew and pass on the existing reserve of human knowledge, culture and skills. I undertake to act with justice and fairness in all that I do and to promote the development of my pupils and students, so that each individual may grow up as a complete human being in accordance with his or her aptitudes and talents. I will also strive to assist parents, guardians and others responsible for working with children and young people in their educational functions. I will not reveal information that is communicated to me confidentially, and I will respect the privacy of children and young people. I will also protect their physical and psychological inviolability. I will endeavour to shield the children and young people in my care from political and economic exploitation and defend the rights of every individual to develop his or her own religious and political convictions. I will make continuous efforts to maintain and develop my professional skills, committing myself to the common goals of my profession and to the support of my colleagues in their work. I will act in the best interests of the community at large and strive to strengthen the esteem in which the teaching profession is held. Fig. 2.2 Finnish teachers’ oath of ethics, Comenius’ Oath. (The Trade Union of Education in Finland OAJ, 2020)

higher education. The Finnish Trade Union of Education (OAJ) organises yearly events for the oath for both new and established teachers. The oath in full in English can be seen in Fig. 2.2.

2.5

The University Teacher in Finland

Academic teaching practice in Finnish universities currently involves a fairly heterogeneous group of experts, as in most HEIs globally. Academic posts are generally divided into four levels that include both research-focussed and teaching-focussed positions: professors, senior lecturers and tenure track professors, university teachers and post-doctoral researchers, and PhD students and research assistants (Korhonen & Törmä, 2016). The extent of teaching duties for these groups may vary between different universities, faculties and units, even for the same titles. In some university teaching units, such as language centres, there are typically no research requirements for teachers whose work plans are filled with teaching duties (Fig. 2.3). Usually, most university teaching duties are included in the senior lecturer and especially in the university teaching positions, however, teaching is also required from tenure-track professors. PhD students and researchers can have various

20

2

Teaching in Finland

Professors

1.PhD students and research assistants

University teachers and post-doctoral researchers

Senior lecturers and tenure trackprofessors

Fig. 2.3 Four levels of teachers at Finnish universities. (Adapted from Korhonen & Törmä, 2016)

amounts of teaching duties defined by the doctoral school and their departments (Korhonen & Törmä, 2016; Laiho et al., 2022). The Humboldtian ideal of high-quality content equalling high-quality teaching is the premise of Finnish higher education and many other systems (Laiho et al., 2022). Therefore, the principles of highly qualified Finnish schoolteachers also apply to higher education: teachers, lecturers and instructors are assumed to be professionals who are capable, autonomous, independent and responsible for their own work and their students (Hammerness et al., 2017). Although no explicit or systematic teaching standards or monitoring exist in higher education either, teaching quality can be seen to be monitored through various stages. Each university teacher’s work is evaluated by themselves and by their immediate supervisor in annual or more frequent development discussions. These involve discussions on personal performance, goals set and achieved, student feedback and participation in and wishes for professional development opportunities, including formal pedagogical competence (Talvinen, 2012). However, the quality of teaching in Finnish HEIs is not systematically controlled by national quality systems, as is the case for instance in the UK, Australia and the US. Instead, the primary quality assessment is based on personal reflection, development discussions and student feedback (Aarrevaara et al., 2017). Said feedback on university teaching is typically collected through coursespecific anonymous online surveys where students rate the course and the teacher on predetermined criteria (often on a 1–5 Likert scale, with 1 as the lowest and 5 as the highest) and students can also write more detailed comments to open-ended questions. Evaluating the quality of teaching based on anonymous student feedback has been somewhat criticised as unreliable because students may have multiple attitudes toward teaching, learning and the teacher, and the entire course experience is in fact built on the interaction of several factors (Uttl et al., 2017). Although teaching is one of the three core duties of Finnish science universities, and emphasis has been placed on the quality of teaching in recent years, the impact of higher education reforms on the quality of teaching so far has been somewhat limited (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2018). Some scholars have in fact claimed that Finnish university education is in crisis because when recruiting for teaching positions, the weight of international publications and acquired funding is

2.6 Finnish University Teacher Identity

21

still the main factor in the balance (Jakonen, 2018). Kivistö et al. (2019) also maintain that in Finnish universities research merits are overemphasised and the value of other merits is undervalued. For instance, while tenure tracks are mainly based on research merits and include titles connected to research, leading up to a full professor title, those with teacher titles have only in recent years been offered career development tracks. These include a progression from a university teacher (with a master’s degree) to a university lecturer (with a PhD) to eventually, if the work is considered versatile and challenging enough, with excellent teaching merits, to a senior university lecturer (Tamminen, 2022). The development of teacher tracks in Finnish HE and the growing appreciation of university teaching are encouraging as also in Finland, university students value quality teaching and their learning experiences are strongly influenced by the teaching received and the teachers encountered (Nieminen & Tuijula, 2011).

2.6

Finnish University Teacher Identity

Although efforts have been made and continue to raise the role of teaching in Finnish HEIs, teaching at university remains a second-tier position. It is still viewed as less valuable than research, it does not generate income for the university as research does, and it is less noteworthy while being more time-consuming. In a study by Jääskelä et al. (2017), Finnish academics found developing their teaching timeconsuming and demanding, especially when trying to renew their pedagogy or change practices. Thus financial support was a precondition for many to undergo any type of development of teaching, i.e. time and resources should be allocated to develop teaching practices, especially if at the expense of more lucrative practices such as research. Balancing between research and teaching is a constant and ongoing battle in Finnish HEIs as in many other countries (Aarrevaara et al., 2022). Korhonen and Törmä (2016) in their study of Finnish university teachers found three main teacher identities: development-oriented, constructive-conflicting and unsolved. In the first type, teachers had no conflict between teaching and research and usually had long careers at university. They also actively aimed to develop their teaching through commitment, goal orientation and reflection. The second group of Finnish university teachers, on the other hand, were conflicted by the duality of teaching and research, and usually held temporary research-focussed positions. These teachers, however, were intent on more successful teaching and had student-centred approaches to teaching. The third teacher group, however, favoured so-called “pedagogical solitude” (p. 76) and held limited views on teacher identity and how to develop teaching practice. In another Finnish study, Nevgi and Löfström (2015) also identified four teacher identity types in university teachers: (1) a reflective and innovative teacher and researcher, (2) a pedagogically skilled subject expert, (3) an educational developer of teaching, and (4) an educational developer of teaching-related research. The

22

2

Teaching in Finland

authors also noticed that developing into critically reflective teachers was challenging and not reached by all even in pedagogical training as reflection is a difficult task and requires work to decipher professional identity throughout one’s academic career. In somewhat similar terms, in their study Ursin et al. (2020) discovered five types of university teachers in a Finnish research university: (1) confident teacher, (2) insecure teacher, (3) passionate researcher, (4) inadequate researcher, and (5) ambivalent academic. The role of the work community in supporting those teachers and researchers who felt confident or passionate about their work was highlighted in the study, so the development of teacher identity is often both a personal and a social process (also Vähäsantanen, 2015). Further, in a study by Laiho et al. (2022), Finnish university teachers indicated both appreciation for various elements in their work, and also experienced problems, restrictions and tensions. A summary of both is displayed in Fig. 2.4. Similar strengths and challenges are surely echoed across global higher education, involving both students and teachers, their peers and management and the overall infrastructure around teaching. Studies among Finnish university teachers have also indicated that pedagogical studies do not always support teachers’ wellbeing, expertise or labour market needs (Kärkkäinen et al., 2023). One of the reasons may also be the prevalence of fixed-term contracts for many new teachers or scholars at Finnish universities (Aarrevaara et al., 2022). My own university teaching career has been mostly teaching-focussed as my department is a teaching unit, a language centre. I began my career as a substitute for a full-time university teacher with a fixed-term contract for 1 year and then another, and after 2 years I was hired to be a permanent full-time university teacher. After completing my 60 ECTS of subject teacher education I was viewed to qualify for a

Appreciation of:

Issues with:

Academic freedom and autonomy in teaching ƒSmart, motivated students ƒThe teaching-research nexus ƒSense of community through interaction and support in teaching ƒManagement-level support for teaching

Teaching undermined by research ƒStudents as short-sighted, demanding customers ƒLow confidence ƒLack of communality in the development of teaching ƒIncreased management-level power over teaching

Fig. 2.4 Positive and negative elements in Finnish university teachers’ work. (Adapted from Laiho et al., 2022)

2.7 Pedagogical Advancements in Finnish University Teaching

23

permanent lecturer title, a position I held until I obtained my PhD. In most Finnish universities a PhD qualifies for a Senior Lecturer title (also called University Lecturer), also my current title. Because my university career has been teaching-focussed, I have had the privilege to develop my teaching actively and consistently, but it has also meant that my research activities have not been part of my work plan but instead conducted outside of work, or ‘as a hobby’ as my colleagues and I sometimes joke. Conducting research on your own time can be tiring and labour-intensive but also rewarding and beneficial for teaching, networking and collaboration. Also, the pedagogical studies I completed earlier in my career, and the university pedagogy courses I have taken and later invited to teach, have been another great opportunity to develop both teaching and research practices and to advance my professional development.

2.7

Pedagogical Advancements in Finnish University Teaching

At Finnish universities, university pedagogical education for academics has been offered since the 1990s. During the 2000s, university pedagogy courses became an established practice, and the variety of courses offered and the extent of ECTS expanded (Laiho et al., 2022; Murtonen & Lappalainen, 2013). Most universities offer 30 ECTS of university pedagogy, with some expanding to 60 ECTS, equivalent to the subject teacher training qualifications. In the 2020s, however, university pedagogy courses or training are still not required by law or by most universities for teaching positions. Some universities do require said training at least in part for permanent academic positions so the courses can provide both essential professional development and career advancement (Toom & Pyhältö, 2020). Recent years in Finnish higher education have also seen an increase in resources for teaching, a rise in the expectations for teachers’ and academics’ teaching responsibilities, an increase in programmes and training for pedagogy and a rise in awards and other official accomplishments for teaching. Many Finnish HEIs have made conscious efforts to develop teaching by offering public recognition and financial prizes through awards, salary increases and publicised teacher networks to drive development (Sahlberg, 2021). Several universities have awards or networks for their excellent or accomplished teachers, including the Teacher’s Academy at the University of Helsinki and the Network of Excellent University Practitioners at the University of Eastern Finland. Many university student unions in Finland also provide annual Teacher of the Year or Good Teacher awards, based on student feedback and recommendations. There is also increased attention on teacher development in higher education. A yearly national conference Pedaforum focuses on higher education educators, developers and administrators, while a twice-yearly Journal of University Pedagogy promotes both peer-reviewed research and more accessible articles on teaching experiments and learner experiences in Finnish and English. Many other national and HEI-specific projects and networks have also worked on increasing university pedagogy awareness and training in Finland.

24

2

Teaching in Finland

While participation in university pedagogy education or other higher education teaching development training remains voluntary, the programmes are usually well received, free of charge of all university staff and include staff from various degree programmes and faculties. This type of multidisciplinary approach to the development of higher education teaching has also been fruitful to the participants (Nevgi & Löfström, 2015; Tuomainen, 2018). Increased efforts are in place to further develop Finnish higher education teaching and pedagogy. Various teaching and learning methods such as problem-based learning, cooperative learning, flipped learning and reflective practice are actively implemented across all Finnish universities. The Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (n.d.) has also coordinated a project entitled “The evaluation of the state and reform of higher education pedagogy”, carried out in 2022–2023. The evaluation intends to collect and present information about the current state of Finnish higher education pedagogy, including elements such as: • • • • •

Support and incentives for teachers’ pedagogical competence, Internal activities for developing teaching, Cooperation between HEIs aiming at pedagogical development, Pedagogical policies and operating models of HEIs, and The role of digitalisation in teaching and learning.

Many of the advancements in university pedagogy listed previously have been present and visible also in my university teaching career, including completing 60 ECTS of subject teacher training earlier in my career. Every year I also try to attend the national Pedaforum conference to present my research on pedagogy and also network and learn from others involved in Finnish higher education. The conference provides interesting content from teachers, researchers, administrators and developers, with content in Finnish and English. I have also published in the aforementioned Journal of University Pedagogy to share my research and development and experiments in teaching as it is a clear and easily accessible platform for the latest developments, methods, experiments and perceptions on Finnish university pedagogy, again with content in both Finnish and English. In connection with awards, I have been humbled to have been recognised for my teaching by both students and my university. In 2016 I was named Teacher of the Year for my campus, as nominated by the university’s student union. In the following year, my university initiated a teaching excellence network and I was privileged to be one of the four first members of Excellent Teaching Practitioners, as recommended by an evaluation board comprised of university experts. When it comes to prizes and awards for teaching, they are a great way to recognise good quality teaching and teachers and to encourage the development of university teaching. Who decides on the prizes and awards, however, is a matter of discussion as there are merits for both student views and expert panels. More about this in the next chapter.

References

25

Recommended Reading Hammerness, K., Ahtiainen, R., & Sahlberg, P. (2017). Empowered educators in Finland. Jossey-Bass. Niemi, H., Toom, A. & Kallioniemi, A. (Eds.) (2016). Miracle of education: The principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish schools. Sense Publishers. Sahlberg, P. (2021). Finnish lessons 3.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press. Simola, H., Kauko, J., Varjo, J., Kalalahti, M., & Sahlstrom, F. (2017). Dynamics in education politics: Understanding and explaining the Finnish case. Routledge. Välimaa, J. (2019). A history of Finnish higher education from the Middle Ages to the 21st century. Springer.

References Aarrevaara, T., Werner, E., Althoff, G., Isotalo, J., Stephens, C., Saarilammi, M.-L., & Isoaho, K. (2017). Audit of the University of Eastern Finland 2017. Finnish Education Evaluation Centre Publications, 10, 2017. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/302221884.pdf Aarrevaara, T., Vasari, P., & Tenhunen, V. (2022). The teaching-research nexus of the academic profession in Finland, Estonia and Sweden. In F. Huang, T. Aarrevaara, & U. Teichler (Eds.), Teaching and research in the knowledge-based society: Historical and comparative perspectives (pp. 161–179). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04439-7_9 Gustafsson, J. (2012). Kuinka yliopistouudistuksesta tuli kaikkien aikojen fiasko? [How did the university reform end up as an all-time fiasco?] Suomen Kuvalehti 43/2012. https:// suomenkuvalehti.fi/kotimaa/kuinka-yliopistouudistuksesta-tuli-kaikkien-aikojen-fiasko/ Hammerness, K., Ahtiainen, R., & Sahlberg, P. (2017). Empowered educators in Finland: How high-performing systems shape teaching quality. Jossey-Bass. Jääskelä, P., Häkkinen, P., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2017). Supporting and constraining factors in the development of university teaching experienced by teachers. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(6), 655–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1273206 Jakonen, M. (2018). Minkä arvoista on ylin opetus? [What is the value of the highest education?]. Acatiimi, 5(2018), 20–21. https://arkisto.acatiimi.fi/5_2018/5.php Kärkkäinen, K., Jääskelä, P., & Tynjälä, P. (2023). How does university teachers’ pedagogical training meet topical challenges raised by educational research? A case study from Finland. Teaching and Teacher Education, 128, 104088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104088 Kivistö, J., Pekkola, E., & Pausits, A. (2019). Academic careers and promotions in Finland and Austria: System and institutional perspectives. In M. Mahat & J. Tatebe (Eds.), Achieving academic promotion (pp. 105–125). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 9781787568990 Korhonen, V., & Törmä, S. (2016). Engagement with a teaching career – How a group of Finnish university teachers experience teacher identity and professional growth. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2014.895301 Laiho, A., Jauhiainen, A., & Jauhiainen, A. (2022). Being a teacher in a managerial university: Academic teacher identity. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(2), 249–266. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13562517.2020.1716711 Maaranen, K., & Stenberg, K. (2021). Teacher effectiveness in Finland: Effectiveness in Finnish schools. In L. W. Grant, J. M. Stronge, & X. Xu (Eds.), International beliefs and practices that characterize teacher effectiveness (pp. 125–147). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-17998-7908-4

26

2

Teaching in Finland

Maaranen, K., Kynäslahti, H., Byman, R., Jyrhämä, R., & Sintonen, S. (2019). Teacher education matters: Finnish teacher educators’ concerns, beliefs, and values. European Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2019.1566317 Ministry of Education and Culture. (2018). Korkeakoulu-uudistusten vaikutusten arviointi [Assessment of effects of higher education reforms]. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja 2018:33. https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/161051/okm33.pdf Ministry of Education and Culture. (2022). Higher education institutions, science agencies, research institutes and other public research organisations. https://okm.fi/en/heis-andscience-agencies. Ministry of Education and Culture. (n.d.). COVID-19 epidemic measures and preparing for it in the administrative branch of the Ministry of Education and Culture. https://okm.fi/en/covid-19epidemic-measures-and-preparing-for-it Murtonen, M., & Lappalainen, M. (2013). Pedagogical education for university teachers in Finland. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 11(3), 65–72. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4 558048.pdf Nevgi, A., & Löfström, E. (2015). The development of academics’ teacher identity: Enhancing reflection and task perception through a university teacher development. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 46, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.01.003 Niemi, H. (2016). The societal factors contributing to education and schooling in Finland. In H. Niemi, A. Toom, & A. Kallioniemi (Eds.), Miracle of education: The principles of teaching and learning in Finnish schools (pp. 23–40). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-946300-776-4 Niemi, H., Lavonen, J., Kallioniemi, A., & Toom, A. (2018). The role of teachers in the Finnish educational system: High professional autonomy and responsibility. In H. Niemi, A. Toom, A. Kallioniemi, & J. Lavonen (Eds.), The teacher’s role in the changing globalizing world (pp. 47–61). Brill. https://brill.com/edcollbook/title/38653 Nieminen, M., & Tuijula, T. (2011). “Sen tulee olla palveleva ‘yritys’.” Opiskelijoiden käsitykset yliopistosta oppimisympäristönä [“It should be a service ‘business’”. Students’ perceptions of the university as a learning environment]. Kasvatus, 42(3), 210–221. https://elektra.helsinki.fi/ se/k/0022-927-x/42/3/sentulee.pdf Nikkola, T., & Tervasmäki, T. (2022). Experiences of arbitrary management among Finnish academics in an era of academic capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 37(4), 548–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2020.1854350 Nori, H. (2011). Kelle yliopiston portit avautuvat? Tutkimus suomelaisiin yliopistoihin ja eri tieteenaloille valikoitumisesta 2000-luvun alussa [For whom do the university gates open? A study on the selection of Finnish university and disciplines in the early 2000s]. Turun yliopiston julkaisuja C: 309. https://www.utupub.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/67040/AnnalesC309Nori.pdf Nori, H. (2018). Kiipijöitä ja uusintajia – keitä ovat 2010-luvun yliopisto-opiskelijat? [Risers and retakers – who are the university students of the 2010s?] In R. Rinne, N. Haltia, S. Lempinen & T. Kaunisto (Eds.), Eriarvoistuva maailma – tasa-arvoistava koulu? (pp. 205–222). Suomen kasvatustieteellinen seura. https://jyx.jyu.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/80297/978-952-540184-4_jyx.pdf Pollari, P., Salo, O. P., & Koski, K. (2018). In teachers we trust – The Finnish way to teach and learn. I.e. inquiry. Education, 10(1), Article 4. https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/ie/vol10/iss1/4 Saari, J., Koskinen, H., Attila, H., & Sarén, N. (2020). Eurostudent VII – Opiskelijatutkimus 2019. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja, 2020, 25. https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/ bitstream/handle/10024/162449/OKM_2020_25.pdf Sahlberg, P. (2021). Finnish lessons 3.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press. Simola, H., Kauko, J., Varjo, J., Kalalahti, M., & Salhstrom, F. (2017). Dynamics in education politics: Understanding and explaining the Finnish case. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1093/ acrefore/9780190264093.013.16

References

27

Statistics Finland. (2022). Share of working students decreased in 2020. https://stat.fi/til/opty/2020/ opty_2020_2022-03-17_tie_001_en.html Talvinen, K. (2012). Enhancing quality: Audits in Finnish higher education institutions 2005–2012. Publications of the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council 11:2012. https://backend.deqar.eu/reports/FINEEC/20200306_1005_KKA_1112.pdf Tamminen, T. (2022). Climbing the career steps. Acatiimi 6.4.2022. https://acatiimi.fi/2022/04/06/ climbing-the-career-steps/ Tapanila, K. (2022). Työn merkityksellisyyden rakentaminen osana tutkija-opettajien ammatillista kasvua muuttuvassa yliopistossa [Building the meaning of work as a part professional growth of researcher-teachers in a changing university]. Doctoral dissertation. University of Tampere. https://trepo.tuni.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/140061/978-952-03-2433-9.pdf The Finnish Education Evaluation Centre. (n.d.). The evaluation of the state and reform of higher education pedagogy. https://karvi.fi/en/higher-education/thematic-and-system-evaluations/theevaluation-of-the-state-and-reform-of-higher-education-pedagogy The Trade Union of Teachers in Finland. (2020). Comenius’ oath. https://www.oaj.fi/ contentassets/31548b52f43348c69e1c6ef4f7ece0ab/comeniuksen_vala_eng.pdf Timonen, L., & Kantelinen, R. (2017). Moninaiset oppijat, moninaiset opettajat – Opettajan uudet osaamisvaateet [Diverse learners, diverse teachers – teacher’s new skill requirements]. Kieli, koulutus ja yhteiskunta, 8(4). https://www.kieliverkosto.fi/fi/journals/kieli-koulutus-jayhteiskunta-syyskuu-2017-1/moninaiset-oppijat-moninaiset-opettajat-opettajan-uudetosaamisvaateet Tirri, J., & Kuusisto, E. (2019). Opettajan ammattietiikkaan oppimassa [Learning teachers’ professional ethics]. Gaudeamus. Tjeldvoll, A. (2008). Finnish higher education reforms: Responding to globalization. European Education, 40(4), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.2753/EUE1056-4934400405 Toom, A., & Husu, J. (2021). Analyzing practice, research, and accountability turns in Finnish academic teacher education. In D. Mayer (Ed.), Teacher education policy and research (pp. 73–83). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3775-9 Toom, A. & Pyhältö, K. (2020). Kestävää korkeakoulutusta ja opiskelijoiden oppimista rakentamassa: Tutkimukseen perustuva selvitys ajankohtaisesta korkeakoulupedagogiikan ja ohjauksen osaamisesta [Building sustainable higher education and student learning. Researchbased study on current expertise in higher education pedagogy and higher education guidance]. Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2020:1. http://urn.fi/URN: ISBN:978-952-263-696-6 Tuomainen, S. (2016). A blended learning approach to academic writing and presentation skills. International Journal on Language, Literature and Culture in Education, 3(2), 33–55. https:// doi.org/10.1515/llce-2016-0009 Tuomainen, S. (2018). Supporting non-native university lecturers with English-medium instruction. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 10(3), 230–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JARHE-03-2017-0022 Ursin, J. (2019a). Higher education reforms in Finland: From a ponderous to a more agile system? In B. Broucker, K. De Wit, J. C. Verhoeven, & L. Leišytė (Eds.), Higher education system reform (pp. 67–77). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004400115_005 Ursin, J. (2019b). Student engagement in Finnish higher education. In M. Tanaka (Ed.), Student engagement and quality assurance in higher education: International collaborations for the enhancement of learning (pp. 24–34). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429025648 Ursin, J., Vähäsantanen, K., McAlpine, L., & Hökkä, P. (2020). Emotionally loaded identity and agency in Finnish academic work. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(3), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2018.1541971 Uttl, B., White, C. A., & Gonzalez, D. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007

28

2

Teaching in Finland

Vähäsantanen, K. (2015). Professional agency in the stream of change: Understanding educational change and teachers’ professional identities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 1–12. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.11.006 Välimaa, J. (2012). The relationship between Finnish higher education and higher education research. In S. Ahola & D. M. Hoffman (Eds.), Higher education research in Finland (pp. 27–48). University of Jyväskylä. https://jyx.jyu.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/42356/ 978-951-39-5189-4.pdf Välimaa, J. (2019). A history of Finnish higher education from the middle ages to the 21st century. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20808-0 Välimaa, J., & Muhonen, R. (2019). Reproducing social equality across the generations: The Nordic model of high participation higher education in Finland. In B. Cantwell, S. Marginson, & A. Smolentseva (Eds.), High participation systems of higher education (pp. 358–385). Oxford University Press. Wilhelmsson, T. (2021). Yliopistouudistus: Tarkoitus, toteutukset ja tulokset [University reform: Purpose, implementations and results]. Gaudeamus. https://doi.org/10.31885/9789523457249 Wood, P. (2017). From teaching excellence to emergent pedagogies: A complex process alternative to understanding the role of teaching in higher education. In A. French & M. O’Leary (Eds.), Teaching excellence in higher education: Challenges, changes and the teaching excellence framework (pp. 39–74). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781787147614 Woodall, T., Hiller, A., & Resnick, S. (2014). Making sense of higher education: Students as consumers and the value of the university experience. Studies in Higher Education, 39(1), 48–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.648373

3

Teaching Quality, Good Teaching and Excellent Teaching

Abstract

This chapter explores in more detail the qualities of award-winning teachers as indicators of teaching excellence, and how in all the connection to students is integral. Many higher education systems around the world apply more formal or informal criteria to evaluate teaching excellence, some assessed by peers and some from student perspectives. I will refer in this chapter to various studies on teaching quality and excellence, including my own, and discuss how the qualities are interwoven with student considerations. After all, ultimately, when the audience decides if a presentation has been successful, it should be the students who decide if a teacher is successful. The role of the teacher has naturally changed from authority to facilitator in the past decades and the post-pandemic time in education has created challenges to create meaningful connections and learning experiences. Keywords

Quality in teaching · Good teaching · Teaching excellence · Teaching awards · Student perceptions A good teacher induces a relaxed and enjoyable atmosphere in class; communicates confidence in students’ ability to learn; promotes their interest in the material and motivation to come to class and learn. (Hativa, 2000, p. 27)

3.1

Quality in Teaching

The title of this book refers to high-quality teaching, therefore it is essential to define the concept. As an educational concept quality can refer for instance to expediency, change, self-transcendence or value for money (Biggs, 2001). For Ellis (2018), # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Tuomainen, Supporting Students through High-Quality Teaching, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39844-5_3

29

30

3

Teaching Quality, Good Teaching and Excellent Teaching

quality relates to standards that should be met to the satisfaction of the customers to achieve a particular purpose. Teaching quality as a concept can be subjectively perceived and dependent on several factors (Hénard & Roseveare, 2012; Hill & Christian, 2012; Skelton, 2005). The concept is also influenced by which stakeholder defines it: the teacher, students, administration or other quality determinants (NasserAbu Alhija, 2017; Devlin & Samarawickrema, 2010). For Hénard and Roseveare (2012), quality teaching is the use of various pedagogical techniques to generate optimal learning outcomes for students, whereas Filene (2005) views it as enthusiasm, clarity, organisation, stimulation and care. Enthusiasm and motivation, relationships, reflection, research, skills and approaches are also elements of quality teaching for Wood (2017). Others still will claim that quality teaching amounts to a safe, stimulating and learner-centred classroom environment (Nilson, 2016), or the ability to communicate, make connections with others and transmit ideas (Moore et al., 2007). For Hativa (2000), quality in teaching is an amalgam of a variety of skills, competencies and knowledge, including: • • • • • • •

General pedagogical knowledge, Pedagogical content knowledge, Subject-matter knowledge, Knowledge of content and self, Knowledge of learners and learning, Curricular knowledge, and Knowledge of educational aims.

The quality of teaching has been studied nationally and internationally, especially in the context of primary education, but the quality of higher education teaching has received less attention. However, especially the views of university education clients, i.e. students, on the quality of teaching are important for the implementation of teaching and the learning process of students (Hill & Christian, 2012; Karjalainen & Alaniska, 2006). Students are also involved in the planning and implementation of teaching as part of higher education, so the student perspective on the quality of teaching is paramount. Ellis (2018) maintains that high-quality teaching can be demonstrated in four ways: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Students’ results, Indirect indicators such as students’ employment after graduation, External examinations, and Student feedback on teaching.

Examining the quality of teaching through student concepts is one way of perceiving the quality of teaching, but naturally not the only one. Internationally teaching quality includes not only unified quality control systems related to teaching (Biggs, 2001; Huusko, 2009), but also peer reviews and assessments provided by other teachers (Bright et al., 2021; Krause, 2021), which help in the development of

3.2 Defining Good or Effective Teaching

31

professional and pedagogical competence. However, the student perspective on the quality of university education is central, and the views and experiences of university students about their studies are a growing part of university quality control (Hill et al., 2003). From this perspective, perhaps quality in teaching means interaction, interpersonal skills and pedagogical competence. In higher education subject expertise is often a matter of course, which does not come primarily to the fore when assessing the quality of teaching, but factors related to teaching situations are perhaps more strongly part of the perceived quality. In recent years international research on teaching quality has highlighted teacher expertise (Kreber, 2008), but also a special connection with students (Toomey, 2009; Ashwin, 2020a).

3.2

Defining Good or Effective Teaching

From a pedagogical perspective, it could be discerned that teaching quality equals good or effective teaching, yet often the terms are discussed separately. Adjectives for so-called good teachers have included respected, dutiful, expert, ideal, competent, analytical, and reflective (Cruickshank & Haefele, 2001). In the 1980s Ramsden and Entwistle (1981) defined a good teacher as having enthusiasm for teaching and concern for students as individuals, so interaction and interpersonal skills in particular are seen as an integral part of good teaching in higher education (also Larkin et al., 2016; Wright et al., 2013). To Ramsden (2003), good teaching is strongly connected to the student connection and therefore includes: • • • • • • •

A desire to share one’s expertise with the students, Being able to make content interesting and appealing, Explaining material clearly, Applying a variety of teaching and learning methods, Engaging with students, Showing concern and respect for the students, and Being willing to learn more about the craft and scholarship of teaching.

In addition to these qualities, the basic elements of good teaching include listening, questioning, answering questions, giving guidance and feedback, and observing and reflecting on one’s own teaching (Brown & Edmunds, 2018). If all these are well managed, i.e., in a way that satisfies the student (cf. Ellis, 2018), teaching can also be assumed to be of high quality. However, teachers’ characteristics also have a role in how they teach. Hativa (2000) has listed four categories that affect teachers: (1) personal characteristics, (2) knowledge base, (3) motivation, and (4) perceptions of teaching, learning and students. Indeed, good teaching is often associated with performance or enthusiasm, but more broadly, also with an awareness of student learning patterns, the contextual dependence of teaching and learning, and the diversity of the student material (Kreber,

32

3

Teaching Quality, Good Teaching and Excellent Teaching

2002; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). Thus, the quality of teaching is also related to the teacher’s ability to consider different learners and adapt teaching to the needs of all learners. More about this in subsequent chapters. Macfarlane (2007) notes that there are three stages of teaching activity that all influence good or effective teaching: the pre-performance phase, the actual performance, and the post-performance phase. The first includes programme designs, lesson plans, material creation, reflection, review and research, while the second is the actual act of teaching in various modes. This onstage performance is then followed by more off-stage activities such as guiding or advising students, following discussions and providing assessment and feedback. Other listings of qualities of good teachers in higher education by various scholars are summarised in the table below (Table 3.1). Naturally, good-quality teaching is not only reaching certain qualities nor is it constant for the individual teacher or as a concept. As a teacher, there will be good days and bad days and the teacher’s understanding of how students should work, learn and cooperate will be tested, similarly as the teacher’s own understanding of suitable teaching methods or ideology will be tested. However, over the years decades and centuries also the idea of a good teacher continues to evolve. As we know, what was considered effective teaching in the early 1900s or the 1960s is now different in the 2000s, and increasingly so in the post-Covid world of the 2020s. Effective teaching after all is a holistic approach, similarly as learning is lifelong and lifewide. Nash and Jang (2015, p. 4) define holistic education as considering the various dimensions of life: “the personal, professional, moral, recreational, relational, social, political, religio-spiritual, healthful and vocational, and others as well”. This is a comprehensive list to reach with all our students. Yet it emphasises Table 3.1 Qualities of good higher education teachers Brookfield (2015) Teachers apply whichever methods help students learn Teachers have a critically reflective approach to teaching Teachers apply contextually informed teaching Teachers are aware of how students experience their learning Teachers treat HE students as adults Teachers are credible and authentic professionals

Pleschová et al. (2012) Teachers have contact with students in and out of class

Schneider and Preckel (2017) Teachers prepare and organise courses well

Teachers generate cooperation and collaboration with students Teachers promote active thinking and learning

Teachers present content clearly and using examples

Teachers apply recognition of prior knowledge and experience Teachers provide specific feedback Teachers create a challenging but supportive learning environment

Teachers stimulate interest in the course and subject Teachers encourage students to become active, ask questions, initiate discussion Teachers are available and helpful Teachers show enthusiasm for the subject and teaching

Summarised from Brookfield (2015), Pleschová et al. (2012), Schneider and Preckel (2017)

3.2 Defining Good or Effective Teaching

33

that effective higher education teaching is also connected to culture and language and how the students have learned in their previous educational levels and continue to learn after their current studies. Students’ previous learning can be increasingly challenging to gauge as students come from various backgrounds and generate an increasingly diverse student body. Do we need to address every student as an individual? Ideally, yes. What if you have 500 students yearly in your classes? While ideally every student should be encountered as an individual sum of all their prior learning and life experience, there is no need to tailor everything to one student’s specific needs. Rather, always applying a variety of methods and materials will hopefully suit as many learning styles as there are students in the classroom or course. Few people are intuitively good teachers. Instead, they have to work on their craft like any other professional. A common approach to teaching at university is to focus on the content and show students the expertise and research performed within the subject. Often there can be little attention to students’ learning but rather the responsibility for learning and understanding lies within the students. Still, a teacher with good content knowledge is also able to ask higher-level questions, involve students and apply more student-directed activities, if they wish (Stronge, 2018). If one wishes to comprehensively compare qualities and behaviours as a teacher to what Keeley et al. (2006) have listed as a Teacher Behaviors Checklist of 28 optimal items, it is another good way to assess good or effective teaching. In their study, Keeley et al. (2006, p. 86) found that of the list of 28 items for optimal teaching effectiveness or excellence, university students in the US most appreciated the following teacher qualities: • Humble // Sensitive and persistent // Strives to be a better teacher (all loadings of 0.79) • Respectful (0.76) • Encourages and cares for students (0.75) • Enthusiastic about teaching and the topic // Good listener (both 0.74) • Flexible or open-minded // Understanding // Happy or positive attitude or humorous (all 0.73) • Approachable or personable (0.72) • Rapport (0.71) As the top 12 here indicate, all are mainly focussed on the connections created in teaching with the students and the teacher’s person, persona and approach to students. Qualities such as professionalism and subject knowledge, rightly or wrongly, were further down the list. Some scholars will argue that this indicates students may appreciate the person and connections over the content, but to reach teaching excellence and to be appreciated also by external peer reviewers, content knowledge and pedagogy are also essential qualities.

34

3

3.3

Teaching Quality, Good Teaching and Excellent Teaching

Excellent Teaching and Teaching Excellence

How does one graduate from good teaching to excellent teaching? Who decides when good becomes excellent and based on which criteria? In pedagogical research at times teaching excellence is discussed as equivalent to good or efficient teaching but often the term also focuses on ratings, rankings and externally assessed teaching performances. Shephard et al. (2010) define teaching excellence as teacher honesty, critical thinking, student retention, high-quality feedback, and having an emphasis on authentic learning opportunities, meaningful learning activities as well as innovation, inclusivity and pedagogical research. In essence, many of the same qualities as previously mentioned are connected with good or effective teaching. Gale (2007) maintains excellence in teaching involves disciplinary knowledge, pedagogical expertise and scholarly inquiry, again similar qualities as in good teaching. Teaching excellence, especially in connection with awards provided for said teaching excellence, has been defined as something that can be measured, controlled and improved and is usually aligned with higher education policies, such as pre-determined frameworks for teaching excellence (Skelton, 2005). O’Leary (2017), however, maintains that defining or awarding teaching excellence is subjective but still key elements in the assessment and recognition of excellence are: • • • •

Subject knowledge and experience, Student engagement, Passion for teaching, and Advanced methods to recognise students’ different learning styles.

I often like to talk about excellence in teaching or excellent teaching rather than teaching excellence as the latter has more administrative, official, rating- or rankingbased connotations. Few teachers would claim they have teaching excellence but can admit to being good, effective or even excellent teachers. We can therefore view teaching excellence on an individual level as individual teachers are awarded for their skills and expertise as teachers, but also on an institutional level whereby various ratings, rankings, policies and strategies are in place to promote teaching excellence (Skelton, 2005). Further, teaching excellence can be viewed from a traditional, performative, psychologised or critical perspective (Skelton, 2005). All four are connected and most excellent teachers will recognise many elements of each approach in their own teaching or teacher persona, perhaps earlier in their careers if not currently. The first, traditional perspective, refers to the teacher being a subject expert who teaches disciplinary knowledge possibly to the social elite. The performative perspective, on the other hand, focuses more on work-based learning, standards, rules and regulations. The fourth, critical perspective, then is related to social critique, participatory dialogue, and critically intellectual teaching with the purpose of emancipation.

3.4 Teaching Awards: Who Decides on Excellence?

35

I, like many of my colleagues, would argue to mostly apply the third approach to teaching, the psychologised perspective, whereby my teaching is aimed at individuals, I like to focus on the teacher-learner relationship, I often rely on group work or activities in learning, my role as a teacher is that of a psycho-diagnostician and the purpose of my teaching is effective learning (cf. Skelton, 2005). One of the qualities of excellent teachers is said to be experience. Excellent teachers are not born, they are made through years of investment in their teaching abilities, as Pleschová et al. (2012, p. 6) also maintain. Teachers with more experience often have good planning skills and because of encounters with various students during their work experience, they can apply a wider range of teaching strategies and learning activities (Stronge, 2018). Experience easily leads to expertise and rationale which in turn amount to credibility in teaching (Brookfield, 2015). An essential part of excellence in teaching has to be the display of skills and knowledge fluently during teaching, responding quickly and competently and being able to justify choices for content and pedagogy. According to Arends and Kilcher (2010), having expertise and experience in teaching will help teachers perform many tasks automatically and understand problems at deeper levels than novices. Experienced teachers can also be more flexible in their teaching and more confident in their instructional abilities. Therefore they may offer more inferences from the information they convey in teaching and recognise more patterns in classroom activities and events. However, experience does not always guarantee effective or good teaching. There can be many seasoned veterans who are happy to apply the same methods they have used for 20–30 years, who have little willingness to evolve and adopt new strategies but rather are happy with the status quo. On the other hand, many new teachers can apply innovative methodology to their teaching, connect with students on many levels and actively work to build their knowledge and expertise without being able to rely on their years of experience. Often in recruitment situations new teachers may not match the work experience of older, more experienced teachers but can offer more competent, innovative teaching demonstrations, infused with research and technology, compared to their more experienced counterparts. Therefore, while excellence can be more prominent in more experienced teachers, it is not exclusively a result of experience.

3.4

Teaching Awards: Who Decides on Excellence?

Most elements in life that can be rewarded require some evidence to support the accomplishments. Therefore if teachers wish to be recognised for their teaching, they will typically have to spend time collecting, gathering and reporting their accomplishments to acquire said prize or award. Receiving recognition for teaching will undoubtedly provide internal satisfaction but such accomplishments can also be used in salary negotiations or promotions. Many teachers, however, are not interested in such a process, despite being eligible or having excellent skills. Some teachers may object to applying for a

36

3

Teaching Quality, Good Teaching and Excellent Teaching

teaching award or recognition as they do not see the point of such individual awards provided by their employer. Awards can also seem superficial or a popularity competition. Also, being required to produce evidence and report on one’s achievements can be time-consuming or even patronising. Many teachers will have limited time and resources for additional projects but anything that can promote one’s career or professional prospects should be manageable. Those who reject awards or accreditation for teaching merits in higher education may also refer to a teacher’s natural flair or originality as the qualities that create good teachers, i.e. teaching is not something that can be learned or developed. In fact, even skilled and experienced teachers can feel like impostors (Brookfield, 2015) or have terrible experiences in teaching where nothing seems to go as planned (Ashwin, 2018). Little point, then, in being rewarded for such experiences. Some educational scholars also question the role of teaching awards, excellent teachers or inspirational teachers as individual performers (Ashwin, 2020b) when the significance of meaningful teaching relies on the collaborative effort of the entire HEI, beginning from the curriculum and carefully designed programmes to encourage students’ learning. In fact, Ashwin maintains that the notion of a brilliant individual teacher is “deeply unhelpful” (2020b, p. 30) because of the collective nature of teaching. Hence inspiring individual performances by teachers are only useful as part of a carefully planned curriculum and learning outcomes of a programme. Over the years, I have had the pleasure of receiving an award from both the student union and my university, i.e. an award based on student feedback and perceptions and an expert panel assessment of my merits. Understandably, the criteria and reasons in these recognitions were from differing perspectives but, in the end, they were surprisingly similar. In the student union’s arguments, I was told to be student-centred, motivating and encouraging; a teacher who provides versatile guidance, help and support, one who always collects feedback and provides feedback, and one who manages modern learning environments, and combines different tasks and methods to address all learners. After my merits were evaluated by the university panel of experts for our new network of excellent teachers, I was told I was a versatile teacher developer whose teaching practices could be applied across disciplines and with a strong research approach to teaching to also inspire students to engage in research. I was also described as a student-centred teacher with consideration for interaction and meeting students individually as well as for students’ differences and learning difficulties. Although my pedagogical research is more highlighted in the second list of reasons, both sets have similar qualities and stylistic features. The student view perhaps emphasises personality more and the university perspective has a stronger focus on pedagogy. Still both, and all, I would argue, are equally valuable qualities of a good teacher (see also Tuomainen, 2019, 2023). Further, being an excellent teacher is not, for lack of a better term, rocket science. It is essentially about placing the students as the priority.

3.5 Students as Key

3.5

37

Students as Key

When I discuss for instance academic presentation skills with students, we often talk about what makes an effective or good presentation, and who decides that. Often students seem surprised when I claim that the audience in fact decides if the presentation has been successful, not the presenter. The same, I would argue, also applies to teaching. Who decides if the teacher is good or effective? The teacher, the department head, the colleagues, external experts? Perhaps all in different circumstances but I would argue that usually, it cannot be the teacher who decides that the teaching is good, effective or meaningful, but in fact it is the students. Whether teaching excellence awards are at stake or not, teaching has to reach the audience, i.e. the students, in a meaningful manner, and have a meaningful impact on their learning, knowledge and experience to be considered good teaching. However, are students fair and reliable assessors of teaching quality? (cf. O’Leary, 2017) After all, student satisfaction does not necessarily equal highquality teaching. Some students may think highly of teachers who are friendly, funny, provide entertaining content and pay less attention to assessment. Feldman (2007) has questioned the role of student feedback and ratings in teacher quality as students’ perceptions can be swayed for instance by preferring smaller class sizes and grading leniency. Yet the student-teacher relationship seems integral to creating good teaching and a perception of good teaching. Already in 1916, John Dewey stated that teachers should have “a sympathetic attitude towards the experience of the learner by entering into common or conjoint experience” (1916, p. 160). Later, Raaheim et al. (1991) maintained the importance of teachers’ concern for the students, and more recently Rowan and Grootenboer (2017) have also emphasised the role of positive staffstudent relationships. This all links teaching to the humanistic approach where teachers and students are co-learners and teachers have positive regard for students. Table 3.2 illustrates more qualities of good teachers from previous higher education studies, especially from the student perspective. Surely these are good qualities, excellent even, also in the eyes of those in charge of teaching ratings, ranking and awards. Table 3.2 Qualities of good teachers from the student perspective in previous higher education studies Knowledgeable, inspiring, enthusiastic, friendly to students

Clear, easily approachable, diverse in their pedagogical skills Enthusiastic about their own field, teaching, and students

Crumbley et al. (2001) Greimel-Fuhrmann & Geyer (2003) Hill & Christian (2012) Hill et al. (2003) Thompson (2002) Rowan & Townend (2017) Vulcano (2007) Kandiko Howson (2018) Onwuegbuzie et al. (2007)

38

3

Teaching Quality, Good Teaching and Excellent Teaching

Understanding students on a personal level is an essential part of excellent teaching. How much coursework do they have in addition to your course? How many of them study full-time? Do they live in the campus city or elsewhere? If students come to you with life issues, it creates a powerful chance to inspire, help and care, and in fact for many successful teachers, the most impactful encounters with students can take place outside the classroom (Filene, 2005). I have had the pleasure to talk to students after class, over lunch or coffee, a chance encounter in a grocery store, or at their student association gala. Although not necessary by any means, these more informal situations can still reveal a lot about these students, their priorities, how they study, work and socialise and how you can best tailor a course to suit their needs, styles and personalities. The principles of a good teacher-student relationship, which are often emphasised as characteristics of good higher education, can also be seen to emerge from this student focus (Hativa et al., 2001; Ramsden, 2003). Excellent teaching includes the teacher’s interest and enthusiasm for the subject being taught, setting goals and challenges, clear and appropriate assessment and feedback, encouraging selfdirection and self-learning, and diverse and activating teaching methods and materials. Excellent teaching can also be seen as a reciprocal process in which the teacher and the students are equally part of the function of teaching and learning.

3.6

Finnish Students’ Views of Teaching Quality

Students’ views on the quality of teaching have also been mapped in Finnish higher education. In Ylijoki’s (1994) study, the most important criteria for good teaching experienced by students were teacher clarity and consistency, content appeal, teacher enthusiasm, discussions, student participation, and the teacher’s pedagogical skills. Later, Finnish students have also associated the quality of teaching and learning with good study guidance, a diverse range of courses, the quality of courses (including arrangements, materials, clear objectives, and interaction) and teachers’ pedagogical, formal and substantive qualifications (Mettänen, 2003). Repo (2010) studied the experiences of Finnish open university students in good teaching situations, which emphasised teaching methods, an enthusiastic teacher, clear goals and contents of teaching, an encouraging and challenging atmosphere, and student participation. In Parpala’s (2010) study, clear goals, feedback, interaction, and inspiring teaching were highlighted as good teaching, although differences were present between different degree programs. With Haarala-Muhonen et al. (2011) students emphasised their desire to receive well-founded, varied teaching and essential feedback from the teacher, as well as support from other students. More recently with Kiesi et al. (2015), Finnish master’s students’ perspectives on good teaching highlighted the identification of learning at the individual level and the ability to motivate students in a variety of ways. The responses of these older students also emphasised the teacher’s interaction skills and personality. Teachers were also expected to consider different learners and different ways of learning and to be motivated to teach. The qualities of a good teacher were also pedagogical competence and expertise in their own field.

References

39

In a study I performed with Finnish and international master’s students (Tuomainen, 2019), I examined students’ perceptions of teaching quality which the students connected with the teacher’s knowledge and expertise, engaging and inspiring teaching style, the clarity of their purpose and delivery and being approachable. A good university teacher was seen as an expert in their field, with teaching based on the latest research. Research was seen as an integral part of university teaching and the basis for developing new ideas. However, some students also lamented that a teacher’s focus on research at the expense of teaching could diminish teaching quality. In my study students related to the quality of teaching through their own personal experiences. These were often associated with the personality of a well-perceived teacher and characteristics such as a good connection and friendliness. A good student-teacher relationship was also frequently mentioned, especially in connection with support and motivation. The connection was also associated with recognising and understanding individual needs and levels of knowledge so that diversity in the student body and understanding students’ different life situations were connected to high-quality teaching. The approachability of the teaching staff was also considered high-quality teaching so being able to reach and meet the teacher both in the classroom or more informally outside of the classroom was as a significant indicator of teaching quality in my study. The level of informality present in most Finnish HEIs was also mentioned (such as the use of first names with teachers and students), especially if the international participant had had different experiences in their home country. Overall this personal relationship created through approachability was also seen as a component of motivation and engaging students in learning. Recommended Reading Ellis, R. & Hogard, E. (Eds.) (2018). Handbook of quality assurance for university teaching. Routledge. Hativa, N. (2000). Teaching for effective learning in higher education. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Race, P. (2019). The lecturer's toolkit: A practical guide to assessment, learning and teaching. Routledge. Skelton, A. (Ed.) (2005). International perspectives on teaching excellence in higher education. Routledge. Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers (3rd ed.). ASCD.

References Arends, R. I., & Kilcher, A. (2010). Teaching for student learning: Becoming an accomplished teacher. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203866771 Ashwin, P. (2018). Building an agenda for academic development on the peculiarity of university teaching. In E. Medland, R. Watermeyer, A. Hosein, I. M. Kinchin, & S. Lygo-Baker (Eds.),

40

3

Teaching Quality, Good Teaching and Excellent Teaching

Pedagogical peculiarities: Conversations at the edge of university teaching and learning (pp. 113–124). Koninklijke Brill NV. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789463512541 Ashwin, P. (2020a). Reflective teaching in higher education (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury. Ashwin, P. (2020b). Transforming university education: A manifesto. Bloomsbury. https://doi.org/ 10.5040/9781350157279 Biggs, J. (2001). The reflective institution: Assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41(3), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004181331049 Bright, J., Eliahoo, R., & Pokorny, H. (2021). Professional development. In H. Pokorny & D. Warren (Eds.), Enhancing teaching practice in higher education (pp. 206–226). Sage. Brookfield, S. D. (2015). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Brown, G., & Edmunds, S. (2018). Effective teaching? In R. Ellis & E. Hogard (Eds.), Handbook of quality assurance for university teaching (pp. 247–272). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9781315187518 Cruickshank, D. R., & Haefele, D. (2001). Good teachers, plural. Educational Leadership, 58(5), 26–30. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=00759118ff9494 ab43c66efce9a3137a27fac112 Crumbley, L., Henry, B. K., & Kratchman, S. H. (2001). Students’ perceptions of the evaluation of college teaching. Quality Assurance in Education, 9(4), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1108/ EUM0000000006158 Devlin, M., & Samarawickrema, G. (2010). The criteria of effective teaching in a changing higher education context. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(2), 111–124. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07294360903244398 Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Free Press. Ellis, R. (2018). Quality assurance for university teaching: Issues and approaches. In R. Ellis & E. Hogard (Eds.), Handbook of quality assurance for university teaching (pp. 3–18). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315187518 Feldman, K. A. (2007). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 93–129). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 1-4020-5742-3 Filene, P. (2005). The joy of teaching: A practical guide for new college instructors. University of North Carolina Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9780807887639_filene Gale, R. A. (2007). Braided practice: The place of scholarly inquiry in teaching excellence. In A. Skelton (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching excellence in higher education (pp. 32–47). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203939376 Greimel-Fuhrmann, B., & Geyer, A. (2003). Students’ evaluation of teachers and instructional quality – Analysis of relevant factors based on empirical evaluation research. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(3), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0260293032000059595 Haarala-Muhonen, A., Ruohoniemi, M., Katajavuori, N., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2011). Comparison of students’ perceptions of their teaching-learning environments in three professional academic disciplines: A valuable took for quality enhancement. Learning Environment Research, 14(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-011-9087-x Hativa, N. (2000). Teaching for effective learning in higher education. Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0902-7 Hativa, N., Barak, R., & Simhi, E. (2001). Exemplary university teachers: Knowledge and beliefs regarding effective teaching dimensions and strategies. Journal of Higher Education, 72(6), 699–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2001.11777122 Hénard, F., & Roseveare, D. (2012). Fostering quality teaching in higher education: Policies and practices: An IMHE guide for higher education institutions. OECD. https://learningavenue.fr/ assets/pdf/QT%20policies%20and%20practices.pdf

References

41

Hill, J., & Christian, T. Y. (2012). College student perceptions and ideals of teaching: An exploratory pilot study. College Student Journal, 46(3), 589–602. https://www. ingentaconnect.com/content/prin/csj/2012/00000046/00000003/art00013 Hill, Y., Lomas, L., & MacGregor, J. (2003). Students’ perceptions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880310462047 Huusko, M. (2009). Itsearviointi suomalaisissa yliopistoissa: Arvoja, kehittämistä ja imagon rakentamista [Self-assessment in Finnish universities: Values, development and building an image]. Kasvatusalan tutkimuksia 46. Suomen kasvatustieteellinen seura. https://jyx.jyu.fi/ handle/123456789/71481 Kandiko Howson, C. B. (2018). Student engagement and perceptions of quality and standards. In R. Ellis & E. Hogard (Eds.), Handbook of quality assurance for university teaching (pp. 296–303). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315187518 Karjalainen, A., & Alaniska, H. (2006). Opiskelija opetuksen laadunvarmistuksessa [Student in the quality assurance of teaching]. In H. Alaniska (Ed.), Opiskelija opetuksen laadunarvioinnissa (pp. 11–26). Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston julkaisuja 16:2006. Keeley, J., Smith, D., & Buskist, W. (2006). The teacher behaviors checklist: Factor analysis of its utility for evaluating teaching. Teaching of Psychology, 33(2), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15328023top3302_1 Kiesi, T., Kyösola, S., Nikoskinen, K., Ojapelto A., Riihiaho, S., Sistonen, E., & Tuomisto, F. (2015). Mitä on hyvä yliopisto-opettajuus 360? [What is good university teaching 360°?] In M. Syrjäkari, J. Koponen, & J. Tuominen (Eds.), Hyvä yliopisto-opettajuus (pp. 22–75). Crossover 11/2015. https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/18964 Krause, K. L. (2021). A quality approach to university teaching. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.), University teaching in focus: A learning-centred approach (pp. 235–252). Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9781003008330 Kreber, C. (2002). Teaching excellence, teaching expertise and the scholarship of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 27(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020464222360 Kreber, C. (2008). Supporting student learning in the context of diversity, complexity and uncertainty. In C. Kreber (Ed.), The university and its disciplines: Teaching and learning within and beyond disciplinary boundaries (pp. 1–16)). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9780203892596 Larkin, K., Rowan, L., Garrick, B., & Beavis, C. (2016). Student perspectives on first year experience initiatives designed for pre-service teachers in their first weeks of university study. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 13(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.13.1.7 Macfarlane, B. (2007). Beyond performance in teaching excellence. In A. Skelton (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching excellence in higher education (pp. 48–59). Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9780203939376 Mettänen, P. (2003). Opetuksen ja oppimisen laadun mittaaminen [Measuring quality in teaching and learning]. Tutkimusraportti 6/2003. Tampereen teknillinen yliopisto. Moore, S., Walsh, G., & Risquez, A. (2007). Teaching at college and university: Effective strategies and principles. McGraw-Hill Education. Nash, R. J., & Jang, J. J. J. (2015). Preparing students for life beyond college: A meaning-centered vision for holistic teaching and learning. Routledge. Nasser-Abu Alhija, F. (2017). Teaching in higher education: Good teaching through students’ lens. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.10.006 Nilson, L. B. (2016). Teaching at its best. A research-based resource for college instructors (4th ed.). Wiley. O’Leary, M. (2017). Monitoring and measuring teaching excellence in higher education: From contrived competition to collective collaboration. In A. French & M. O’Leary (Eds.), Teaching excellence in higher education: Challenges, changes and the teaching excellence framework (pp. 75–107). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781787147614 Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Witcher, A. E., Collins, K. M. T., Filer, J. D., Wiedmaier, C. D., & Moore, C. W. (2007). Students’ perceptions of characteristics of effective college teachers: A validity

42

3

Teaching Quality, Good Teaching and Excellent Teaching

study of a teaching evaluation form using a mixed-methods analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 113–160. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831206298169 Parpala, A. (2010). Exploring the experiences and conceptions of good teaching in higher education. Studies in educational sciences 230. University of Helsinki. https://helda.helsinki.fi/ bitstream/handle/10138/19831/explorin.pdf Pleschová, G., Simon, E., Quinlan, K. M., Murphy, J., & Roxa, T. (2012). The professionalisation of academics as teachers in higher education. Science position paper. European Science Foundation. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/60324/1/Pleschova%2C%20G%20et%20al%202012%20 Professionalisation%20of%20academics%20as%20teachers%20in%20higher%20 education.pdf Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. SRHE and Open University Press. Raaheim, K., Wankowski, J., & Radford, J. (1991). Helping students to learn: Teaching, counselling, research. The Society for Research into Higher Education. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). RoutledgeFalmer. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203507711 Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students’ approaches to studying. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(3), 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 2044-8279.1981.tb02493.x Repo, S. (2010). Yhteisöllisyys voimavarana yliopisto-opetuksen ja -opiskelun kehittämisessä [Community spirit as a resource in the development of university teaching and learning]. Kasvatustieteellisiä tutkimuksia 228. Helsingin yliopisto. https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/ handle/10138/19875/yhteisol.pdf Rowan, L., & Grootenboer, P. (2017). Student engagement and rapport in higher education: The case for relationship-centred pedagogies. In L. Rowan & P. Grootenboer (Eds.), Student engagement and educational rapport in higher education (pp. 1–23). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46034-5 Rowan, L., & Townend, G. (2017). No hugs required: University student perspectives on the relationship between excellent teaching and educational rapport. In L. Rowan & P. Grootenboer (Eds.), Student engagement and educational rapport in higher education (pp. 105–130). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46034-5_7 Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 565–600. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/bul0000098 Shephard, K., Harland, T., Stein, S., & Tidswell, T. (2010). Preparing an application for a highereducation teaching-excellence award: Whose foot fits Cinderella's shoe? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2011. 537011 Skelton, A. (2005). Understanding teaching excellence in higher education: Towards a critical approach. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203412947 Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers (3rd ed.). ASCD. https://files.ascd.org/ staticfiles/ascd/pdf/siteASCD/publications/books/QualitiesOfEffectiveTeachers3rdEd_ Stronge_0318.pdf Thompson, E. R. (2002). Chinese perspectives on the important aspects of an MBA teacher. Journal of Management Education, 29(3), 229–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 10562902026003002 Toomey, R. (2009). The double helix and its implications for the professional lifelong learning of teachers. In T. Lovat & R. Toomey (Eds.), Values education and quality teaching (pp. 141–149). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9962-5 Tuomainen, S. (2019). Pedagogy or personal qualities? University students’ perceptions of teaching quality. American Journal of Education and Learning, 4(1), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.20448/ 804.4.1.117.134

References

43

Tuomainen, S. (2023). University students’ perceptions of teaching quality before and after the Covid-19 pandemic. European Journal of Education Studies, 10(7), 37–60. https://doi.org/10. 46827/ejes.v10i7.4863 Vulcano, B. A. (2007). Extending the generality of the qualities and behaviours constituting effective teaching. Teaching of Psychology, 34(2), 114–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00986280701293198 Wood, P. (2017). From teaching excellence to emergent pedagogies: A complex process alternative to understanding the role of teaching in higher education. In A. French & M. O’Leary (Eds.), Teaching excellence in higher education: Challenges, changes and the teaching excellence framework (pp. 39–74). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781787147614 Wright, R., Jones, G., & D’Alba, A. (2013). Person over pedagogy: Rapport-building traits of online instructors. In T. Bastiaens & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2013: World conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education (pp. 1603–1612). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/115106/ Ylijoki, O.-H. (1994). Yliopisto-opetuksen laadun jäljillä [Tracing quality in university teaching]. Yhteiskuntatieteiden tutkimuslaitoksen julkaisuja 7/1994. Tampereen yliopisto.

4

Professional Development for Inspired and Inspiring Teaching

Abstract

This chapter discusses how a significant part of quality in teaching is connected to active and systematic professional development. It is important for pre-service and in-service university teachers to seek varied opportunities for professional development, including official programmes on pedagogical training. This is strongly encouraged in countries such as Finland but there are no official criteria or requirements for pedagogical studies or training in Finnish higher education. Still, training opportunities are increasing, and both participating in training and conducting research on teaching practices, experiments and students’ perceptions can be a significant part of teacher development. This is also connected to strong pedagogical leadership within higher education institutions and departments and developing teaching through reflective practice and collaboration with peers. Keywords

Professional development · Pedagogical training · Reflection · Research · Leadership

Accredited teaching development programmes change academics’ approaches to teaching from being teacher-focused to being more student-focused. (Hanbury et al., 2008, p. 480)

4.1

Various Methods for Professional Development

Lifelong learning is one of the cornerstones of higher education, for teachers, researchers and students. In essence, all teachers, regardless of their level or educational system, should view themselves as adult learners and wish to continually develop their expertise and skillsets. The scholarship of teaching refers to teaching as # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Tuomainen, Supporting Students through High-Quality Teaching, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39844-5_4

45

46

4

Professional Development for Inspired and Inspiring Teaching

an ongoing inquiry and reflection and having responsibility for the professional work (Boyer, 1990; McCarthy, 2020; Trigwell et al., 2000). Unfortunately, many teachers in higher education would prefer to focus on the betterment of their CVs and lists of publications than to actively develop their teaching practices. These teachers may also feel that teaching is an innate skill, and it cannot be developed, bettered or learned. They may also feel, as Hativa (2000) has listed, that: • • • • • • •

There is nothing to be learned about teaching, There is no need to improve, Teaching cannot be improved, Only good knowledge of materials is needed, It is not their responsibility if students learn or not, Students cannot fully appreciate their teaching, or They will not change their teaching to gain popularity or better student feedback.

Tennant et al. (2009) claim that we should view teaching and expertise in teaching as dynamic, fluid and contested, as any other skill, ability or qualification. If one does not actively work on their teaching, this expertise, despite the accumulating years of experience, can be contested. Certainly by students but also by colleagues and HEI leadership. Many teachers are content doing essentially the same functions year after year and as they acquire mediocre or relatively suitable results, they are happy with the minimal effort. Perhaps their supervisors are equally happy with the status quo with many other pressing issues vying for their time. Yet active professional development for university teachers has diversified teachers’ approaches to teaching, increased their confidence in teaching and made them more willing to take risks (Hanbury et al., 2008). Teachers who have completed professional development programmes often obtain better student feedback than before the training and receive awards and grants for teaching more frequently than those without said training (Trigwell et al., 2000). Further, pedagogical development training with colleagues from other fields of science has allowed teachers to “engage with staff from other departments, the “novelty” of encountering contrasting teaching cultures and working practices” (Stewart, 2014, p. 94). Naturally, professional development does not have to focus solely on pedagogy; it can be anything the teacher finds useful. Courses and training in IT and new technologies are always popular, as are trips to seminars and conferences to hear the latest developments in one’s teaching field. Nicholls (2001, p. 10) calls professional development “highly complex and multifaceted” while being driven by the constant changes in society and the HEIs. Therefore naturally professional development can also be both formal and informal and be generated from any professional interest by the HEI teaching staff. Active professional development can assist a teacher in understanding how the university or higher education system works on a general level and outside their own department or faculty. This can allow a deeper understanding of the different needs of students in various fields, programmes and departments so that those varied needs

4.2 Higher Education Research as Professional Development

47

can be addressed in teaching. The more you know about different areas of your university, the more you develop yourself in a multidisciplinary context and the more in tune you can be with the different needs of your university and its students. This can allow for more alternative approaches to your teaching and students’ learning. There should be more systematic teacher support and professional development opportunities in higher education, including pedagogical training, coaching and mentoring (Hoidn, 2020). More lecturer training courses and pedagogical research should be encouraged internally in HEIs (Ellis, 2018). In Finland professional development for in-service higher education teachers depends on the teacher’s own interest and willingness. There are three assigned professional development days in every academic year (Maaranen & Stenberg, 2021), and in 2018 more than 84% of teachers took part in in-service training of some sort (Kola-Torvinen & Kumpulainen, 2020). The days can be utilised in a variety of ways, such as attending seminars or conferences or attending any type of relevant training online or in person. I will usually list the three assigned days from attending conferences but for me, professional development takes place in a number of ways, including attending seminars and webinars on interesting topics related to higher education, pedagogy, new teaching methods or materials, development of IT expertise, training for new online learning applications or new systems introduced by the university. Going on staff or teacher exchanges to other countries, such as through the Erasmus+ higher education mobility exchanges, is another excellent way to broaden horizons. Further, being a team leader and an immediate supervisor I have also taken part in leadership training and HEI mentoring programmes, as both a mentee and a mentor. My favourite type of professional development, however, is conducting, publishing and presenting research on university teaching and learning.

4.2

Higher Education Research as Professional Development

Does one need to be an active researcher in higher education to be an effective teacher in higher education? It is a tricky question because if you can teach at a university without any teaching qualifications, is your teaching career still reliant on conducting research? On the other hand, if you have teaching qualifications but have no time or interest in conducting research, are you still a ‘legitimate’ teacher in higher education? (cf. Ashwin, 2020b). Still, research-based teaching is vital for universities so that the teaching, knowledge and information conveyed are current, up-to-date and suitable for the synthesis of new information (Mitten & Ross, 2018). If one wishes to research higher education, there are various approaches and areas from which to choose, including teaching and learning. For instance, Tight (2012) has divided potential university and higher education research focuses into eight areas, as shown in Table 4.1. Many scholars study their own field of expertise but not necessarily their teaching and learning. On the other hand, many scholars who research teaching and learning

48

4

Professional Development for Inspired and Inspiring Teaching

Table 4.1 Eight focus areas for higher education research (based on Tight, 2012) Research area Teaching and learning Course design The student experience Quality System policy

Institutional management Academic work Knowledge and research

Potential research targets or subjects Approaches to teaching and learning // Teaching methods and experiments // Learning methods, tasks and assignments // Pedagogical theories and models for teaching and learning Assessment methods // Learning outcomes // Application of teaching technology // Various course implementations // Skill development Student perceptions and satisfaction // Course evaluations // Motivation // Diversity issues // Supervision of studies and theses // Work relevance // Student engagement and completion of degrees Qualifications and standards // Quality measures // Accreditation // Evaluation methods // Auditing National policies // HEI-specific policies // Changes to HEI operation and structure // Economic structures and resourcing // Globalization // Changes to student enrolment Institutional administration and management // Management systems // HEI autonomy Academic career development // Professional identity // Professional development // Well-being at work Discipline-specific differences // Knowledge structures of disciplines

can have very limited teaching practice. Still, research on teaching can lead to more effective teaching, more research opportunities, and more opportunities for tenure and promotion. Pedagogical research would be essential for teachers’ professional development, especially in HEIs. Conducting pedagogical research to assess your own teaching provides indicators of effectiveness and allows you to check for student understanding (Gurung & Schwartz, 2009). Moore et al. (2007) have also argued that regular writing for professional or research purposes will also enrich teaching and help develop career progression. Further, and unfortunately, grants for research purposes can be easier to acquire than grants for teaching development (Bain, 2004), although many HEIs today have their own support systems for teaching development projects. Most teachers in higher education conduct so-called practitioner research which Menter et al. (2011, p. 3) have defined as “systematic enquiry in an educational setting carried out by someone in that setting, the outcomes of which are shared with other practitioners.” Therefore practitioner research can apply to any type of enquiry of the teacher’s own practice, views, and experiences to, for instance, develop current practice, affect policies, and pursue new qualifications. Finn (2016) has claimed practitioners are the next generation of researchers. Action research is perhaps the most common methodology for practitioner research and is widely applied in education, whereby a pedagogical issue is uncovered and through research, the issue is explored, and suitable action is taken to rectify it (Norton, 2018). When action research or other approaches are performed by the teacher on their own HEI, and the results can benefit the practices of the HEI, it can be referred to as insider research (Sikes & Potts, 2008; Trowler, 2016).

4.2 Higher Education Research as Professional Development

49

In addition to exploring one’s own teaching habits and actions, Hoidn and Reusser (2020) mention that at least four types of empirical education research can have an impact on students and their achievements. These are: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Research on conceptions of teaching, Research on classroom teaching, Phenomenographic research into the nature of student learning, and Research on self-regulated and self-motivated learning.

Over the past 20 years and more intensively in the last decade years, I have conducted pedagogical research on a variety of higher education topics, ranging from recognition of prior learning (Heinonen & Tuomainen, 2020; Tuomainen, 2014, 2017a, 2018a) to student perceptions of teaching (Tuomainen, 2019, 2021, 2023), student anxiety and learning difficulties (Tuomainen, 2017c), pedagogical and English-medium instruction training for university lecturers (Tuomainen, 2018b, 2022a), online and blended learning (Tuomainen, 2016), and reflection and self-analysis as tools for students’ learning (Tuomainen, 2017b, 2022b). I have enjoyed researching a variety of higher education topics on teaching and learning, rather than focussing on one main area of expertise. This is in no small part because most of my research is strongly connected to my teaching and my students. In essence, every course, every new development or a new method is potentially a chance to create research. At least for me, if I can create a new course, I will actively seek opportunities for research questions, methods and data within the course implementation, either already in the planning phase, during the course, or following the course when looking at the student feedback. With the abovementioned research topics, most of my data come in collaboration with students. I am interested in developing my courses, assessment, feedback process or recognition of prior learning processes through the student perspective since all the content and approaches should serve the end-user, the student. I am sure many teachers at any educational level have begun their research careers with student feedback as it is the most commonly collected evidence on teaching and learning. If you have never thought of pedagogical research, student feedback is a great place to start. Asking students for their views and opinions on your course or teaching in general, or with a more specific focus, and asking permission to utilise the answers anonymously as research data is an easy entry into research. With more experience the research methods, data and analyses can become more creative and more advanced, but it is useful to keep your own interests and preferred methods in mind so that the research remains enjoyable and does not become a stress factor. Another convenient entry into pedagogical research is a collaboration with a colleague or several. By sharing ideas, brainstorming together and planning the research approach together, the burden is easily shared and halved. In fact, for many teachers, the collaboration and the resulting paper, article, presentation or workshop are great ways to generate new materials for courses, test new approaches, and to create good-quality pedagogical and professional development. These will all look good in the CV or list of publications, also for career advancement opportunities.

50

4

Professional Development for Inspired and Inspiring Teaching

Rust and Meyers (2006) have summarised well the overall function of teacher research, action research or practitioner research and its connection to the scholarship of teaching, teachers’ professional development and its role in the next theme in this chapter, reflective practice, by stating that research is “[an] essential activity of a reflective teacher, as a viable means for teachers to question the impact of their practice on student achievement and as a way of bringing teachers’ voices into the discourse around education policy” (p. 73).

4.3

Importance of Reflective Practice

According to Nicholls (2001), the three elements of professional development in higher education are professional knowledge base, competence in professional activities and the development of reflection. For Brookfield (2017), critical reflection is the “sustained and intentional process of identifying and checking the accuracy and validity of our teaching assumptions” (p. 3). Reflection in the best scenario enables identifying problem areas, making revisions, altering teaching methods and reflecting on student outcomes (Blumberg, 2013). Student feedback may be the most concrete or frequent method through which reflection takes place for most teachers. Through collecting and assessing student feedback, you can recognise the impact student feedback may have on you, interpret the feedback in a sensible, reasonable, positive and action-oriented manner, and utilise it to enhance your own teaching and the students’ learning (cf. Moore et al., 2007). However, reflection as a concept is multifaceted and in no small part because of its extensive history in philosophy and education. The concept of reflection as part of learning can be seen to date back to John Dewey, one of the most influential education psychologists, who already in the 1930s signalled that reflection and reflective thinking involved searching, hunting and inquiring materials that will resolve a problem (Dewey, 1933). In Dewey’s view, reflective thinking fosters open-mindedness, wholeheartedness and facing consequences, all goals to aspire to in any profession. Dewey also maintained that education in general helps people acquire habits of reflection so they can engage in intelligent action; to plan, to act and to know why the said action takes place. For Dewey, it was particularly important for teachers to reflect on their practices to act deliberately and intentionally as the teacher’s work is complex and requires proactive and learner-centred reflective practices. In the 1980s, Donald Schön (1983, 1987) also highlighted the importance of the reflective practitioner, detailing reflecting in action and reflecting on action. In the former, a teacher or any practitioner can reflect as the situation unfolds, making quick decisions and changing the action as it takes place. In the latter, on the other hand, the practitioner is viewing back to what took place, what could have been done differently, what to do if it happens again, examining theories and seeking advice from others. Thus professionals can enhance their practice as they engage in it, creating practice experience, professional knowledge and even excellence.

4.4 Pedagogical Education and Training

51

Also in the 1980s, David A. Kolb (1984) focused on experiential learning, learning from experiences and reflecting on those situations. For Kolb, reflection can act as a connection between theoretical concepts and practical experiences. For instance, higher education teachers engaged in professional reflection can contemplate their actions or work against the knowledge or perceptions they already hold. Essentially this makes reflection strongly related to prior learning since through reflection we can utilise our previous experiences and knowledge to process and synthesise new information. Hence reflection as part of learning in higher education is very much also connected to lifelong learning and self-directed/self-regulated learning (Loyens et al., 2008). Learning in various stages of life, for both the teacher and the students, through various modes of learning can be seen to encourage meta-cognitive competencies such as self-reflection and self-evaluation (Boud, 1995). This is because reflection can be connected to any time, place or activity in which the learner perceives information, processes it and understands its meaning, and implications, internal or external. Since learning can take place in a variety of levels, reflection also functions in various levels such as more impersonally related to the learning content, context, the learning environment or methods, or more personally related to personal feelings or one’s personal role in the learning process. As a result, reflection is not only a rational or intellectual process but also emotional (Tuomainen, 2022b). Tennant et al. (2009) also claim that teaching expertise development through reflective (or reflexive) practice should recognise personal and social change. Reflection can be a powerful tool for university teachers to develop professionally and personally (Pekkarinen et al., 2023). For reflection to function as an impactful part of professional development, it must incite a contemplation where the teacher seeks answers to the perceptions or emotions experienced in the work of a teacher. Therefore our emotional and intellectual identities as teachers are in fact key to reflective teaching practices (Ashwin, 2020a).

4.4

Pedagogical Education and Training

Effective teachers can blend their content knowledge, pedagogy and knowledge of their students’ learning styles (Stronge, 2018). Achieving this without any pedagogical training can be very difficult or at least take years to accomplish. Many HEIs around Europe arrange pedagogical training for their teaching staff and some HEIs have also made it mandatory (Ödalen et al., 2019). When pedagogical training is viewed as an integral part of the professionalism of higher education, the role of scholarship and training becomes heightened. Further, teachers with formal pedagogical preparation have been known to have a more positive effect on student support and achievement (Stronge, 2018). However, if you do not enjoy teaching, you are also probably not going to spend time and resources to develop yourself as a pedagogical professional. One of the main issues with pedagogical training in higher education is that the courses are

52

4

Professional Development for Inspired and Inspiring Teaching

often attended by those who already enjoy teaching and are relatively good at it. Instead, those staff members who would need more attention to their teaching skills will avoid pedagogical training; especially since said training often includes talking to others about teaching, watching other people teach and getting peers to watch you teach (Moore et al., 2007; Stewart, 2014). Some of the most effective ways to learn to teach are applied in pedagogical training, including self-evaluation and peer observations. In Finland, pedagogical training for university teachers has been organized since the 1990s, although it is still generally voluntary and fragmented (Jyrhämä, 2021; Laiho et al., 2022). 10 universities out of the 13 in Finland do provide 60 ECTS of teacher’s pedagogical training, and all universities provide some type of university pedagogy courses for their teaching staff (Alaniska & Maikkola, 2020). Also, courses provided in English have increased in recent years, offered either to international staff or to all who teach in English. Previously, in the context of Finnish universities, Postareff et al. (2007) and Vilppu et al. (2019) have found that pedagogical training increases the studentcenteredness of lecturers but approaches to teaching change more slowly. Murtonen and Vilppu (2020) have also found that pedagogical training helps teachers identify teaching as a skill that needs to be developed, and not just as an innate quality or trait. In most programmes, there is a significant recognition of pedagogical thinking and identity by the teachers, developed often through both reflection and practical training (Pekkarinen & Hirsto, 2017; Pekkarinen et al., 2023). In previous years, teachers in Finnish universities have regretted the lack of pedagogical education or wished for it at the beginning of their teaching careers (Korhonen & Törmä, 2016) so there is an increased need and demand for more pedagogical training for higher education teachers. I have been fortunate to have completed a larger 60 ECTS programme of subject teacher education fairly early in my career. Therefore I have not been forced or asked to complete university pedagogy studies, yet I have taken part in some. To my pleasure, I have also been asked to teach a course as part of the university pedagogy training in English at my university, providing an opportunity to communicate and collaborate with teaching staff from various faculties and disciplines, itself a richness and also a chance to reflect on my own teaching and teaching practice.

4.5

Supporting Peers Through Pedagogical Development and Leadership

In pedagogical leadership, the core mission is arguably quality education and creating new opportunities for teaching and learning (Hoidn, 2020). Hoidn also maintains that measures to improve education should include internal and external quality assurance, empirical research about teaching and learning, recognising teaching excellence, and using teaching and learning analytics; very similar to issues already discussed in this book.

4.5 Supporting Peers Through Pedagogical Development and Leadership

53

An important part of pedagogical leadership, on an institutional level and individual level, is also mentoring both students and colleagues or guiding the peer mentoring of students or colleagues (e.g. Dorner et al., 2020; Tynjälä et al., 2019). In addition, being active in university working groups, committees and task forces will allow you new perspectives on what goes on at the university as a whole. Being aware of and active in the entire HEI community will allow you to set academic and career goals, share expertise, and essentially be a role model (Jahangiri & Mucciolo, 2012). Pleschová et al. (2012) offer advice to those who wish to develop themselves professionally as active participants and stakeholders of the higher education community. These actions and activities, which can be part of official duties or undertaken voluntarily, are summarised in Table 4.2. If a teacher is an active participant in some of the previous 10 activities, they would arguably be an asset to the HEI. Undertaking more or all of the tasks will indicate a commitment to not only your own professional development but also to the development of the HEI. Surely a merit in any situation. Sharing your expertise and being a visible part of teaching at your HEI will provide increasing opportunities to create and influence policy decisions important to the development of teaching. Further, sharing your experiences of professional development will also help encourage your teacher peers to take part and thus contribute to the overall professional and pedagogical development of your unit, department, or university (also in Riivari et al., 2020). Table 4.2 Activities and actions for teachers’ professional development 1. Teaching courses and workshops for teachers 2. Consulting teachers regularly on various issues 3. Participating in curriculum development 4. Administering funds for teaching 5. Conducting research on teaching and learning 6. Arranging conferences 7. Assessing pedagogical merits in recruitment 8. Contributing to evaluation and auditing processes 9. Aiding in policy development 10. Securing professional development

These can include pedagogical training and/or university pedagogy courses From grassroots teaching to higher education policy In one’s own department and on a wider scale at the HEI If in an administerial or managerial leadership role To support research-based teaching and increase visibility and networking To indicate networking, (international) cooperation and project management skills To indicate a willingness to support high-quality teaching practices and recruitment at the HEI Taking part in which increases knowledge of higher education policies, and increases networking opportunities This can take place on a department level but more commonly on an institution-level or national level This will allow you to increase your expertise, share your expertise and knowledge, and be invited to more exciting and influential opportunities

Adapted from Pleschová et al. (2012)

54

4

Professional Development for Inspired and Inspiring Teaching

To further help you identify, list and show your teaching and pedagogical accomplishments for various purposes (e.g. applications, recruitment, recognition, salary, awards), Krause (2021) has listed six strategies for documenting teaching achievements to showcase quality in teaching and to assist any advancements in teaching positions. These qualities will also help develop pedagogical leadership. • • • • • •

Have a clear teaching philosophy, Keep a systematic record of teaching, courses, leadership and service, Describe how student-centredness is visible and applied in your teaching, Implement and list examples of scholarship in learning and teaching, List innovations and developments in teaching, and Describe leadership in teaching and learning. Recommended Reading Ashwin, P. (2020). Reflective teaching in higher education (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury. Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Jossey-Bass. Cousin, G. (2008). Researching learning in higher education. Routledge. Norton, L. (2018). Action research in teaching and learning: A practical guide to conducting pedagogical research in universities (2nd ed.). Routledge. Tight, M. (2012). Researching higher education (2nd ed.). Open University Press.

References Alaniska, H., & Maikkola, M. (2020). Korkeakoulujen pedagoginen koulutus [Pedagogical training at higher education institutions]. Yliopistopedagogiikka, 27(1). https://lehti. yliopistopedagogiikka.fi/2020/12/30/korkeakoulujen-pedagoginen-koulutus/ Ashwin, P. (2020a). Reflective teaching in higher education (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury. Ashwin, P. (2020b). Transforming university education: A manifesto. Bloomsbury. https://doi.org/ 10.5040/9781350157279 Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Harvard University Press. Blumberg, P. (2013). Assessing and improving your teaching: Strategies and rubrics for faculty growth and student learning. Wiley. Boud, D. (1995). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. Kogan Page. https://doi.org/10. 4324/9781315041520 Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. https://www.umces.edu/sites/default/files/al/pdfs/ BoyerScholarshipReconsidered.pdf Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. D.C. Heath & Co Publishers. Dorner, H., Misic, G., & Rymarenko, M. (2020). Online mentoring for academic practice: Strategies, implications, and innovations. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1483(1), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14301

References

55

Ellis, R. (2018). Quality assurance for university teaching: Issues and approaches. In R. Ellis & E. Hogard (Eds.), Handbook of quality assurance for university teaching (pp. 3–18). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315187518 Finn, J. W. (2016). Cultivating a culture of practitioner research in university lifelong learning. In J. Field, B. Schmidt-Hertha, & A. Waxenegger (Eds.), Universities and engagement: International perspectives on higher education and lifelong learning (pp. 13–23). Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9781315740669 Gurung, R. A. R., & Schwartz, B. A. (2009). Optimizing teaching and learning: Practicing pedagogical research. Wiley. Hanbury, A., Prosser, M., & Rickinson, M. (2008). The differential impact of UK accredited teaching development programmes on academics’ approaches to teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 33(4), 469–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802211844 Hativa, N. (2000). Teaching for effective learning in higher education. Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0902-7 Heinonen, A., & Tuomainen, S. (2020). Enhancing recognition of prior learning with digitalisation. Language Learning in Higher Education, 10(2), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles2020-2027 Hoidn, S. (2020). Usable knowledge – Policy and practice implications for student-centered higher education. In S. Hoidn & M. Klemenčič (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of student-centered learning and teaching in higher education (pp. 645–649). Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9780429259371 Hoidn, S., & Reusser, K. (2020). Foundations of student-centered learning and teaching. In S. Hoidn & M. Klemenčič (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of student-centered learning and teaching in higher education (pp. 17–46). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9780429259371 Jahangiri, L., & Mucciolo, T. (2012). A guide to better teaching: Skills, advice, and evaluation for college and university professors. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Jyrhämä, R. (2021). Opettajan pedagogiset opinnot 60 op: Laaja-alainen opettajakelpoisuus – tilannekuvaus 2021 [Teacher’s pedagogical studies 60 credits: Broad-based studies for teacher qualification – situation description 2021]. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja 41. https:// julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/163554 Kola-Torvinen, P., & Kumpulainen, T. (2020). Opettajien osallistuminen jatko- ja täydennyskoulutukseen, asiantuntijavaihtoon sekä työelämäjaksoille [Teachers’ participation in continuing professional development, mobility and working life periods]. In Opetushallitus (Ed.), Opettajat ja rehtorit Suomessa 2019 (pp. 7–19). Raportit ja selvitykset 2020:21. https:// www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/opettajat_ja_rehtorit_suomessa_2019_opettajien_ o sa l l i s t u m i n e n _ ja t k o _ j a _t a y d e n n y sk o ul ut u k s e e n _ a s i a n t u n t i j a v a i ht o on _ s e k a _ tyoelamajaksoille.pdf Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. Korhonen, V., & Törmä, S. (2016). Engagement with a teaching career – How a group of Finnish university teachers experience teacher identity and professional growth. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2014.895301 Krause, K. L. (2021). A quality approach to university teaching. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.), University teaching in focus: A learning-centred approach (pp. 235–252). Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9781003008330 Laiho, A., Jauhiainen, A., & Jauhiainen, A. (2022). Being a teacher in a managerial university: Academic teacher identity. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(2), 249–266. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13562517.2020.1716711 Loyens, S. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9082-7

56

4

Professional Development for Inspired and Inspiring Teaching

Maaranen, K., & Stenberg, K. (2021). Teacher effectiveness in Finland: Effectiveness in Finnish schools. In L. W. Grant, J. M. Stronge, & X. Xu (Eds.), International beliefs and practices that characterize teacher effectiveness (pp. 125–147). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-17998-7908-4 McCarthy, M. (2020). The scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). In S. Marshall (Ed.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice (5th ed., pp. 165–176). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429259500 Menter, I., Elliot, D., Hulme, M., Lewin, J., & Lowden, K. (2011). A guide to practitioner research in education. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957770 Mitten, C., & Ross, D. (2018). Sustaining a commitment to teaching in a research-intensive university: What we learn from award-winning faculty. Studies in Higher Education, 43(8), 1348–1361. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1255880 Moore, S., Walsh, G., & Risquez, A. (2007). Teaching at college and university: Effective strategies and principles. McGraw-Hill Education. Murtonen, M., & Vilppu, H. (2020). Change in university pedagogical culture – The impact of increased pedagogical training on first teaching experiences. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(3), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.3.20 Nicholls, G. (2001). Professional development in higher education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10. 4324/9781315042336 Pekkarinen, V., & Hirsto, L. (2017). University lecturers’ experiences of and reflections on the development of their pedagogical competency. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61(6), 735–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1188148 Pekkarinen, V., Hirsto, L., & Nevgi, A. (2023). Emotions and social reflection in being and developing as a university teacher. Cogent Education, 10(1), 2169435. https://doi.org/10. 1080/2331186X.2023.2169435 Pleschová, G., Simon, E., Quinlan, K. M., Murphy, J., & Roxa, T. (2012). The professionalisation of academics as teachers in higher education. Science position paper. European Science Foundation. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/60324/1/Pleschova%2C%20G%20et%20al%202012%20 Professionalisation%20of%20academics%20as%20teachers%20in%20higher%20 education.pdf Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 557–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tate.2006.11.013 Riivari, E., Malin, V., Jääskelä, P., & Lukkari, T. (2020). University as a workplace: Searching for meaningful work. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(3), 286–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13562517.2018.1563061 Rust, F., & Meyers, E. (2006). The bright side: Teacher research in the context of educational reform and policy-making. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12(1), 69–86. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13450600500365452 Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass. Sikes, P., & Potts, A. (Eds.). (2008). Researching education from the inside: Investigations from within. Routledge. Stewart, M. (2014). Making sense of a teaching programme for university academics: Exploring the longer-term effects. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate. 2013.11.006 Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers (3rd ed.). ASCD. https://files.ascd.org/ staticfiles/ascd/pdf/siteASCD/publications/books/QualitiesOfEffectiveTeachers3rdEd_ Stronge_0318.pdf Tennant, M., McMullen, C., & Kaczynski, D. (2009). Teaching, learning and research in higher education: A critical approach. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203875919 Tight, M. (2012). Researching higher education (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

References

57

Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J., & Prosser, M. (2000). Scholarship of teaching: A model. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 072943600445628 Trowler, P. (2016). Doing insider research in universities. CreateSpace. Tuomainen, S. (2014). Using exemption examinations to assess Finnish business students’ non-formal and informal learning of ESP: A pilot study. Language Learning in Higher Education, 4(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2014-0003 Tuomainen, S. (2016). A blended learning approach to academic writing and presentation skills. International Journal on Language, Literature and Culture in Education, 3(2), 33–55. https:// doi.org/10.1515/llce-2016-0009 Tuomainen, S. (2017a). Recognition of prior learning and blended learning as methods of motivating university students of Natural Sciences. In New perspectives in science education 2017 conference proceedings (pp. 221–224). https://conference.pixel-online.net/NPSE/files/ npse/ed0006/FP/3302-ESM2119-FP-NPSE6.pdf Tuomainen, S. (2017b). Role of reflection in blended learning language courses in higher education. In 16th European conference on e-learning conference proceedings (pp. 520–526). https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/320701944_Role_of_Reflection_in_Blended_Learning_Lan guage_Courses_in_Higher_Education Tuomainen, S. (2017c). Student anxiety and learning difficulties in academic English courses. In ECLL17 the European conference on language learning conference proceedings. http://papers. iafor.org/papers/ecll2017/ECLL2017_35207.pdf Tuomainen, S. (2018a). Examination as the method in the recognition of prior language learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 37(6), 676–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02601370.2018.1518346 Tuomainen, S. (2018b). Supporting non-native university lecturers with English-medium instruction. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 10(3), 230–242. https://doi.org/10. 1108/JARHE-03-2017-0022 Tuomainen, S. (2019). Pedagogy or personal qualities? University students’ perceptions of teaching quality. American Journal of Education and Learning, 4(1), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.20448/ 804.4.1.117.134 Tuomainen, S. (2021). Examination as the method in the recognition of prior language learning. Nursing Education, Research, & Practice, 11(2), 32–37. https://nerp.lsmuni.lt/academicenglish-reading-skills-to-support-finnish-nursing-science-students Tuomainen, S. (2022a). University lecturers’ perceptions of the role of English in their teaching. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 16(1), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.47862/apples. 107857 Tuomainen, S. (2022b). Using reflection and self-analysis to develop university students’ presentation skills. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 16(1), 76–90. https://journal.aall.org. au/index.php/jall/article/view/831 Tuomainen, S. (2023). University students’ perceptions of teaching quality before and after the Covid-19 pandemic. European Journal of Education Studies, 10(7), 37–60. https://doi.org/10. 46827/ejes.v10i7.4863 Tynjälä, P., Pennanen, M., Markkanen, I., & Heikkinen, H. L. (2019). Finnish model of peer-group mentoring: Review of research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1483(1), 208–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14296 Vilppu, H., Södervik, I., Postareff, L., & Murtonen, M. (2019). The effect of short online pedagogical training on university teachers’ interpretations of teaching-learning situations. Instructional Science, 47(6), 679–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09496-z Ödalen, J., Brommesson, D., Erlingsson, G. Ó., Schaffer, J. K., & Fogelgren, M. (2019). Teaching university teachers to become better teachers: The effects of pedagogical training courses at six Swedish universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(2), 339–353. https://doi. org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1512955

5

Student-Centred Teaching to Support Learning

Abstract

This chapter continues from the previous one by exploring theories on learning, various learning styles, recognition of students’ prior learning and actively engaging students to support their learning through student-centred teaching. In one of my studies on teaching quality students highlighted the learning environment, the location, the group and the teacher. This is an interesting premise for good teaching as it connects the teacher, the individual student, the student group and the location and the various learning environments in which teaching and learning take place in higher education. The chapter also further explores the notion proposed by some scholars that students in higher education may not require particularly effective teaching as adults they are responsible for their own learning and studying. Still, other studies show that effective, compassionate, skilled and humanistic teachers will leave their mark on students. Keywords

Student-centred teaching · Learning theories · Learning styles · Recognition of prior learning · Case example

Teaching involves developing an understanding of one’s students, and the challenges that they face as learners. If one does not understand what will inspire or intrigue one’s students, then one’s teaching will be lacklustre. (Kahn, 2016, p. 164)

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Tuomainen, Supporting Students through High-Quality Teaching, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39844-5_5

59

60

5.1

5

Student-Centred Teaching to Support Learning

Student-Centred Teaching and Learning

Often when academics begin to teach, they view themselves primarily as experts in their discipline. This can lead to more content-oriented conceptions of teaching whereby the content and subject knowledge are key, and students are responsible for their own learning. However, it is essential to recognise the difference between transferring knowledge and promoting student learning. The implementation of this requires adopting modes of teaching that entail active student engagement and student-centred teaching practices. Klemenčič and Hoidn (2020) have defined student-centred learning and teaching (SCLT) as teaching that includes the following elements: • Curriculum with explicit learning outcomes, • Learning outcomes with a focus on the student, • Pedagogy implemented for a variety of learning styles, including inquiry-based learning, service-learning, collaborative and peer-to-peer learning, differentiated instruction practices and technology-enhanced learning, and • Multifaceted assessment, with feedback on various assignments. Essentially, student-centred teaching and learning include a fundamental shift from a teacher-led or teacher-centred approach to the concept of the teacher as a facilitator and guide of the students’ learning (Hoidn, 2020). Students naturally must also take responsibility for their own learning as they know what is expected of them, and this meaningful engagement towards learning is encouraged through discipline-specific content and knowledge. The requirements are set through the explicit learning outcomes which encourage deeper learning. The teacher’s responsibility in this process then is to create a supportive climate of thinking, dialogue and cooperation, including scaffolding and engaging students to be co-designers of their education.

5.2

Learning Theories to Support Students

To understand and support students’ various learning styles, it is useful to be aware of some of the most common theories on learning. These include behaviourism, cognitive learning, constructivism (including cognitive and social constructivism), transformative learning, self-directed learning and experiential learning. Behaviourism, for instance, assumes that people learn behaviour through patterns of reinforcement or, less pleasantly, punishments (Skinner, 1976). If the focus is on the positive, behavioural learning theory can help to motivate and help students, especially through repetition and consistent positive reinforcement. Motivation is another important element in behavioural learning, supported through positive (and negative) reinforcement (Woollard, 2010). Essentially with this approach students learn best through practice and actively engaging in learning tasks, and success in these tasks is considered having a reinforcing effect (Groccia et al., 2014). However,

5.2 Learning Theories to Support Students

61

behaviourism may work better with younger pupils and students compared to adult students in higher education. Constructivism is another significant learning theory, based on the principle that individuals create their own knowledge and experiences as reality (Null, 2004). Therefore learning is a unique process for everyone and relies heavily on building new knowledge on previously learned knowledge. This type of approach is essential in student-centred teaching as it forces the teacher to recognise that all students learn in different ways and are reliant also on their previous knowledge of various subjects. Therefore students’ unique experiences and backgrounds also heavily influence how they learn (Kroll, 2004). Some of the main principles of constructivism include the following elements (Groccia et al., 2014), as illustrated in Fig. 5.1. As a subset of constructivism, cognitive constructivism connects learning to the learner’s stage of cognitive development. Championed by Jean Piaget, with this approach new information is connected to existing knowledge so that modifications can be made to accommodate the new information (Piaget, 1964). Social constructivism, on the other hand, focuses on the collaborative nature of learning. Instigated by Lev Vygotsky, social constructivism has a close connection to cognitive constructivism but with the added elements of peer and societal influence. Knowledge is thought to develop from interaction with people, culture and society, and in learning, students collaborate to construct their own knowledge and reality (Vygotsky, 1978). Behaviourism, cognitive constructivism and social constructivism can be summarised in Table 5.1 for their approaches to teaching and learning. Based on cognitivist learning theory, Benjamin Bloom and colleagues in the 1950s created a taxonomy of learning whereby knowledge was seen to develop

Knowledge is constructed upon other knowledge, experiences, beliefs, and insight. Learning is both contextual (supported by all events around us and our identities), and personal (based on individual beliefs and experiences).

1.As students learn, they process new information and acquire learning skills. Learning is an active process, not passive, and students need to be engaged in learning through discussions, reading, and other activities.

1.Learning is a social activity, influenced by e.g. teachers, family, peers, and new connections. The role of informal learning and social interaction in are highlighted in learning, such as conversations, interactions, and group activities.

1.Motivation is key to learning, and teachers need to engage and motivate learners to accept new learning and not be held back in their previous experiences.

Fig. 5.1 Main principles of learning in constructivism. (Adapted from Groccia et al., 2014)

62

5

Student-Centred Teaching to Support Learning

Table 5.1 Main tenets of behaviourism and cognitive and social constructivism Knowledge

Teaching

Learning

Behaviourism Knowledge is based on behavioural responses to external stimuli Teacher provides the correct behavioural responses Learning through repetition and positive reinforcement

Cognitive constructivism Knowledge is actively constructed by learners, based on previously created cognitive structures

Social constructivism Knowledge is constructed in social contexts and interactions

Teacher facilitates learning, promotes discovery and accommodation of new information New information accommodated by learners to their existing cognitive structures

Teacher facilitates collaborative learning and group work Collaborative accommodation of new information through a joint knowledge community

through various levels of expertise (Bloom, 1956). This is still commonly referred to as Bloom’s taxonomy. The six stages of Bloom’s taxonomy are knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, evaluation, and create. They are essentially cognitive abilities and are still used widely for describing learning outcomes in practical terms for higher education curricula, courses and learning outcomes (Davis & Arend, 2013). Examples of verbs and outcomes connected to Bloom’s six stages of taxonomy include expressions such as: 1. Knowledge: After the course, the student will be able to define/outline/name. . . 2. Comprehension: By the end of the module, the student will be able to explain/ recognise/discuss. . . 3. Application: After completing this course, the student will be able to use/demonstrate/show. . . 4. Analysis: By the end of this class, the student will be able to illustrate/analyse/ compare. . . 5. Evaluation: After successfully completing this module, the student will be able to explain/assess/appraise. . . 6. Create: By the end of the course, the student will be able to develop/create/ compose. . . In the 1970s Jack Mezirow focussed on transformative learning, designed particularly for adult learning. This approach aimed to change the way students think about themselves and the world around them through new knowledge. In transformative learning learners’ existing assumptions and principles are challenged through dilemmas and situations, and they must apply critical thinking to learn and make rational realisations about themselves (Mezirow, 1991). The 1970s also saw the emergence of self-directed learning through Malcolm Knowles. In the approach still thriving today, learners take initiative in their own individual learning so that they plan, carry out, and evaluate their learning experiences without others, often applied in adult learning processes (Knowles, 1975).

5.3 Applying Learning Theories to Teaching and Learning

63

Experiential learning is another adult learning theory that highlights the role of lifelong and lifewide learning and the various non-formal and informal learning environments adult students encounter. Created by David Kolb in the 1970s, the theory maintains adults are shaped by their experiences and create their realities through those experiences. Learning is often more practical, hands-on and reflective and applies past experiences to learn and understand new information and situations (Kolb, 1976, 1984). Another learning theory strongly connected to student-centred teaching is humanistic psychology, mostly contributed to Carl Rogers (1967, 1983). The humanistic approach emphasises a holistic approach to teaching and learning whereby cognitive and emotional processes are equally significant. Rogers (1967) also connected teaching and learning to human qualities such as personal freedom, choice and subjectiveness, and this also meant the role of the teacher was altered to a facilitator of learning, with a human, open approach to students and emphasising good teacherstudent relationships.

5.3

Applying Learning Theories to Teaching and Learning

Understanding theories of learning can help to determine how you want to teach, and, perhaps more importantly, to understand how your students may learn. Most teachers will not adhere to one learning theory but apply many for various functions and purposes. Also, the issue is not to know learning theories as information but to apply them to recognise how students learn and to be able to support those varied learning processes. After all, Prosser and Trigwell (1999) have maintained that good teaching requires: • • • • •

Awareness of the contextual dependency of learning and teaching, Awareness of student diversity, Awareness of students’ perceptions of teaching, Continuous awareness of students’ learning situations, and Continuing efforts to evaluate teaching for improved learning.

Some practical ways in which the aforementioned learning theories can be applied into teaching situations include the following (e.g. Ertmer & Newby, 2013; Fosnot, 2005): Behaviourism 1. Question and answer practice, where the questions, gradually increasing in difficulty, are a stimulus and the answers the response. 2. Guided practice of going through problems or students’ concerns, to provide reinforcement and support. 3. Practicing skills and learning with students using drills, whereby repetition and reinforcement help students learn and remember through patterns.

64

5

Student-Centred Teaching to Support Learning

4. Reviews of content and materials to assist in students retaining the information again through positive reinforcement. 5. Regular positive reinforcement directed at your students, using written and verbal praise (and correction) and reward systems if suitable (including collecting points). Constructivism 1. Inviting students’ questions and interests, building content and knowledge on students’ prior knowledge. 2. Interactive and collaborative learning activities, tasks and assignments. 3. Extensive use of group and pair work. 4. Inviting students to build their own understanding of the concepts and knowledge through inquiry and interaction, including projects, papers and presentations. 5. Creating (when possible) interdisciplinary materials and learning tasks. My own pedagogical thinking is very learner- and student-centred and humanistic. The basis of my own teaching and also the basis of my research is often pragmatism (e.g. Bacon, 2012), through which I have the desire to develop my own teaching and practices through practical experiments and research. I often also rely on social constructivism, whose principles support learning, engage learners and encourage the creation of learning environments that support meaningful experiences, both in face-to-face and distance learning. Social constructivism is also widely applied by many Finnish teachers, from primary school to higher education (English et al., 2022). Dewey’s and Kolb’s ideas about the importance of reflection and experiential learning also support my teaching and views on students’ optimal learning. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning together and as a community is also a central part of my teaching philosophy. I am a strong supporter of collaborative learning, and this can be seen in all my teaching, both face-to-face and online and blended learning. In my PhD dissertation (Tuomainen, 2015), I researched non-formal and informal language learning and students’ perceptions of field-specific language learning outside of formal education. I strongly believe that learning is the sum of various factors and environments and that the significance of non-formal and informal learning will further increase in basic education, secondary education and higher education. Particularly with adult students in higher education, we have to recognise the ever-changing modern society and its infinite sources of information and students’ previous and concurrent learning experiences as the basis on which to build new information. In higher education, we teach and work with adults, whether they are 18 years old, 68 years old or anywhere in between. Therefore, when students enter higher education, their preferred mode of learning in many respects has already been established, and it can be difficult for any teacher to make them acquire completely new ways of learning. Knowles et al. (2005) have indicated a model of adult learning

5.3 Applying Learning Theories to Teaching and Learning

65

whereby the learning process is influenced by the adult’s need and willingness to gain new knowledge, their readiness and motivation to learn, and their prior experience, as discussed earlier with learning theories. We cannot assume that all students will be fully motivated to study or learn 100% of the time, as they have had multiple reasons for enrolling into higher education studies. However, we can try to stimulate their motivation by ensuring that the content we teach is relevant, the students can connect materials to their previous learning, and they can obtain experiences and feelings of competence during their education. We should also try to encourage active participation and interaction, also from those students who are not the most vocal ones and apply positive reinforcement and practical problem-solving. After all, we can divide the dimensions of learning and meaning into intellectual, practical, social, and personal, as indicated by Light et al. (2009). This means the teacher is only a small part of the overall learning process, particularly for adult students. The learning process does involve teacher-provided support but also independent and self-directed and self-regulated learning by the student. Therefore, students’ prior experiences, their perceptions of the context, their approaches to and regulation of learning, and their learning outcomes all affect the learning experience (Ashwin, 2020). It is also natural for students to have resistance to learning (Brookfield, 2015) and it does not mean your failure as a teacher. To reach as many students as possible with their varieties of learning styles, we should always attempt to diversify our teaching methods to provide alternative ways to learn. Some may argue, as Collini (2012) has, that teaching has reduced importance in higher education as adults learn in a variety of environments and contexts, often outside the formal learning structures of the classroom or the lecture hall. However, rather than guess how your students may prefer to learn, you can ask, or provide choices so that all can find their preferred methods, including those in Fig. 5.2. As discussed earlier with learning theories, many adult students in higher education may prefer a hands-on learning style and practical applications of new knowledge and information. Therefore, if effective teachers focus less on having students memorise facts and information and more on their learning and applying that learning in practical terms (Stronge, 2018), surely this can be beneficial for students’ lifelong learning. For instance, Exley and Dennick (2009) have categorised various methods in teaching based on their effectiveness for factual and conceptual understanding, application and use, and problem-solving and evaluation. The most effective in all three categories was self-directed learning. Again, what is the role of the teacher in that equation? Yes, as Exley and Dennick (2009) posit, lecturing is effective for factual learning and small group teaching enhances problem-solving and evaluation, but we could argue that with adults, the teacher is only the facilitator, the motivator for learning. Ramsden (2003) maintains that to support students’ learning good teaching has to provide interest and explanation, indicate concern and respect for students and their learning, and include clear goals and intellectual challenges. These are a clear path towards helping students in

66

5

Student-Centred Teaching to Support Learning

Lectures Small group teaching

Flipped learning

Experiential learning

Practicals

Self-directed learning

Problem-based learning

E-learning

Computerassisted learning

Fig. 5.2 Variety of teaching methods for various learners

their learning process so that they can have independence and control but also enjoy the engagement that a successful teacher-student connection entails.

5.4

Recognising and Valuing Students’ Non-formal and Informal Learning

As we know, individuals gather various types of learning, skills, and competencies throughout their lifetime. Some of it comes from formal learning such as primary, secondary, and upper secondary school systems and HEIs. However, naturally individuals also gather learning from non-formal and informal learning environments; partly during their formal education but also outside of it. It is crucial that we also value and recognise the learning university students have acquired during their lifespan as part of their university education. Non-formal learning typically refers to all types of relatively organised but more flexible training organised outside of formal education (Cedefop, 2014). Because of the semi-organised nature of this learning, it is also often called non-formal education, rather than learning (Billett, 2010). Informal learning, on the other hand, covers all types of learning acquired at work and leisure, through many everyday activities (McGivney, 2006). For many students this could be knowledge and information acquired from TV, movies, the Internet or talking with friends and family, so informal learning is essentially “all human activities involving the potential for

5.4 Recognising and Valuing Students’ Non-formal and Informal Learning

67

learning, whether conscious or unconscious, intentional or incidental” (Tuomainen, 2015, p. 11). Related to non-formal and informal learning are also experiential learning and workplace learning which are common ways in which adult students in higher education have already learned content and possible match the provided learning outcomes for some of their university courses or modules. In recent decades many HEIs have also implemented processes to formally recognise the various learning acquired by students through recognising formal, non-formal and informal learning. Recognition of prior learning (RPL), or validation or accreditation, is therefore a concept and process in higher education to value and acknowledge all lifelong learning of an individual, acquired at any time, place or stage of life. Learning from all formal, non-formal or informal learning environments can therefore be assessed and validated for higher education studies. In addition to supporting lifelong learning, the processes of recognition and validation aim toward supporting students by providing more flexible approaches to studying, reducing overlapping education and increasing national and international mobility (Pokorny & Whittaker, 2014). However, it is useful to note that RPL processes do not concern all university teachers. Formal learning accreditation applications are usually handled by HEI administration and the validation processes for non-formal and informal learning are usually designated to certain teachers who have either experience or training or both to be assessors in the process (Werquin, 2010). Still, if RPL processes are organised transparently and effectively, they can be seen as learning- and student-centred actions that validate individual knowledge and skills and enhance students’ self-awareness and self-esteem (Hamer, 2013; UNESCO, 2012). This way RPL also supports diverse learners and educational social justice through widening access to higher education for new and non-traditional students (Cooper et al., 2017; Wong, 2014). Studies also show that RPL, whether accrediting formally completed studies or informally acquired learning, increases students’ satisfaction with their higher education studies, particularly if the process has been successful and results in accumulated credits (Mäkinen-Streng et al., 2017). The methods and practical arrangements of RPL should be suitable to and supportive of today’s diverse higher education student body. Various methods have been adopted in HEIs, ranging from summative testing and examinations to evidence-based methods such as portfolios, observations, simulations or work practices (Tuomainen, 2018). The key issue, as in any assessment of learning, is that the RPL processes and procedures are reliable, transparent, authentic and valid to ensure the reliability and validity of the system (Bohlinger, 2017; Halttunen & Koivisto, 2014). Many RPL policies and scholars in fact recommend using similar methods for RPL assessment as for the equivalent formal learning to ensure RPL is not made more demanding (e.g. Werquin, 2010). Evans (2006, p. 216) has called it “improper, dishonest and academically irresponsible” if more demanding methods or criteria are applied to RPL assessment compared to students in the corresponding formal learning course(s).

68

5

Student-Centred Teaching to Support Learning

Having been involved in the recognition and validation of informal learning at my university since 2010, I have seen the benefit of RPL, especially for its flexibility to allow students to proceed with their studies and complete their degrees. A student with, say, 20 years of work experience from their field of study, but no formal studies completed to apply for accreditation, can still have their informal and non-formal learning evaluated and recognised through RPL processes. The RPL exemption examination system in use at my department has been wellreceived by students for its flexibility and similarity to equivalent formal learning courses, resulting in the perceived fairness of the process (Tuomainen, 2014, 2018). More recently, efforts by my colleague and myself and to develop the system into a more digitalised version were also appreciated by students as it enabled even more flexibility regarding the time and place of the assessment (Heinonen & Tuomainen, 2020). However, for recognition of prior learning, particularly for non-formal and informal learning, to work properly and in the student’s interest, clear instructions, guidance and criteria must be available for students before enrolling in the process. This will deter any misconceptions about students’ prior learning as it should match the learning outcomes of each course or module. Also, questions to help students to assess their learning in connection with the learning outcomes is useful, if not necessary. At times students may have inflated beliefs about their own skills, resulting in disappointing results and disappointment in general in the RPL process. This can be avoided with clarity and transparency in every stage of the process, from the pre-registration information and guidance to the post-assessment feedback and reflection.

5.5

Engaging Students in the Learning Process

Student-centred teaching and learning aim at helping and supporting students to learn effectively but also to gain the most out of their education. Connecting with students is an essential part of student-centred teaching. Yes, as teachers we should be experts in our field but in addition to expertise, we should also have care, empathy and approachability (Jahangiri & Mucciolo, 2012). In so-called relational teaching, for instance, teachers are attentive and responsive; they welcome student contact and the chance to offer advice and feedback, leading to meaningful encounters both in the short term and in the long run (Schwartz, 2019). Race and Pickford (2007) have suggested that teachers should spend less time on lectures and marking and instead more time on individual formative feedback and getting to know students. In my view, these are words to live by. More attention should be paid to viewing students as individuals and addressing each student’s particular needs for effective learning and support. After all, for decades research has shown the importance of positive teacher-student relationships to enhance learning, promote motivation, and boost students’ self-confidence and their sense of belonging (e.g. Felten & Lambert, 2020; Frymier & Houser, 2000).

5.5 Engaging Students in the Learning Process

69

Engaging students in the learning process also means teachers get students to be partners and co-creators in the learning and teaching process and academic life (Woolmer et al., 2020). This can mean setting shared goals, shared decision-making practices, valuing the student perspective, and having reciprocal respect and responsibility (Bovill, 2020). Positive student-teacher interactions are strongly connected with increased student effort, greater overall student engagement in their studies and greater persistence and eventual graduation (Hoffman, 2014). Some scholars also subscribe to the notion of engaging students as partners in teaching, learning and active collaboration (e.g. Mercer-Mapstone et al., 2017). For students, this kind of ‘Students as Partners’ initiative has been reported to increase engagement, confidence, self-awareness and also their understanding of teachers’ experiences and trust between students and teaching staff (Matthews et al., 2018). You can also engage students to be part of the academic community and be responsible for their learning process, both individually and collectively. This could mean getting them involved in class work, in their assessment through peer and self-assessment, inviting them to take part in your research and in further development of your course(s). Nilson (2016) has listed various elements to engage students and to create those meaningful connections that can lead to better learning, better teaching and positive connection in higher education. As a to-do list, the items are categorised in Table 5.2. You can also actively promote a positive classroom climate also by encouraging a positive and supportive emotional climate, good interactions and rapport, and explicit wishes and expectations for students to succeed (Hativa, 2000). Building rapport does not happen overnight; instead, it is steps throughout your course, from the very beginning to the very end. Some rapport-building activities include, similarly as discussed before, recognising the person and the individual in various ways, supporting and Table 5.2 Elements to engage students during a course Pre-course

During the course

Towards the end of the course

Adapted from Nilson (2016)

Signal a safe learning environment Make the course personal by getting to know students and letting them know you Explain reasons for your material Deliver teaching content with enthusiasm and energy Make materials accessible Foster reciprocal communication, both inside and outside the classroom Use humour when appropriate Use examples and student-active methods Provide prompt and constant feedback, while accentuating the positive Give students opportunities to practice before assessed assignments Provide many and varied opportunities for grading Assess students on the learning outcomes, not random items Give positive feedback to encourage students Allow students some voice in course development

70

5

Student-Centred Teaching to Support Learning

monitoring students’ learning, well-being, aspirations and success, being readily available and quick to respond to inquiries, having a positive and supportive tone in your interactions with students, and being available also for non-academic conversations and interactions (Murphy & Rodriguez-Manzanarez, 2012). A focus on rapport to support learning does not mean that personality is placed ahead of the teaching content or substance. A student teacher I once supervised during her practical training noted that of the two teachers she observed, one had better content, but one had a better atmosphere, and she was not sure which one was a better teacher. Ideally, these two teachers would merge into one and expertise can be married with humanism for optimal results. Also, one does not need to have a bubbly or extroverted personality to have meaningful connections in teaching. Being an introvert by personality does not exclude good teaching or approachability with students, it may mean for instance the teacher does not fully enjoy large crowds all day, every day (such as myself). While some studies claim that extrovert teachers can be better at classroom management (Jalili & Mall-Amiri, 2015), introvert teachers have applied more reflective skills and thus supported their own teaching and well-being (Rashtchi & Sanayi Mashhour, 2019). We can perhaps argue that any teacher is a sum of various personality traits, and the amalgam is hopefully positively positioned for good teaching and student support.

5.6

Case Example of Engaging Finnish Students

I would find it very difficult to be miserable in the classroom and I hope this comes across also to my students. Also the fact that I have the students’ best interests at heart should come across in my teaching, whether it is consciously or unconsciously expressed. Below I will list a few items, methods and activities I have noticed I apply in most of my courses and student encounters to engage and encourage students, whether in classroom learning, blended learning or online environments.

5.6.1

Set the Tone Pre-course

If there is a chance or need to communicate with the students before the course begins, it is the ideal time to set the tone for the course. How you communicate can inspire students to take the course (or drop it) but it provides a chance to signal to students your approach to the course and them, indicate your background and experience, detail the course learning outcomes and major assignments, and attendance and assessment criteria. When these are notified in advance, they will not come as a surprise in class. For instance, an email to registered students a week before the course will clarify many questions they may have and establish the tone you like to use with your students, well before you will meet them face to face.

5.6 Case Example of Engaging Finnish Students

5.6.2

71

Break the Ice in the First Session

The tone you have created in the possible pre-course communication should continue in the first session. It’s useful to begin in a friendly, inviting manner: Welcome to the course, lovely to see you here! I’m very much looking forward to working with you. If you are genuinely interested in the students and enjoy teaching them (and I do), why not let them know? If you come across as a sympathetic and pleasant personality (and I hope you are), that is a nice way to create connections with students from the very beginning of your journey together. In addition to a friendly, positive approach, it is also useful to establish yourself as an expert in your field by presenting your knowledge, expertise and achievements (without being too overbearing). In Finland, for instance, even in higher education it is better to be humble and modest about your accomplishments than boast too much so while your history can be written out in detail on a slide, you make light of them. Oh and the university has been nice enough to give me these awards, I feel very proud of them but it’s been a few years now, I may have gone downhill since then. I find humour a great equaliser between the teacher and students. If you begin your course or any class with some humour, perhaps self-deprecating (such as when I have terrible handwriting writing on the board), it can signal to the students your wish to have a relaxed, positive learning atmosphere in your classes. I often begin any new course by sharing some details about myself, including that I have been teaching for 20 years, followed by I think that’s too long. That usually elicits a chuckle or smile from the students. In the first session, I also like to do a round of introductions, where students introduce someone else, i.e. the partner they have just interviewed. Introducing yourself can be stressful but introducing someone else is less so. This helps them to get to know each other better as joint participants in this journey we are undertaking together. As students introduce each other, I try to notice interesting details, make some (funny) remarks and react positively to anything they mention. Although the round can take a while, I try to keep the energy up and keep on moving fairly quickly. Still, I have noticed that the reactions and the use of humour with the introductions create a positive atmosphere, not only for the first lesson but for the entire course. This round and the notes I take also help me remember names for the next session.

5.6.3

Establish Your Course Values Early

It is also important to establish the values of your classroom and how you work in the first session. When do classes start and when do they finish, can students come and go as they please? (not in my class) What is expected of them in the session, outside of the sessions, what is acceptable behaviour and acceptable study process? For instance, if you want students to be active participants in classes, it’s useful to let them know at the beginning, so you are not surprised later when they are not. If class activity for instance is part of the course grading, they should be told/reminded

72

5

Student-Centred Teaching to Support Learning

in the first session and also later. Deadlines and assessment criteria should also be explicitly mentioned at the beginning to avoid any misunderstandings later in the course. You can also guide students to be autonomous and self-regulated learners from the start of the course by indicating what you will do together and what they will have to do independently. Set high standards for the course but also support weaker students by indicating they will manage, and that support and help are available. I know some teachers will tell in the first session how many students will likely fail this course. What a terrible way to begin a new learning process.

5.6.4

Second Session and Onwards

I like to begin the second session of the course by going through the students’ names. I have learned them so why not show them? (my notes from the first session and studying them helped). This almost always elicits some type of euphoric disbelief, to which I reply, Why wouldn’t I know them, I’ve met you and we will work together for a while, it’s nice to operate on a first-name basis. Studies will show that knowing students’ names is a strong indicator of your interest in them and in creating that personal connection (Garcia, 2022; Race & Pickford, 2007). I like to come to every class well-prepared; this includes learning students’ names. It also means I start every session by referring to previous and what we covered there, to remind them that they attended that class with me. I also like to explain at the start what will happen that day in that session, how it builds on the previous, and how it is connected to the overall theme of the course. Because all students take various courses at the same time, it is useful to remind them which one this is. In every session, I like to activate students in a variety of ways by applying a variety of methods. This includes introducing information as short lectures, paper materials or online materials, and getting students activated on their prior learning and knowledge with every new topic. As I enjoy collaborative learning, I get students to work in pairs and small groups in every session. I will also consciously mix students so they get to know each other better and communicate with those with whom they may not otherwise socialise. My attempt is always to make the classes interesting, and to portray enthusiasm for my subject and the students’ learning. I also try to make the classes intellectually stimulating but also a social occasion for students to communicate, discuss, cooperate, and learn together. You can study extensively by yourself but being together in one space, be it live or online, there is little reason not to communicate and cooperate. “You will never talk alone”, as a slogan in my department states. In cooperation, there may also be attention-seeking students, i.e. those who wish to dominate discussions. When instructing a group discussion for the first time, I like to lighten to mood and deter the dominant discussers by saying, In your group discussions, make sure everyone takes part, I’m sure everyone has something to say.

References

73

Don’t let someone dominate your discussions, they’re not that interesting. I hope it is a friendly way to encourage consideration.

5.6.5

Assess and Reflect

When all students send in their course assignments on time and by the deadline, I praise them. It does not always happen but when it does, it is a type of mini victory, at least for me. To signal my commitment to the course and the students, I like to mark and return assignments fairly quickly, with formative feedback that highlights the positive and offers constructive practical advice on development points. Often I also try to arrange one-on-one meetings with students in connection with their coursework and assignments. If done mid-course, it is a chance to obtain feedback that will help in tailoring the course content. One-on-one sessions can also be optional, for those who want to discuss their work or obtain even more detailed feedback on their tasks. Feedback is an essential part of engaging students, and they should know they can always provide feedback on their courses. Collecting feedback that is specific to the course, with questions you want to ask, is a good way to show students you are interested in knowing how they feel about the course. Also explaining how the feedback will be used to develop the course further shows the feedback has real value and significance. Students are, after all, the target group of your teaching, and matching their needs and wishes can provide surprisingly good results. Recommended Reading Bovill, C. (2020). Co-creating learning and teaching: Towards relational pedagogy in higher education. Critical Publishing. Hoidn, S., & Klemenčič, M. (Eds.). (2020). The Routledge international handbook of student-centred learning and teaching in higher education. Routledge. Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D. (Eds.) (2021). University teaching in focus: A learning-centred approach (2nd ed.). Routledge. Jarvis, P. (2006). Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning. Routledge. Schwartz, H. L. (2019). Connected teaching: Relationship, power, and mattering in higher education. Stylus Publishing, LLC.

References Ashwin, P. (2020). Reflective teaching in higher education (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury. Bacon, M. (2012). Pragmatism: An introduction. Polity. Billett, S. (2010). The perils of confusing lifelong learning with lifelong education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 29(4), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2010.488803 Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. In Handbook 1, Cognitive domains. David McKay.

74

5

Student-Centred Teaching to Support Learning

Bohlinger, S. (2017). Comparing recognition of prior learning (RPL) across countries. In M. Mulder (Ed.), Competence-based vocational and professional education (pp. 589–606). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41713-4 Bovill, C. (2020). Co-creating learning and teaching: Towards relational pedagogy in higher education. Critical Publishing. Brookfield, S. D. (2015). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Cedefop. (2014). Terminology of European education and training policy (2nd ed.). https://www. cedefop.europa.eu/files/4117_en.pdf Collini, S. (2012). What are universities for? Penguin Books. Cooper, L., Ralphs, A., & Harris, J. (2017). Recognition of prior learning: The tensions between its inclusive intentions and constraints on its implementation. Studies in Continuing Education, 39(2), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2016.1273893 Davis, J. R., & Arend, B. D. (2013). Facilitating seven ways of learning: A resource for more purposeful, effective, and enjoyable college teaching. Stylus Publishing. English, J. L., Keinonen, T., Havu-Nuutinen, S., & Sormunen, K. (2022). A study of Finnish teaching practices: How to optimise student learning and how to teach problem solving. Education Sciences, 12(11), 821. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12110821 Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21143 Evans, N. (2006). Recognition, assessment and accreditation of prior experiential learning: Background and constituencies. In C. Corradi, N. Evans, & A. Valk (Eds.), Recognising experiential learning: Practices in European universities (pp. 17–36). Tartu University Press. Exley, K., & Dennick, R. (2009). Giving a lecture: From presenting to teaching (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203879924 Felten, P., & Lambert, L. M. (2020). Relationship-rich education: How human connections drive success in college. Johns Hopkins University Press. Fosnot, C. T. (Ed.). (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press. Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49(3), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03634520009379209 Garcia, J. S. (2022). Relational learning: Creating a “workroom alliance” in the classroom. In D. Westfall-Rudd, C. Vengrin, & J. Elliot-Engel (Eds.), Teaching in the university (pp. 1–10). Virginia Tech College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. https://doi.org/10.21061/ universityteaching Groccia, J. E., Nickson, S. C., Wang, C., & Hardin, H. (2014). Historical overview of learning theories. In B. F. Tobolowsky (Ed.), Paths to learning: Teaching for engagement in college (pp. 31–45). National Resource Center for the First Year Experience & Students in Transition. Halttunen, T., & Koivisto, M. (2014). Professionalisation of supervisors and RPL. In T. Halttunen, M. Koivisto, & S. Billett (Eds.), Promoting, assessing, recognizing and certifying lifelong learning (pp. 191–211). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8694-2_11 Hamer, J. (2013). Love, rights and solidarity in the recognition of prior learning (RPL). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 32(4), 481–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2013. 778074 Hativa, N. (2000). Teaching for effective learning in higher education. Kluwer Academic. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0902-7 Heinonen, A., & Tuomainen, S. (2020). Enhancing recognition of prior learning with digitalisation. Language Learning in Higher Education, 10(2), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles2020-2027 Hoffman, E. M. (2014). Faculty and student relationships: Context matters. College Teaching, 62(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2013.817379

References

75

Hoidn, S. (2020). Usable knowledge – Policy and practice implications for student-centered higher education. In S. Hoidn & M. Klemenčič (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of student-centered learning and teaching in higher education (pp. 645–649). Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9780429259371 Jahangiri, L., & Mucciolo, T. (2012). A guide to better teaching: Skills, advice, and evaluation for college and university professors. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Jalili, S., & Mall-Amiri, B. (2015). The difference between extrovert and introvert EFL teachers’ classroom management. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(4), 826–836. https://doi. org/10.17507/tpls.0504.19 Kahn, P. (2016). Teaching in higher education as a collective endeavour. In B. Leibowitz, V. Bozalek, & P. Kahn (Eds.), Theorising learning to teach in higher education (pp. 158–171). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315559605 Klemenčič, M., & Hoidn, S. (2020). Beyond student-centered classrooms: A comprehensive approach to student-centered learning and teaching through a student-centered ecosystems framework. In S. Hoidn & M. Klemenčič (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of student-centered learning and teaching in higher education (pp. 626–644). Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9780429259371 Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Association Press. Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner: The definitive class in adult education and human resource development by PhD (6th ed.). Elsevier. Kolb, D. A. (1976). The learning style inventory: Technical manual. McBer. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. Kroll, L. R. (2004). Constructing constructivism: How student-teachers construct ideas of development, knowledge, learning, and teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 10(2), 199–221. https://doi. org/10.1080/1354060042000188035 Light, G., Cox, R., & Calkins, S. (2009). Learning and teaching in higher education: The reflective professional (2nd ed.). Sage. Mäkinen-Streng, M., Ojala, K., & Haltia, N. (2017). Acknowledging previously acquired learning and skills – Prevalence, practices and experiences related to the recognition of prior learning (RPL) in higher education studies. Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2017:35. https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/80532/okm35.pdf Matthews, K. E., Dwyer, A., Hine, L., & Turner, J. (2018). Conceptions of students as partners. Higher Education, 76(6), 957–971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0257-y McGivney, V. (2006). Informal learning: The challenge for research. In R. Edwards, J. Gallacher, & S. Whittaker (Eds.), Learning outside the academy: International research perspectives on lifelong learning (pp. 11–23). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203018385 Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Matthews, K. E., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P., Knorr, K., Marquis, E., Shammas, R., & Swaim, K. (2017). A systematic literature review of students as partners in higher education. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i1.3119 Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass. Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2012). Rapport in distance education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 167–190. https://doi.org/ 10.19173/irrodl.v13i1.1057 Nilson, L. B. (2016). Teaching at its best. A research-based resource for college instructors (4th ed.). Wiley. Null, J. W. (2004). Is constructivism traditional? Historical and practical perspectives on a popular advocacy. The Educational Forum, 68(2), 180–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00131720408984625

76

5

Student-Centred Teaching to Support Learning

Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In R. E. Ripple & V. N. Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget rediscovered: A report on the conference of cognitive studies and curriculum development (pp. 7–20). Cornell University. Pokorny, H., & Whittaker, R. (2014). Exploring the learner experience of RPL. In J. Harris, C. Wihak, & J. Van Kleef (Eds.), Handbook of the recognition of prior learning: Research into practice (pp. 259–281). NIACE. http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/334884 Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. SRHE and Open University Press. Race, P., & Pickford, R. (2007). Making teaching work. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/ 9781446214886 Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). RoutledgeFalmer). https:// doi.org/10.4324/9780203507711 Rashtchi, M., & Sanayi Mashhour, H. (2019). Extravert and introvert EFL teachers: How do reflective teaching and burnout relate. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 6(3), 73–88. https://www.jallr.com/index.php/JALLR/article/view/1012/pdf1012 Rogers, C. R. (1967). The interpersonal relationship in the facilitation of learning. In H. Kirschenbaum & V. L. Henderson (Eds.), The Carl Rogers reader (pp. 304–322). Mifflin. Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to learn for the 80s. Charles E. Merrill Publishing. Schwartz, H. L. (2019). Connected teaching: Relationship, power, and mattering in higher education. Stylus Publishing. Skinner, B. F. (1976). About behaviorism. Vintage Books. Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers (3rd ed.). ASCD. https://files.ascd.org/ staticfiles/ascd/pdf/siteASCD/publications/books/QualitiesOfEffectiveTeachers3rdEd_ Stronge_0318.pdf Tuomainen, S. (2014). Using exemption examinations to assess Finnish business students’ non-formal and informal learning of ESP: A pilot study. Language Learning in Higher Education, 4(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2014-0003 Tuomainen, S. (2015). Recognition, assessment and student perceptions of non-formal and informal learning of English for specific purposes in a university context (Doctoral dissertation). University of Eastern Finland. https://erepo.uef.fi/handle/123456789/15291 Tuomainen, S. (2018). Examination as the method in the recognition of prior language learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 37(6), 676–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02601370.2018.1518346 UNESCO. (2012). UNESCO guidelines for the recognition, validation and accreditation of the outcomes of nonformal and informal learning. UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning. https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000216360 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Werquin, P. (2010). Recognising non-formal and informal learning: Outcomes, policies and practices. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264063853-en Wong, A. T. (2014). Recognition of prior learning and social justice in higher education. In J. Harris, C. Wihak, & J. Van Kleef (Eds.), Handbook of the recognition of prior learning: Research into practice (pp. 178–205). NIACE. http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/334884 Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the classroom: Behaviourism. Routledge. Woolmer, C., Marquis, E., Aspenlieder, E., & Goff, L. (2020). Student-staff partnerships in teaching and learning. In S. Marshall (Ed.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice (5th ed., pp. 81–94). Routledge. https://doi.org/10. 4324/9780429259500

6

Supportive Assessment and Feedback Practices

Abstract

This chapter discusses how assessment, often highlighted as the most stressful part of students’ educational experience, can be used to support students, their learning and development. Many scholars and practitioners today refer to assessment for learning, instead of assessment of learning and emphasise the role of clear, fair, transparent and holistic assessment practices to support students. Peer assessment and self-assessment are also commonly used to engage students in assessment and expand their assessment and feedback literacy, necessary also for future working lives. Another crucial part of any assessment is providing detailed feedback, or feedforward, in which the focus is to help students learn from the feedback, take action and develop their skills and competencies through the process. Keywords

Assessment · Holistic assessment · Feedback · Peer assessment · Self-assessment

Assessments need to give us reasonably accurate and truthful information on what students have learned. This information doesn’t have to be perfect, but it should be good enough quality that we can use the resulting evidence with confidence to inform meaningful plans and decisions. (Suskie, 2018, pp. 27–28)

6.1

Assessment as Part of Education

Assessment is one of the fundamental elements of learning at any educational level, including higher education. Assessment guides the setting of the student's goals and the study orientation and it is intended to evaluate and support learning (Biggs & # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Tuomainen, Supporting Students through High-Quality Teaching, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39844-5_6

77

78

6 Supportive Assessment and Feedback Practices

Tang, 2011; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). Current assessment practices emphasise the integration of teaching and assessment, the importance of feedback, the student's responsibility in learning and the application of various assessment methods and authentic assessment tasks. However, assessment, along with feedback, is also one of the most stressful parts of education for students and can cause the most dissatisfaction, upheavals and stress (Grainger, 2020; Lynam & Cachia, 2018). Therefore, for assessment to function well to support students instead of aggrieving them, it should always be accompanied by detailed feedback, highlighting both the positive elements and the development points (Boud & Molloy, 2013). Gardner (2012) has also highlighted essential principles of assessment in today’s higher education, including effective planning of assessment, the focus on students’ learning and fostering motivation. Today, assessment should also include awareness of inclusive practice, diversity and providing equal opportunities for all students (Brown, 2015; McConlogue, 2020). Assessment operates at various educational levels, from class level to course level to programme level (Bloxham & Boyd, 2007). For students, potentially the most frequently performed assessment takes place on the course level whereby students obtain a grade or mark during and at the end of their multi-section course. Ultimately, however, the most stressful and impactful level of assessment may be on the programme level as an overall average of students’ degrees can affect greatly their future studies, progression to another level, continuation in the said programme or, upon graduation, their work prospects. The functions and methods of assessment can be roughly divided into formative and summative assessment (Banta & Palomba, 2014; Brown, 2015; Weir, 2020). The terms originate from Scriven’s (1967) definition of the concepts, yet discussion continues within education literature on the exact definitions of the terms (Race, 2019). Many teachers will apply both formative and summative assessment in their courses and modules, and perhaps concurrently. For instance, in learning-oriented assessment both formative and summative assessment methodology are recognised as the optimal mixture to support student learning (Carless, 2015). Formative assessment is perhaps more popular and prominent in today’s higher education and can be considered assessment for learning. Pokorny (2021) connects formative assessment to developmental comments with a feedforward, supportive function. In essence, formative assessment aims to determine how well the student knows and masters the learned material, with the aim of helping the student grow and develop as a learner and human. Formative assessment is thus by nature conducive to learning and evaluation used to guide learning for the students, but it also can provide information for the teacher about how to develop and change teaching to better support students’ learning processes (Yan et al., 2021). Summative assessment, on the other hand, is more assessment of learning and it focuses on the end result of learning, such as evaluating the performance during a course or study module (Knight, 2002). The aim is to evaluate the level of the student’s knowledge and skills, often assessed through examinations or essays. Summative assessment aims to ensure that the student has acquired sufficient knowledge and skills to progress with the studies or graduate from the educational

6.2 Clear and Fair

79

institution (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Pokorny, 2021). Brown (2015, p. 107) maintains that summative assessment should be used “rigorously but sparingly”.

6.2

Clear and Fair

Assessment can be stressful, for the teacher and the student, because there is so much at stake. In fact, many studies indicate assessment is one of the most stressful parts of students’ education experience (e.g. Boud, 2014; Deepwell & Benfield, 2012). Therefore, to ensure assessment functions well and in a manner that supports students instead of terrifying them, all the elements of the assessment process should be clear to all parties. These include the learning outcome goals, the assignments, tests, rubrics and other assessment tools described as clearly as possible and shared with students as early as possible in the course, module or programme (Brookhart, 2013; López-Pastor & Sicilia-Camacho, 2017). Clear and jointly agreed on goals and learning evaluation criteria expressed by the teacher can remove doubts on both sides. This can also help the students perceive that the teacher is interested in their skills development and future opportunities. Because teachers do yield power through assessment, it is their responsibility to also observe and examine their own practices and strive for ethics and honesty in assessment, and not have assessment become an instrument of power or control (Smith et al., 2014; Taras, 2016). Race (2019) insists that assessment, its instructions and criteria must explicitly include words and phrases that promote the validity and reliability of the process (also Falchikov, 2005). In addition to validity and reliability, these words and phrases include authenticity, academic integrity, transparency, and inclusiveness. Further, Brown (2015) has emphasised assessment practices to include eight principles to ensure assessment is fair, clear and fit for purpose. Brown’s (2015) principles are listed and described in Table 6.1. One of the issues with the perceived fairness or unfairness of assessment from the student perspective is whether students have been informed about the context and criteria of the assessment in detail in advance and whether they understand it (Brown, 2015; Flint & Johnson, 2011). For Hailikari et al. (2014), fairness in assessment equates to reliability, validity and consistent assessment, and both the teacher and students are aware of what is assessed. This creates trust in the learning process and the assessment and thus also perceived fairness and clarity. Suskie (2018) also maintains that to achieve fair and unbiased assessment, teachers should consider the following practical functions: • • • • • •

Plan assessments carefully, Aim for crystal clear assignments and questions, Test assessment tools in advance, Ask for diverse perspectives on assessment tools, Avoid unintended bias, and Don’t rush with the assessment.

80

6 Supportive Assessment and Feedback Practices

Table 6.1 Eight principles for fit-for-purpose assessment Principle 1. Justice 2. Veracity 3. Clarity 4. Professionalism of assessors 5. Inclusivity 6. Manageability or practicality 7. Authenticity 8 Constructive alignment

Practical implementations Providing assessment that students consider fair and just Teacher has to be sure of the veracity or truthfulness of the students’ assessed work Providing clear requirements and criteria before the assessment, followed by clear feedback Assessment should be conducted by experienced teachers familiar with the course and tasks, and not outsourced for instance to inexperienced teaching assistants Assessed tasks should be designed with considerations for diversity and inclusivity Assessed tasks can be completed by students without competing deadlines and excess workload Assessed tasks should be worthwhile and significant and promote students’ development Assessment should be aligned clearly with the learning outcomes and activities of the course or module

Adapted from Brown (2015)

6.3

Assessment Methods for Learning

When assessment functions to support students’ learning, it can be called learningorientated assessment or assessment for learning (Carless, 2015; Elkington, 2020). This approach highlights the role of carefully considered, worthwhile learning tasks for students to practice the subject in applied ways instead of cramming or memorisation (Carless et al., 2017). The approach also aims for active and participatory learning as part of assessment and enforcing student autonomy to understand the assessment criteria and take responsibility for learning. Another important element of assessment for learning is dialogic feedback (both formally and informally) and feedback through participation (McDowell, 2012; McDowell & Sambell, 2014). Assessment for learning purposes should also be authentic (Brown, 2015; Kvale, 2007; Villarroel et al., 2020) and include flexible options and essentially amount to what many scholars refer to as holistic assessment (e.g. Bloxham, 2013). Suskie (2018, p. 24) highlights the importance of the holistic process of assessment and for all the parts of the process to function well so that the result is effective or good assessment, for both the student and the teacher: An assessment can thus be considered good quality only if it is the right assessment for the learning goals you want to assess and the decisions you want the resulting evidence to inform. In other words, a good-quality assessment is effective in achieving its purpose. An assessment tool is also good quality only if it is part of a good-quality assessment process – including the assignment or directions given to students, the scoring procedure, and the use of the resulting evidence. So it’s more helpful to think of effective assessment practices than good-quality assessments. (emphases in original)

6.3 Assessment Methods for Learning

81

Case studies

Continuous assessment

Essays

Exhibitions

Games

Interviews

Journals

Learning contracts

Learning diaries

Multiple choice exams

Observations

Open-book or open-note exams

Oral examinations

Peer assessment

Portfolios and e-portfolios

Poster displays

Practical work

Presentations

Reports

Reviews

Selfassessment

Simulation

Student projects

Work-based learning

Written examinations

Fig. 6.1 Potential methods for assessment

Assessment for learning can also be achieved with various methods, both formative and summative. Some potential methods for assessment are listed in Fig. 6.1. A traditional exam has been advocated as being the most fair and inclusive of all students; an evaluative method with similar criteria to determine the students’ level of information and competence. Fairness can arise from students being given the same task at the same time, all equally new to all students. The exam situation is also easy to control, and to ensure that the exam answers are provided by the student, at least in a classroom, lecture hall or otherwise supervised setting (Adzima, 2020). However, test anxiety is a major issue that lessens the impact of examinations for learning purposes (Kvale, 2007). Multiple-choice tasks and tests have also been previously popular, but the repetition of information measured this way can guide students towards surface learning, while when the student’s own thinking is measured through e.g. problemsolving skills and the application of knowledge, it promotes deep learning (Yonker, 2011). While multiple-choice questions do expedite checking and marking, they require the teacher to formulate meaningful questions that measure real understanding. Still, the teacher can never be fully sure how the student has arrived at the correct answer. Rubrics are frequently used in assessment to signal clear and explicit criteria for the students and indicate they will be assessed with the same accurate and fair criteria visible and available to all (Crisp, 2020). Rubrics can be used to combine summative and formative assessment effectively, or as Weir (2020, p. 20) has stated, “rubrics open summative assessment up to formative purposes where specific pedagogical strategies are employed to improve student learning achievement”.

82

6 Supportive Assessment and Feedback Practices

Technological advances have also created new opportunities for assessment. If assessment is more automatic and it functions in online assessment or testing environments, it can ease the teacher’s workload and as an impartial, impersonal assessor also add equality and fairness to the assessment process. Computer-assisted assessment methods include for instance multiple-choice online software, blogs, wikis, e-portfolios, podcasts and simulations of practice (Brown, 2015; Rolim & Isaias, 2019). However, the use of technology in assessment is not necessarily neutral as many social and ethical considerations have been introduced (Bearman et al., 2020). Technology has created potential for more suspect situations for assessment, such as cheating, copying and plagiarism (Carroll, 2009; Mellar et al., 2018). There are websites that provide ready-made essay answers or modify a text so that it is more unrecognisable by plagiarism software. Through technology and social media, students may also find another person to complete their assessed tasks (for a fee), especially if the stakes are high. Artificial intelligence, while also useful, will arguably also affect cheating in the future (Ventayen, 2023).

6.4

Student Concerns

As discussed, assessment is a complex and sensitive subject, highlighted by its significance for students. Often students view the results of assessment as the path towards their future endeavours so this can cause both stress and dissatisfaction in connection with assessment, on a course level but particularly on a programme level (Boud, 2014; Deepwell & Benfield, 2012; Grainger, 2020). Teachers should recognise that assessment is stressful to students, up to the point that it causes fear (Lynam & Cachia, 2018) and can lead to plagiarism (Pokorny, 2021). Therefore, the assessment process should be demystified to make it stress-free or at least more manageable for students (Race, 2019). One of the issues with assessment is that students and teachers have different objectives. Students may rarely think about the curriculum as a whole or the larger aims and objectives of their degree. The teacher, on the other hand, will ideally plan the assessment carefully based on the curriculum, the learning outcomes, the optimal assessment methods and evaluate how the assessment will best suit the learning outcomes, the topic, students’ learning and the teacher’s own assessment ideology. For the student, on the other hand, the goal of the course, assignment or module may be to obtain the highest possible grade, just pass successfully, or anything in between. Students’ main goal for assessment can be for instance only the overall grade point average (Kvale, 2007). It may also be important for students not to fail in front of other students if grades and marks are publicly available (Falchikov & Boud, 2007). However, unfortunately, students do not always know the criteria through which their direct grade is determined. If the assessment criteria remain undefined and unclear, it is often the underlying reason why exam grades or other results are perceived as random or arbitrary by students (Struyven et al., 2005). A feeling of

6.5 Peer Assessment and Self-Assessment

83

random assessment can arise very easily. For instance, if a student completes two tasks for the same course and based on the student’s own assessment they are of equal quality, then different grades for the two can feel unjust unless clear criteria and feedback are provided. A teacher, educator or pedagogue will argue that surely learning is not all about the grades, instead, it is about the journey a person takes during their lifetime. In fact, many students do connect academic success instead of grades to elements such as gaining subject knowledge, developing their learning process, and advancing employability skills (Cachia et al., 2018). However, naturally in formal education, assessment is a process through which the system, programme, modules and topics can be justified and through which an individual learner’s progression can be evaluated in official terms. Therefore assessment is necessary but hopefully made easier through collaboration with the teacher and students. Teachers should actively apply strategies to promote academic maturity so that students can accept and analyse their assessment more concretely and without an excessive emotional burden (Lynam & Cachia, 2018). Also, students themselves have provided suggestions on how assessment and feedback can be made clearer and more manageable, for instance in the UK by the National Union of Students (2010). Their charter includes the following ten recommendations for both assessment and feedback: 1. Formative assessment and feedback should be used throughout the programme, 2. Students should have access to face-to-face feedback for at least the first piece of assessment each academic year, 3. Receiving feedback should not be exclusive to certain forms of assessment, 4. Feedback should be timely, 5. Students should be provided with a variety of assessment methods, 6. There should be anonymous marking for all summative assessment, 7. Students should be able to submit assessment electronically, 8. Students should be supported to critique their own work, 9. Programme induction should include information on assessment practices and understanding marking criteria, and 10. Students should be given a choice of format for feedback.

6.5

Peer Assessment and Self-Assessment

Peer assessment and self-assessment have become increasingly popular methods in higher education as they are valuable in supporting students’ realistic evaluations of their own and others’ skills and performances (Deepwell & Benfield, 2012; Sambell et al., 2012). For instance, using peer review, peer assessment or peer feedback as the first step in an assignment, followed later by the student’s own analysis of the assignment can help to promote students’ evaluation skills (Nicol, 2013). Practicing peer assessment develops students’ assessment skills and at the same time prepares them to accept the challenges of future working lives (Lindblom-

84

6 Supportive Assessment and Feedback Practices

Ylänne et al., 2006). Peer assessment can be said to promote critical thinking and time management skills, and increase self-confidence and responsibility but as a skill, it is also not easy to master. Some students may feel grading others is too difficult or has too much responsibility or they worry about potential conflicts with their peer because of the assessments (Carvalho, 2013). Students may also feel the teacher is the expert responsible for the assessment, not them. There are mixed results on the effectiveness of peer assessment (McConlogue, 2020) and discrepancies have been reported between the teacher’s evaluation, peer assessment and a student’s own self-analysis (De Grez et al., 2012; van Ginkel et al., 2017). In some studies, students have found peer feedback even more useful than teacher feedback (Chen, 2010; Falchikov, 2005). Further, multiple offerings of peer feedback can ultimately result in more successful final assignments than a single peer contribution (Cho & MacArthur, 2010). In recent times, computer-assisted peer assessment has provided positive reactions for its convenience (Li et al., 2020). However, students also complain about the quality of peer assessment and what other students take into consideration when providing comments on and assessment of their work (Wilson et al., 2015). At times peer assessment is considered too lenient (van Ginkel et al., 2017; Patchan & Schunn, 2015), and so-called friendship marking can also be an issue, whereby students provide overly positive marks to those peers they know well. Other reported issues include (McConlogue, 2020): • • • •

Inconsistent or poor grades or feedback, Laziness of peer assessors, Peers lack of understanding of the standards, and Competitive higher education environment does not support peer assessment.

Another facet of assessment is self-assessment which according to Taras (2013) provides a voice to learners and empowers them to have responsibility for their learning. According to Nicol (2013), students should have opportunities to reflect on their own work through both an external agent (i.e. the teacher) and an internal agent (i.e. the student). Therefore self-assessment encourages metacognition so that students can evaluate and monitor their own learning process and understand more effectively how they learn (Brown, 2015; Sambell et al., 2012; Weir, 2020). Tasks that activate self-analysis and constructive evaluation of learning can increase learner motivation, autonomy and satisfaction (Bourke, 2018; Mannion, 2021). In fact, Tan (2007) has claimed that self-assessment should aim towards reflexivity instead of reliability, especially if it is future-driven assessment. Yet the reliability of the self-assessment can increase through practice and clear instructions, including rubrics, are needed to aid the student’s personal evaluation of learning. In the best scenarios, through self-assessment and reflection students can strive towards a more a well-rounded learning experience as they apply and develop more extended and in-depth analysis of their skills, abilities and qualities (Chang, 2019; Tuomainen, 2022). Self-assessment can also reduce the emotional impact of assessment and mediate the role of the teacher as the authority in the learning process (Panadero et al., 2016).

6.6 Feedback and Feedforward

85

However, self-assessment alone is often considered inadequate for performance improvement (Molloy et al., 2013), and Bourke (2018) has insisted that selfassessment should be utilised to assist students in their awareness and reflection, and not to be used towards grades or grading. Self-assessment is not fully unproblematic as it often functions on a qualitative level and relies on perceptions. For instance, at times highly performing students have been overly critical of their own skills while more poorly performing students have had overestimated their skills (Molloy et al., 2013). The acceptance of one’s own role in assessment is also not an easy task for many students who would rather only rely on the authority’s view. However, a reliance on the teacher’s view on how to develop and improve can be problematic for future working life experiences where individuals will have to assess their own performances realistically and truthfully (Harrington & Hall, 2007). Part of university assessment is also to act as sustainable assessment and support students’ development in assessing their own learning throughout their lives (Boud, 2000; Boud & Soler, 2016).

6.6

Feedback and Feedforward

Brown (2015, p. 128) has said the following about the significance of feedback in students’ education: Concentrating on giving students detailed and developmental feedback is the single most useful thing we can do for our students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds who may not understand the rules of the higher education game. The time we spend on giving detailed and developmental formative and summative feedback should not be skimped: this is crucial to foster student learning and is the most time-consuming aspect of assessment but arguably the most important thing we do for learners.

Feedback received by the student on their skills or performance, related or unrelated to assessment, can have a strong influence on study motivation and self-perceptions as a learner. Therefore, feedback that is effective, specific, forward-looking and encouraging is necessary to support and potentially improve student learning (Gibbs, 2010; Weir, 2020). Similarly to assessment, feedback should also be clear, timely, empowering, manageable, individual and dialogic (Elkington, 2020; Race, 2019). Further, Walker (2013) maintains that good-quality feedback practice has to include motivational comments, skill-development comments related to generic skills, and content-specific comments that are clearly explained. In contrast, higher education students have particularly disliked feedback that has poorly written comments, cursory or derogatory remarks, value judgements of the person, vague comments, and late arrival (Brown, 2015). Teacher feedback should be provided in a manner that enables the student to evaluate it and hopefully also act on it (Nicol, 2013). This can be referred to as sustainable feedback or so-called feedforward. Sustainable feedback can assist students in improving their future outputs, tasks and assignments (Hounsell, 2007). Feedback provided in a feedforward fashion can facilitate students’ revision

86

6 Supportive Assessment and Feedback Practices

of their work, highlight good work in addition to potential errors or problems, and ensure the mark or grade is not the only element the student takes away from the process (Brown, 2015; Walker, 2013). If this type of feedforward can be provided face-to-face in a discussion and is based on mutual trust, it has the potential to support students and their learning and promote students’ feedback literacy (Carless & Boud, 2018; Race, 2019). Feedback is a crucial part of any learning process to engage students but as a complex process, if not done correctly, it can have little or even negative effect on students (Molloy & Boud, 2013). Emotions have a strong impact on how students take and understand feedback. Feedback can be scary as most adults have a set view of themselves, and any challenge to this perception can create a dissonance (Hepplestone & Chikwa, 2014). The student’s internal view and the willingness to defend that view against outside factors (such as a teacher’s assessment) can be influenced by personality, experience and confidence (Eva et al., 2012). Below are suggestions, adapted from Numminen & Talvio (2009) and related studies, on how to provide constructive feedback to students and support their learning, particularly if provided in a face-to-face consultation. 1. Try to provide feedback early in the student’s learning process, course or module. This way misunderstandings or misdirections can be corrected. 2. Start by asking the student how they thought about their own performance, exam or task. Every student should have an idea about their strengths and weaknesses, and it is worth asking them. 3. Remind the student that the assessment is connected to the work, not the person. 4. Agree with the student that you are in the process together, with no power struggles or winning or losing arguments. 5. Offer positive feedback first, honestly and realistically. This can encourage an atmosphere of trust, confidence and mutual understanding, and also prepare the student for more critical comments. 6. Present more critical comments factually and constructively, also engaging the student in a dialogue with questions and prompts. 7. Prompt the student to share how they will take the feedback into consideration and utilise it for future assignments or development. 8. Ask the student to provide feedback to you on your course, the assessment and the feedback you have provided.

6.7

Finnish Views on Higher Education Assessment and Feedback

As mentioned earlier in this book, Finnish education has no standardised testing and Finnish teachers at every educational level have a great amount of freedom to apply various assessment methods to their courses and students. For instance, examinations are in a lesser role in many Finnish higher education programmes and courses than in their European counterparts (del Campo et al., 2020).

6.7 Finnish Views on Higher Education Assessment and Feedback

87

While there is fairly limited research on higher education assessment in a Finnish context, the same principles as for teaching and learning apply also in assessment: striving towards a holistic approach while promoting equality, fairness and flexibility (e.g. Kumpulainen & Lankinen, 2016). For instance, Finnish higher education students may have previously found their assessment criteria unclear but still considered the assessment fair (Hailikari et al., 2014). The concepts of guidance, assessment and reflection are also considered closely related and parallel processes in Finnish higher education (Jääskelä et al., 2018). In my department in recent years and when creating new curricula, we have actively moved more towards Pass-Fail grading over numerical grading to apply more supportive measures to assessment. My colleagues and I, similarly to many other departments and HEIs, noticed in courses with numerical grading an increase in students’ stress levels and thus also cheating and plagiarism attempts. In Finnish universities, numerical grading is usually between 1 and 5 (lowest to highest). The pressure to achieve one of the highest grades can result in attempts to use suspect methods to obtain said result, including copying from online sources, an issue particularly during the Covid-19 distance learning years (e.g. Ruuskanen, 2020). Since many Finnish higher education teachers usually apply various assessment methods during a course and passing or the grade is a sum total of various tasks, it can be unusual for a student to fail a course. If a final examination is failed, students can usually redo it until they pass. At times I have to fail a student with no chance of a retake. This is usually in an exemption examination for recognition of prior learning which is a one-time summative assessment method with no retakes or other mediating factors. If the student’s performance does not match the criteria, their prior learning is assessed as not matching the learning outcomes and they are instructed to attend the corresponding formal learning course. In these situations, when providing the failure notice and feedback on the failed tasks or performance, I try to provide detailed feedback on why, but also emphasise the positives. Interestingly, despite the overall assessment and the detailed reasons why the examination is not passable, a student may say, “But you said these and these elements were good so why is this failed?” This is perhaps another element of a lack of feedback literacy or the student assuming a failed performance has to mean it is all bad. Assessment practices for learning, however, would also indicate the positive elements upon which the student can build. However, students may also feel that a grade describes or defines them as persons and in connection to their personal abilities and qualities. Students may find it difficult to realise, unless told explicitly, that the assessment is only aimed at the work and not the person or personality. For instance, I try to explicitly mention this to students who can take the assessment of their skills or performances (versus knowledge) very personally. If students’ assessed tasks include productive tasks such as texts or presentations, students may feel the teacher is assessing them as a person who writes or speaks. However, an explicit mention of work over person can remind the student of the function of the assessment. This is also useful in peer assessment tasks when students for instance provide comments and feedback on each other’s texts or presentations. Before the assessment, I have to remind students

88

6 Supportive Assessment and Feedback Practices

that the other student is looking at the text or the content and performance, not the person. As a case example, Table 6.2 presents two of my courses and the variety of assessment and feedback methods used to support students. The first course has numerical assessment 1-5 and the second is Pass/Fail.

Table 6.2 Case examples of course assessment tasks and feedback provided Blended learning course to develop academic writing and presentation skills 3 ECTS for bachelor’s students, overall course assessment 1–5 Assessment Schedule Task Feedback method(s) Week 1 Sample text Written text Teacher’s individual written feedback, positives and corrections Written text, Peer feedback, teacher’s Week 2 Rewriting sample text, peer assessment general video feedback peer feedback on text Week 3 Zoom session Participation Teacher’s general oral feedback Week 4 Section of upcoming Written text, Peer feedback, teacher’s essay, peer feedback on peer assessment individual written feedback section Week 5 Essay Written text Teacher’s assessment 1-5 and detailed feedback Week 6 Zoom session Participation Teacher’s general oral feedback Week 7 Presentations Oral Teacher’s assessment 1-5 and presentation, detailed feedback, peer oral peer feedback feedback Student’s self-assessment, Week 8 Feedback sessions Participation, teacher’s oral and written reflection feedback Oral feedback in feedback Other Course activity Continuous assessment session Online course to develop academic reading and communication skills 2 ECTS for bachelor’s students, overall course assessment Pass/Fail Week 1 Written introductions Written text Teacher’s individual written feedback Week 1 Written analysis of reading Written text, Peer feedback, teacher’s general skills, peer assessment of peer assessment written feedback analyses E-assessment and automated Week 2 Online test Computerfeedback, teacher’s general assisted written feedback multipart test Week 2 Research paper Written forum Teacher’s individual written introduction post feedback Week 3 Online test ComputerE-assessment and automated assisted feedback, teacher’s general multipart test written feedback

Part of grading No

Yes Yesa Yes

Yes Yesa Yes

No

Yes

Yesb Yes

Yes

Yesb Yes

(continued)

References

89

Table 6.2 (continued) Online course to develop academic reading and communication skills 2 ECTS for bachelor’s students, overall course assessment Pass/Fail Week 4 Research paper assignment Written multiTeacher’s individual assessment part learning Pass/Revised/Fail, detailed assignment feedback Week 5 Course progress, peer Reflection, peer Peer feedback, teacher’s general comment assessment video feedback a

Yes

Yesb

As part of course activity As part of required course tasks and activity

b

As can be seen in these courses, they both contain various tasks, most used also for assessment, and various types of feedback also provided for all tasks. This type of multi-part and multi-task course is typical of language and communication courses such as English for academic purposes where students get to practice their communication skills in various ways. Another significant part of multi-part courses such as these is the use the peer assessment, self-assessment, peer feedback, self-analysis and reflection (see also Tuomainen, 2016, 2017, 2021, 2022). Engaging students to be active participants in their assessment and development is a natural part of most Finnish university programmes and courses, and certainly in language and communication studies. It is crucial to encourage students to analyse how others create, produce and perform so that they can view what works and what does not and indicate that in a positive, constructive manner and in a safe learning environment to their peers. Selfassessment and reflection are also essential part of developing skills and abilities and while they may not directly influence a student’s grade, they have the potential to create reflective learners with competent assessment skills also for future endeavours. Recommended Reading Bearman, M., Dawson, P., Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., & Boud, D. (Eds.). (2020). Re-imagining university assessment in a digital world. Springer. Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment: Learning from award-winning practice. Routledge. Flint, N., & Johnson, B. (2010). Towards fairer university assessment: Recognizing the concerns of students. Routledge. Kreber, C., Anderson, C., Entwistle, N., & McArthur, J. (Ed.). (2014). Advances and innovations in university assessment and feedback. Edinburgh University Press. Suskie, L. (2018). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide. Jossey-Bass.

References Adzima, K. (2020). Examining online cheating in higher education using traditional classroom cheating as a guide. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 18(6), 476–493. https://doi.org/10. 34190/JEL.18.6.002

90

6 Supportive Assessment and Feedback Practices

Banta, T. W., & Palomba, C. A. (2014). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and improving assessment in higher education (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Bearman, M., Dawson, P., & Tai, J. (2020). Digitally mediated assessment in higher education: Ethical and social impacts. In M. Bearman, P. Dawson, R. Ajjawi, J. Tai, & D. Boud (Eds.), Re-imagining university assessment in a digital world (pp. 23–36). Springer. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-030-41956-1 Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed.). Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Bloxham, S. (2013). Building ‘standards’ frameworks: The role of guidance and feedback in supporting the achievement of learners. In S. Merry, M. Price, D. Carless, & M. Taras (Eds.), Reconceptualising feedback in higher education: Developing dialogue with students (pp. 64–74). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203522813 Bloxham, S., & Boyd, P. (2007). Developing effective assessment in higher education: A practical guide. McGraw-Hill Education. Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/713695728 Boud, D. (2014). Shifting views of assessment: From secret teachers’ business to sustaining learning. In C. Kreber, C. Anderson, N. Entwistle, & J. McArthur (Eds.), Advances and innovations in university assessment and feedback (pp. 13–31). Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748694556 Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). What is the problem with feedback? In D. Boud & E. Molloy (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education (pp. 1–10). Routledge. Boud, D., & Soler, R. (2016). Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 400–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133 Bourke, R. (2018). Self-assessment to incite learning in higher education: Developing ontological awareness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5), 827–839. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02602938.2017.1411881 Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. ASCD. Brown, S. (2015). Learning, teaching and assessment in higher education: Global perspectives. Palgrave. Cachia, M., Lynam, S., & Stock, R. (2018). Academic success: Is it just about the grades? Higher Education Pedagogies, 3(1), 434–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2018.1462096 Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment: Learning from award-winning practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315740621 Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02602938.2018.1463354 Carless, D., Bridges, S. M., Chan, C. K. Y., & Glofcheski, R. (Eds.). (2017). Scaling up assessment for learning in higher education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3045-1 Carroll, J. (2009). Plagiarism as a threat to learning: An educational response. In G. Joughin (Ed.), Assessment, learning and judgement in higher education (pp. 115–131). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8905-3 Carvalho, A. (2013). Students’ perceptions of fairness in peer assessment: Evidence from a problem-based learning course. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(5), 491–505. https://doi. org/10.1080/13562517.2012.753051 Chang, B. (2019). Reflection in learning. Online Learning, 23(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.24059/ olj.v23i1.1447 Chen, C. H. (2010). The implementation and evaluation of a mobile self-and peer-assessment system. Computers & Education, 55(1), 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010. 01.008 Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006

References

91

Crisp, G. (2020). Assessment: New developments in design, marking and feedback. In S. Marshall (Ed.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice (5th ed., pp. 61–71). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429259500 De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2012). How effective are self- and peer assessment of oral presentation skills compared with teachers’ assessments? Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412441284 Deepwell, F., & Benfield, G. (2012). Evaluating assessment practices: The academic staff perspective. In L. Clouder, C. Broughan, S. Jewell, & G. Steventon (Eds.), Improving student engagement and development through assessment (pp. 59–72). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9780203817520 del Campo, C., Urquía-Grande, E., Pascual-Ezama, D., Akpinar, M., & Rivero, C. (2020). Solving the mystery about the factors conditioning higher education students’ assessment: Finland versus Spain. Education+. Training, 62(6), 617–630. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-08-2019-0168 Elkington, S. (2020). Assessment: Understanding the basics. In S. Marshall (Ed.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice (5th ed., pp. 72–80). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429259500 Eva, K. W., Armson, H., Holmboe, E., Lockyer, J., Loney, E., Mann, K., & Sargeant, J. (2012). Factors influencing responsiveness to feedback: on the interplay between fear, confidence, and reasoning processes. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 17(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10459-011-9290-7 Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving assessment through student involvement: Practical solutions for aiding learning in higher and further education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9780203220993 Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (2007). Assessment and emotion: The impact of being assessed. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education (pp. 154–166). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203964309 Flint, N. R., & Johnson, B. (2011). Towards fairer university assessment: Recognizing the concerns of students. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203836705 Gardner, J. (2012). Introduction. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (2nd ed., pp. 1–7). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446250808 Gibbs, G. (2010). Using assessment to support student learning. Leeds Met Press. https://eprints. leedsbeckett.ac.uk/id/eprint/2835/1/ Grainger, P. (2020). The efficacy of the continua model as an alternative grading tool: Student voices. In P. Grainger & K. Weir (Eds.), Facilitating student learning and engagement in higher education through assessment rubrics (pp. 41–55). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Hailikari, T., Postareff, L., Tuononen, T., Räisänen, M., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2014). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of fairness in assessment. In C. Kreber, C. Anderson, N. Entwistle, & J. McArthur (Eds.), Advances and innovations in university assessment and feedback (pp. 99–113). Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748694556 Harrington, B., & Hall, D. T. (2007). Career management & work-life integration: Using selfassessment to navigate contemporary careers. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483329345 Hepplestone, S., & Chikwa, G. (2014). Understanding how students process and use feedback to support their learning. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 8(1), 41–53. https://insight. cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/1490/ Hounsell, D. (2007). Towards more sustainable feedback to students. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education (pp. 111–123). Routledge. https://doi.org/10. 4324/9780203964309 Jääskelä, P., Nykänen, S., & Tynjälä, P. (2018). Models for the development of generic skills in Finnish higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(1), 130–142. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2016.1206858 Knight, P. T. (2002). Summative assessment in higher education: Practices in disarray. Studies in Higher Education, 27(3), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070220000662

92

6 Supportive Assessment and Feedback Practices

Kumpulainen, K., & Lankinen, T. (2016). Striving for educational equity and excellence: Evaluation and assessment in Finnish basic education. In H. Niemi, A. Toom, & A. Kallioniemi (Eds.), Miracle of education: The principles of teaching and learning in Finnish schools (pp. 69–82). Sense. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-776-4 Kvale, S. (2007). Contradictions of assessment for learning in institutions of higher learning. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education (pp. 57–71). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203964309 Li, H., Xiong, Y., Hunter, C. V., Guo, X., & Tywoniw, R. (2020). Does peer assessment promote student learning? A meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1620679 Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Pihlajamäki, H., & Kotkas, T. (2006). Self-, peer-and teacher-assessment of student essays. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1469787406061148 López-Pastor, V., & Sicilia-Camacho, A. (2017). Formative and shared assessment in higher education: Lessons learned and challenges for the future. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1083535 Lynam, S., & Cachia, M. (2018). Students’ perceptions of the role of assessments at higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(2), 223–234. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02602938.2017.1329928 Mannion, J. (2021). Beyond the grade: The planning, formative and summative (PFS) model of self-assessment for higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1922874 McConlogue, T. (2020). Assessment and feedback in higher education: A guide for teachers. UCL Press. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10096352/1/Assessment-and-feedback-in-highereducation.pdf McDowell, L. (2012). Assessment for learning. In L. Clouder, C. Broughan, S. Jewell, & G. Steventon (Eds.), Improving student engagement and development through assessment (pp. 73–85). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203817520 McDowell, L., & Sambell, K. (2014). Assessment for learning environments: A student-centred perspective. In C. Kreber, C. Anderson, N. Entwistle, & J. McArthur (Eds.), Advances and innovations in university assessment and feedback (pp. 57–72). Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748694556 Mellar, H., Peytcheva-Forsyth, R., Kocdar, S., Karadeniz, A., & Yovkova, B. (2018). Addressing cheating in e-assessment using student authentication and authorship checking systems: Teachers’ perspectives. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(1), 1–21. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0025-x Molloy, E., & Boud, D. (2013). Changing conceptions of feedback. In D. Boud & E. Molloy (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education (pp. 11–33). Routledge. Molloy, E., Borrell-Carrió, F., & Epstein, R. (2013). The impact of emotions in feedback. In D. Boud & E. Molloy (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education (pp. 50–71). Routledge. National Union of Students. (2010). Assessment and feedback benchmarking tool. https://www.qaa. ac.uk/docs/qaas/focus-on/nus-assessment-and-feedback-benchmarking-tool.pdf Nicol, D. (2013). Resituating feedback from the reactive to the proactive. In D. Boud & E. Molloy (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education (pp. 34–49). Routledge. Numminen, A., & Talvio, M. (2009). Hyvä oppimisilmapiiri ja opiskelijan kohtaaminen [Good learning atmosphere and meeting the student]. In S. Lindblom-Ylänne & A. Nevgi (Eds.), Yliopisto-opettajan käsikirja (pp. 123–136). WSOY. https://doi.org/10.31885/9789515150325 Panadero, E., Brown, G. T., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). The future of student self-assessment: A review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 803–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9350-2

References

93

Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: How students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality. Instructional Science, 43(5), 591–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9353-x Pokorny, H. (2021). Assessment for learning. In H. Pokorny & D. Warren (Eds.), Enhancing teaching practice in higher education (pp. 69–90). Sage. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Race, P. (2019). The lecturer’s toolkit: A practical guide to assessment, learning and teaching. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429060205 Rolim, C., & Isaias, P. (2019). Examining the use of e-assessment in higher education: Teachers and students’ viewpoints. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4), 1785–1800. https://doi. org/10.1111/bjet.12669 Ruuskanen, L. (2020). Vilppitapaukset yliopistoissa lisääntyneet korona-aikana – etätenttikäytännöissä parannettavaa [Fraud cases have increased in universities during Covid – remote exam practices need to be improved]. YLE News, 8.12.2020. https://yle.fi/ a/3-11685262 Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Montgomery, C. (2012). Assessment for learning in higher education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203818268 Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler (Ed.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 39–83). Rand McNally. Smith, L. F., Hill, M. F., Cowie, B., & Gilmore, A. (2014). Preparing teachers to use the enabling power of assessment. In C. Wyatt-Smith, V. Klenovski, & P. Colbert (Eds.), Designing assessment for quality learning (pp. 303–323). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-0075902-2_19 Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: A review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500099102 Suskie, L. (2018). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide. Jossey-Bass. Tan, K. (2007). Conceptions of assessment: What is needed for long-term learning? In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education (pp. 114–127). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203964309 Taras, M. (2013). Feedback on feedback: Uncrossing wires across sectors. In S. Merry, M. Price, D. Carless, & M. Taras (Eds.), Reconceptualising feedback in higher education: Developing dialogue with students (pp. 30–53). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203522813 Taras, M. (2016). Situating power potentials and dynamics of learners and tutors within selfassessment models. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(6), 846–863. https://doi. org/10.1080/0309877X.2014.1000283 Tuomainen, S. (2016). A blended learning approach to academic writing and presentation skills. International Journal on Language, Literature and Culture in Education, 3(2), 33–55. https:// doi.org/10.1515/llce-2016-0009 Tuomainen, S. (2017). Role of reflection in blended learning language courses in higher education. In 16th European conference on e-Learning conference proceedings (pp. 520–526). https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/320701944_Role_of_Reflection_in_Blended_Learning_Lan guage_Courses_in_Higher_Education Tuomainen, S. (2021). Academic English reading skills to support Finnish nursing science students. Nursing Education, Research, & Practice, 11(2), 32–37. https://nerp.lsmuni.lt/academicenglish-reading-skills-to-support-finnish-nursing-science-students Tuomainen, S. (2022). Using reflection and self-analysis to develop university students’ presentation skills. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 16(1), 76–90. https://journal.aall.org. au/index.php/jall/article/view/831 van Ginkel, S., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2017). The impact of the feedback source on developing oral presentation competence. Studies in Higher Education, 42(9), 1671–1685. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1117064

94

6 Supportive Assessment and Feedback Practices

Ventayen, R. J. M. (2023). ChatGPT by OpenAI: Students’ viewpoint on cheating using artificial intelligence-based application. SSRN, 4361548. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4361548 Villarroel, V., Boud, D., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., & Bruna, C. (2020). Using principles of authentic assessment to redesign written examinations and tests. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(1), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1564882 Walker, M. (2013). Feedback and feedforward. In S. Merry, M. Price, D. Carless, & M. Taras (Eds.), Reconceptualising feedback in higher education: Developing dialogue with students (pp. 103–112). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203522813 Weir, K. (2020). Understanding rubrics. In P. Grainger & K. Weir (Eds.), Facilitating student learning and engagement in higher education through assessment rubrics (pp. 9–23). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Wilson, M. J., Diao, M. M., & Huang, L. (2015). ‘I’m not here to learn how to mark someone else’s stuff’: An investigation of an online peer-to-peer review workshop tool. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.881980 Yan, Z., Li, Z., Panadero, E., Yang, M., Yang, L., & Lao, H. (2021). A systematic review on factors influencing teachers’ intentions and implementations regarding formative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 28(3), 228–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0969594X.2021.1884042 Yonker, J. E. (2011). The relationship of deep and surface study approaches on factual and applied test-bank multiple-choice question performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(6), 673–686. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.481041

7

Supporting Diverse and International Students

Abstract

This chapter discusses the student perspective and how the varied student body demands attention and consideration from teachers. Higher education institutions around the world are increasingly heterogenous and all students should be considered in approaches to teaching, materials, locations, tasks, language use and course selection through inclusive pedagogy. International classrooms also require specific considerations even though many teachers in higher education often do not recognise this. Similarly, the use of English as the language of teaching and learning requires attention as studies on English-medium instruction continue to indicate. As students are more diverse and methods to include all students are needed in today’s higher education, the responsibility cannot rest solely on the learner; instead, the instructor has to meet students halfway. This is also connected to supervision and guidance provided by teachers, formally and informally, to support their students as persons, learners and future academic experts. Keywords

Diversity · Inclusive pedagogy · Internationalisation · English-medium instruction · Supervision

Higher education institutions are at their best when they invite, welcome, and adapt to the broadest possible range of individuals. (Evans et al., 2017, p. 438)

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Tuomainen, Supporting Students through High-Quality Teaching, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39844-5_7

95

96

7.1

7

Supporting Diverse and International Students

Diversity in Higher Education

Diversity in higher education refers to the variety of students and staff who differ in their age, gender, ethnicity, religion, economic status, abilities and disabilities (Wisker et al., 2008). In essence, diversity covers the entire spectrum of human qualities (Timonen & Kantelinen, 2017). Students also have various levels of literacy, socialisation, commitment to the academic community, various personal and academic identities, and the same naturally with the teaching staff. As demographics change in every nation, HEIs also need increased awareness of diversity and to better prepare teachers and staff to consider diverse students and classrooms (Samuels, 2018). Most teachers are used to dealing with different kinds of students, their different learning styles and approaches, and how learning is different also in different disciplines. As a teacher, you may also encounter aggressive students, discouraged students, inattentive students, challenging students or students who are ill-prepared for your course or higher education study in general. Finnish universities, for instance, have diverse students who can enter university studies from a variety of paths. For instance, every academic year I teach students aged between 19 and 60+ in all three university degree levels. The range of students forces a teacher to apply a variety of teaching methods and materials to reach all students and the diversity of learning styles. Younger students may be digital natives and find online or blended learning the norm whereas older students may need extensive assistance with online operations. The level of diversity varies in HEIs based on the cultural base of the host nation. For instance, in many Nordic countries, the overall population may be less diverse than in some other European countries and thus the diversity of the university students and staff also functions on a smaller scale. However, for instance in Finland the current rate of diversification in society amounts to so-called superdiversification (Timonen & Kantelinen, 2017). Also students arriving from abroad to study for an exchange period or in an English-language degree programme naturally increase diversity and raise awareness of inclusion, which can also be seen in many national higher education and HEI-specific policies. However, addressing the needs of the plethora of students in today’s higher education is an immense task. Already two decades ago Aronowitz (2000) and other scholars estimated that universities were ill-equipped to deal with the variety of students, their needs and their learning styles, including possible lack of study skills and confidence to succeed. Today, as HEIs are increasingly diverse, and multifaceted and provide various study modes to attract an even wider student body, the challenges have arguably also increased in tandem. For instance in Finland, the government has a vision for education that by 2030 over 50% of all young adults would complete a higher education degree (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2019). The vision also intends to make education more digital, increasing modularity and reinventing teaching, but as the vision was created before the Covid-19 pandemic, these have essentially already been materialised out

7.2 Inclusive Pedagogy to Address Diversity

97

of necessity. The vision also includes widening access to non-traditional students and increasing equality and ethnic minorities in Finnish higher education. Being aware of the diversity of our students is essential in understanding how they think, study, react, remember, learn, perform and communicate. To force students into one mould of what the teacher wants or based on the teacher’s view of life and learning is elitist and inconsiderate. Naturally many teachers have autonomy over their teaching, materials and assessment, but it is common courtesy and a necessity to be aware of the changing society in which each teacher and HEI operates. In fact, student diversity should not be viewed as a hindrance but rather a resource as Moltzen (2011, p. 157) maintains: [D]iversity that comprises our university classrooms now, if it is tapped into, has the potential to greatly enrich the learning environment. It is critical that this diversity is not seen as some form on ‘deficit’ but a ‘difference’ with the potential to add to the knowledge and experience of students and teachers alike.

7.2

Inclusive Pedagogy to Address Diversity

Widening access to and participation in higher education has naturally increased the social, cultural and linguistic diversity we see in the student body and classrooms. These include various nationalities, social, cultural and religious backgrounds, and varied physical and cognitive abilities (Race & Pickford, 2007). The diverse backgrounds of students are often also visible or present in how they learn, study and produce study-related contributions such as text and oral contributions. Inclusive pedagogy aims to acknowledge that students are equal partners in the higher education experience, and a top-down approach to teaching and learning is woefully outdated, cynical and pessimistic, as Gannon (2020) has stated. Similarly, Preece (2009) has suggested that in inclusive teaching and approach to students it is essential to acknowledge students as individuals and thus provide individualised methods to communicate such as increasing classroom interaction and mixing students, personal tutoring, group tutorials with purposeful mixing of students from different backgrounds, supporting and instigating peer-to-peer student mentoring, again with students from varying backgrounds. Inclusive teaching also means using a variety of sources from authors of different genders, ages, and experiences so that students of different genders, ages, and experiences feel included and accepted (McDuff et al., 2020). In addition, scaffolding, i.e., offering particular support or modified materials, can allow teachers to encourage students to take academic risks as they are provided intellectual security (Stronge, 2018). In practical terms, inclusivity can be added to teaching by (Hindmarch et al., 2020): • Simplifying language use, • Ensuring clear seeing and hearing of any resources, • Providing definitions to specialist terminology,

98

7

Supporting Diverse and International Students

• Making content available online in advance, and • Using a variety of formats and media. Currently, diversity is considered in many programmes in tasks and assessment or if the student has been granted specific measures because of their learning difficulty, physical disability or another factor that affects their studies. Many students with disabilities find it useful to have support functions such as extended time on examinations or taking exams in smaller groups or connecting one-on-one with a faculty member such as a mentor, counsellor or academic coach (Accardo et al., 2019). We should remember to have a human touch with all students, but especially those with any kind of disability. Many diverse students can have issues with anxiety, depression, stress and difficulty making social connections (Accardo et al., 2019). Even small accommodations can have a major impact on lessening students’ stress and helping them handle issues such as time management, social demands, planning or organising (Gelbar et al., 2014). Students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) for instance, can struggle with daily tasks and social connections as well as time management and maintaining attention (Elias & White, 2018). Students with disabilities often also struggle with disclosing their disability to teachers or peers unless absolutely necessary. In my experience, by the time adult students enter higher education studies, they have created many coping mechanisms to handle their disabilities or challenges. Therefore students often will not mention any challenge unless they realise they cannot manage the course tasks or schedules. What I and many of my colleagues do at the beginning of courses is to mention learning difficulties and disabilities and encourage students to come forward privately so we can discuss how their learning could be more comfortable during the course. This is a much more preferred option compared to, say, a student dropping the course without a word when a challenging task such as an oral presentation is forthcoming (cf. Tuomainen, 2017). Luckily, many students these days do come forward and talk about their difficulties, whether officially diagnosed or not, but often they primarily hope to handle tasks as all other students, without any differential treatment.

7.3

Eight Steps Towards Inclusiveness

Samuels (2018) has listed eight steps towards cultural inclusiveness in teaching to address the changing student body and the changing society in which higher education operates. The steps are: 1. Discovering biases As teachers, we should explore the biases we explicitly, or more commonly implicitly, have towards students and different ways of learning. 2. Reflecting on socialisation

7.3 Eight Steps Towards Inclusiveness

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

99

As teachers, typically highly educated, we can operate within a certain social class and have specific exposure to society, media and social institutions. Therefore we may not be fully aware or knowledgeable of the variety of social structures that govern the lives of our students. Challenging assumptions Everyone makes assumptions about oneself and others, consciously or unconsciously, but these assumptions should be actively challenged so that we can approach students with an open mind and recognise them as unique individuals without any constraints based on their social groups and distinguishing characteristics. Reflecting on identities As discussed earlier in this book, a teacher identity is and should be, a fluent and changing entity, and it should change as the students we teach change and evolve. This includes reflecting on how we have originally built our identities in education and how to re-examine them to suit the needs of the current diverse society in which we operate and educate. Contemplating emotions Some may argue emotions have little role in higher education and science but feelings, from us and our students, are often an integral part of education and learning. How we react to students who are different from the norm, and how students react to us and our teaching are current issues in today’s higher education. We may also have mixed emotions about teaching diverse groups of students if comparing them to somehow ‘easier’ and less challenging student groups of past decades. Reflecting on behaviour All the elements above also have an impact on how we behave with diverse students, in the classroom, online, face-to-face communication, or in email correspondence. Samuels maintains that without an explicit exploration of our values and assumptions, we can easily offend or misunderstand students and signal through our behaviour many microaggressions we may hold onto and portray through comments, jokes, gestures or mannerisms. Considering purpose Teachers as educators have a responsible role in society to support student learning and by extension, their growth as individuals. To recognise this role (although some higher education teachers may reject it) can also assist in understanding the role of the teacher in promoting equality and diversity and in combatting discrimination. It has to begin in classrooms and spread more widely within the HEI and through national and international higher education policies. Committing to the work Being able and willing to support diverse students and being able and willing to learn more about diversity and the realities of our students is essential to grow as a teacher in higher education and adapt to the society in which higher education operates. We need to develop perspectives to also understand all those around us and widen our understanding and experience of the higher education community.

100

7.4

7

Supporting Diverse and International Students

Diversity in Finnish Higher Education

In Finland, diversity and equality are part of the strategies of HEIs and are also explicitly expressed in national higher education policies. Inclusive Finnish higher education aims to ensure everyone has the same rights in teaching and learning and access to study regardless of their characteristics (Karhu, 2014). Many HEIs have working groups and committees dedicated to diversity and inclusivity and more explicit actions are taken to address these issues in everyday operations and in close cooperation with the student unions and various student associations (Lundmark, 2022). Finnish teacher education also includes explicit goals to strengthen accessibility, inclusion, non-discrimination and equality in all educational levels (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2022b), and this approach has also been applied in subject teacher education, often completed by higher education teaching staff, and university pedagogy studies (Jyrhämä, 2021; UNIPS, 2022). Various projects in Finnish higher education over the years have highlighted issues related to accessibility, diversity and equality, and provided for instance booklets and websites for higher education staff and students. Information for and on specific student groups have included e.g. blind and low vision students, dyslexic students, students with anxiety or other mental health issues, physical disabilities, Asperger’s and ADHD students, and overall accessibility (ESOK project, n.d.). A report recently commissioned by the Ministry of Education and Culture to review accessibility in Finnish higher education (Kosunen, 2021) explored social, regional and linguistic equality and objectives and policies for promoting accessibility in Finnish HEIs. The report also recommended measures to increase accessibility, inclusion and diversity across the higher education experience for students and staff, and particularly widening access to university for non-traditional learners. Another current project organised by the Ministry of Education and Culture (2022a) in Finland explored equality, non-discrimination and diversity among teaching and research staff in HEIs. The results in the report by Jousilahti et al. (2022) indicate there is a lack of women in professor posts in Finnish universities, and while gender inequality especially in universities has generated more discussion, the practical actions remain varied. Another significant issue according to the report was the underrepresentation of foreign nationals in Finnish universities, with only approximately 10 per cent of professors being non-Finnish, although some 38 per cent of all PhD students are non-Finnish (ibid.). Worryingly, some 25 per cent of all HEI teaching and research staff in the study had reported cases of discrimination, based on either gender or ethnic background. Therefore the report authors have suggested placing more significance on gender equality and non-discrimination plans in Finnish HEIs, making recruitment processes more transparent, adding equality issues as part of auditing, and increasing overall training on all these issues.

7.5 The Joy and Challenge of International Classrooms

7.5

101

The Joy and Challenge of International Classrooms

Increasingly international classrooms in higher education also introduce diversity and various approaches to teaching and learning. Teaching international students introduces multiple teaching contexts and a variety of needs from the students, and it forces teachers to be more explicit in all their operations, rather than assume students will automatically know how something happens or what something means (Barker, 2021). An international classroom may pose a challenge for some teachers but international students can also challenge teaching positively, i.e. how classes are taught, which methods are applied, which materials are used and for which purpose, as discussed by Kreber (2008) and others. This can encourage more explicit actions from the teacher and more contemplation and reflection on choices made for classes and materials. Teachers should also avoid basing their teaching on their own country, habits, conventions or so-called common knowledge as this may have little, if not disrespectful, significance to students from other countries (Ecochard & Fotheringham, 2017). After all, research has shown that students from different cultures will have varying learning patterns (e.g. Killick, 2015; Vermunt et al., 2014). Thus how students from different cultures and educational experiences view university teaching can vary greatly and affect classroom dynamics. For instance, Apfelthaler et al. (2010) found significant differences in how students from different continents approached working in groups, interacting with their teachers, teaching methods, assessment methods, the student’s own role in the learning process, and the physical teaching environment. Although the authors acknowledged that many elements of learning were mixed between the various students and no far-reaching conclusions of all the factors could be drawn, there were still significant differences in: • • • •

Students’ approach to teachers (including criticism towards teachers), Preference for national and gender homogeneity in groups, Cheating and other academic dishonesty, and Importance of technology.

There can also be gaps in understanding from both the teacher and the international students about how to operate in a university setting and how assumptions based on previous learning experiences no longer apply. Some of the main issues can include levels of politeness or addressing the teacher, bringing gifts to teachers, matching assignment requirements, asking questions only after class, arguing about assessment, memorising notes for coursework, delaying main points in essays, or using plagiarised materials (Carroll, 2005). Some of the remedies for such situations include being as explicit as possible about assignment criteria and overall assessment, setting the guidelines about the teacherstudent relationship at the beginning of any course as explicitly as possible, and also trying to be empathetic towards students from different backgrounds and customs. Just because a foreign student behaves differently, does not mean you should feel

102

7

Supporting Diverse and International Students

frustrated about it but instead acknowledge the realities of our internationalised higher education world. When teaching international classrooms, we should maintain and ensure academic literacy and integrity and address students’ possible language proficiency needs. We should also promote students’ social integration, both inside the classroom and outside of it, and address any intercultural conflicts, should they occur. No university teacher has to be an expert in all cross-cultural and intercultural communication or know the learning habits of all their students from various countries but the recognition of the potentially different approaches to teaching and learning should be there. If a teacher expects all their international students to adhere to the learning styles and habits of the host country or university, it is an assumption, not recognition.

7.6

Internationalisation in Finnish Higher Education

Currently, every Finnish HEI has an internationalisation strategy and they actively seek international students, international collaboration and increased global visibility (Crawford & Bethell, 2012). This internationalisation has been aimed to enhance the quality of teaching and increase international competitiveness and revenues through more tuition-paying students (Välimaa & Muhonen, 2019). The number of international staff members, both teachers and researchers, has also increased in Finnish universities in the past decade but overall the share of international academics is fairly low, with approximately 4% of senior positions and 9% of junior positions (Nokkala et al., 2020). This indicates that further efforts should be made to recruit and retain both international students and teachers in Finnish HEIs. Naturally, Finland cannot always compete with its remote northern location or varied weather patterns but many elements in society function well. However, the language is another issue in the retention of both international academics and graduates as finding employment without some command of Finnish can be challenging and is a constant grievance in related studies (e.g. Mathies & Karhunen, 2021; Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, 2021). Crawford and Bethell (2012) maintain that the role of a teacher in an internationalised campus cannot be underestimated as they act as a vital component and link between the host students and international students, assist in managing conflicts, address differences and reflect on experiences. Even to the point that teachers are cultural translators, mediators and ambassadors between the courses, events, knowledge and environments. I have been able to teach international students throughout my university teaching career, whether they are exchange students visiting for a semester or academic year or master’s or PhD students completing their entire degrees in Finland. I find great joy in meeting, communicating and collaborating with students from a variety of backgrounds and I find it particularly interesting to teach very multinational classes or courses. It is also endlessly fascinating to me that they have chosen to study and live in Finland out of all the options available in the world.

7.7 Considerations in English-Medium Instruction

103

If students on a course I teach are primarily Finnish, with only some international students, the intercultural considerations are naturally in a smaller role than with a fully international and intercultural group. As many Finnish HEIs provide various courses and degrees in English, this has increased the appeal of Finnish higher education and multiplied the number of international programmes and students. Therefore it is not uncommon to teach a course with a dozen or more nationalities present. I consciously try to consider international classrooms by making students comfortable in the group, emphasising respect and consideration for all cultures and backgrounds and highlighting the international role of universities in today’s global education context. In the end, we are all in the situation together, and ultimately with the same aim of learning something new. I do still find it interesting how surprised many foreign students are with the level of informality in Finnish HEIs so that operating on a first-name basis can feel impossible for some. Also, the role of the teacher as a facilitator of and collaborator in learning is a novel concept for many students who come from more teacher-led education systems. Almost all HEIs globally have seen an increase in exchange students, international degree students, immigrants and international staff. The dramatic increase of international students in HEIs worldwide has signalled a fundamental change in how teaching and learning should take place. We can no longer hold on to national policies or local peculiarities when we are supposed to cater to the world. The internationalisation of higher education has also brought English to be the main language of teaching and learning for many students and staff, which can also pose issues. Language difficulties can create barriers to both teaching and learning, and the role of language and effective teaching in English-medium instruction is one of my own passions.

7.7

Considerations in English-Medium Instruction

For decades now, English as the main language of science has brought students and teachers from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds to different universities around the world (Ammon, 2001). Teaching in English is therefore an established form of teaching in HEIs, whether the teacher is local or international and also whether the teaching group is local or international. The term English-medium instruction (EMI) refers to such instruction, in which the teacher and students generally use English as a second language (Macaro et al., 2019). The focus of EMI teaching in higher education is not on language teaching but on content and academic competence, and teachers typically do not feel they are teaching the language at all (Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2021; Tuomainen, 2022). Indeed, when teaching in English the teacher is typically a content expert who uses English to teach the subject but does not necessarily pay attention to or prioritise the language (Richards & Pun, 2021). However, this can be an issue since in studies, teaching in English has unfortunately also been associated with insufficient language skills of teachers and students and a lack of interest in English-taught courses from both groups (Breeze & Roothooft, 2021; Rose, 2021; Soruç et al., 2021).

104

7

Supporting Diverse and International Students

In higher education policies, teaching through English is widely introduced on the assumption that it does not cause any difficulties for teaching staff or students, although research shows otherwise. Teachers who use English to convey academic content must recognise the potential range of students’ language skills, as the use of a foreign language in teaching can potentially impair the communication and connections between students and the teacher (Henriksen et al., 2018). Teachers can also feel pressure to be both subject experts and fluent in English, including having native-speaker pronunciation in English to appear an academic expert (Tuomainen, 2018). Nordic countries, including Finland, have been prominently involved in the implementation of English-language teaching and full degree programmes so the use of English in Finnish universities is a well-established and growing phenomenon. At present, the Finnish National Agency for Education (2022) lists more than 500 English-language bachelor's and master's degree programmes in Finnish HEIs. Many scholars who teach in English at Finnish universities have been educated at least partly in English themselves, and thus do not necessarily feel that teaching in English requires conscious processing or changes in the way they teach (cf. Tuomainen, 2018, 2022). However, research around the world indicates that teaching in a foreign language and considering the students requires some conscious effort and adjustment to teaching. Teaching with clarity in content and delivery is essential when teaching through English so that the well-designed materials support students’ learning and also constantly encouraging questions allow students to check their understanding (Race & Pickford, 2007; Su & Wood, 2012). Many HEIs around the world do provide support for lecturers so that they can understand the role of both pedagogical competence and language in teaching through English. In one of my courses, part of university pedagogy training, we discuss the role of the language with lecturers who teach in English. While many at the beginning of the course do not consider English any type of issue for themselves or their students, post-course many realise that students may require some additional support when they learn and operate in another language. Some of the adjustments to teaching through English include the following (Tuomainen, 2022): • • • • •

Speak more slowly and clearly and adding more pauses to aid understanding, Use more signposting phrases to signal significance, Explain new terminology more clearly, with practical examples, Consider students’ cultural backgrounds, and Adjust language to suit students with lesser English proficiency.

7.8

Be There for All Students

Many students will remember teachers and supervisors who have had personal contact with the student; a teacher who will leave a mark, if you will. Those teachers who indicate in practice that they are interested in the well-being and educational success of the student will create an impact that may last years, even decades after

7.8 Be There for All Students

105

the student graduates. Particularly students with learning difficulties will appreciate a more personal connection with the teacher. The same applies to international students, either completing their degree or visiting as exchange students. All teachers should act as counsellors for their students to promote their learning and overall well-being during their studies. If teachers offer support and advice on students’ studies and are available when needed for functions outside the classroom such as coaching, mentoring, supervising or personal tutoring (Wisker et al., 2008), you can reach and support many young and older students as they navigate through new challenges and opportunities in their lives. The essentials of effective supervision, guidance or mentoring are essentially the same as effective teaching. The supervisor and student should have some type of shared motivation, shared beliefs, shared strategies and be willing to recognise the shared goals (Johnson, 2015). Key elements in supervision, at any level and function, from basic guidance to supervising a PhD include active listening, observation, empathy, a non-judgmental approach, authenticity and relationship-building (Wisker et al., 2008). If it is possible to work one-on-one with a student, either during a course, with feedback, guidance or other support measures, it will arguably lead to more effective results than supervising a group of students and providing them generic feedback or guidance. However, as student numbers continually increase in higher education, it can increase the use of collaborative supervision (Nordentoft et al., 2013) or, unfortunately, lessen the amount of feedback and guidance (Hounsell et al., 2008). In today’s higher education students will typically have less one-on-one time with their instructors than, say, a decade or two ago. In my own university education in the 1990s, I encountered teachers on an individual basis in almost all of my courses, and I recall all their names and faces and what we discussed together. It is perhaps the challenges of the modern university and the multiple responsibilities that take away from the contact with students. Many teaching staff no longer have office hours and may indicate at the start of a new course that students should not email them with questions or inquiries. It is unfortunate that our other responsibilities as teachers take away from what should be our main responsibility: students. Recommended Reading Carroll, J., & Ryan, J. (2005). Teaching international students: Improving learning for all. Routledge. Field, J., Schmist-Hertha, B. & Waxenegger, A. (Eds.) (2016). Universities and engagement: International perspectives on higher education and lifelong learning. Routledge. Kozimor-King, M. & Chin, J. C. (Eds.) (2018). Learning from each other: Refining the practice of teaching in higher education. University of California Press. Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2021). Language use in English-medium instruction at university: International perspectives on teacher practice. Routledge. Oleson, K. C. (2020). Promoting inclusive classroom dynamics in higher education: A research-based pedagogical guide for faculty. Stylus Publishing.

106

7

Supporting Diverse and International Students

References Accardo, A. L., Kuder, S. J., & Woodruff, J. (2019). Accommodations and support services preferred by college students with autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 23(3), 574–583. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1362361318760490 Ammon, U. (Ed.). (2001). The dominance of English as a language of science. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110869484 Apfelthaler, G., Hansen, K., Keuchel, S., Mueller, C., Neubauer, M., Ong, S. H., & Tapachai, N. (2010). Cross-cultural differences in learning and education: Stereotypes, myths and realities. In D. Palfreyman & D. L. McBride (Eds.), Learning and teaching across cultures in higher education (pp. 15–35). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230590427_2 Aronowitz, S. (2000). The knowledge factory: Dismantling the corporate university and creating true higher learning. Beacon Press. Barker, M. (2021). Teaching international students. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.), University teaching in focus (pp. 199–213). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003008330 Breeze, R., & Roothooft, H. (2021). Using the L1 in university-level EMI: Attitudes among lecturers in Spain. Language Awareness, 30(2), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416. 2021.1903911 Carroll, J. (2005). Strategies from becoming more explicit. In J. Carroll & J. Ryan (Eds.), Teaching international students: Improving learning for all (pp. 26–34). Routledge. https://doi.org/10. 4324/9780203696132 Crawford, B., & Bethell, L. (2012). Internationalized campuses just don’t happen: Intercultural learning requires facilitation and institutional support. In S. Ahola & D. M. Hoffman (Eds.), Higher education research in Finland (pp. 189–213). University of Jyväskylä. https://jyx.jyu.fi/ handle/123456789/42356 Ecochard, S., & Fotheringham, J. (2017). International students’ unique challenges – Why understanding international transitions to higher education matters. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic. Practice, 5(2), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v5i2.261 Elias, R., & White, S. W. (2018). Autism goes to college: Understanding the needs of a student population on the rise. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(3), 732–746. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3075-7 ESOK project. (n.d.). Meeting the needs of diverse student body in higher education. http://www. esok.fi/hankkeet/esok-hanke/esittely/en/material/guides Evans, N. J., Broido, E. M., Brown, K. R., Wilke, A. K., & Herriott, T. K. (2017). Disability in higher education: A social justice approach. Jossey-Bass. Finnish National Agency for Education. (2022). Study in Finland. https://www.studyinfinland.fi/ Gannon, K. M. (2020). Radical hope: A teaching manifesto. West Virginia University Press. Gelbar, N. W., Smith, I., & Reichow, B. (2014). Systematic review of articles describing experience and supports of individuals with autism enrolled in college and university programs. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(10), 2593–2601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-0142135-5 Henriksen, B., Holmen, A., & Kling, J. (2018). English medium instruction in multilingual and multicultural universities: Academics’ voices from the Northern European context. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429456077 Hindmarch, D., Machin, L., Murray, S., Richardson, T., & Walmsley-Smith, H. (2020). A concise guide to lecturing in higher education and the academic professional apprenticeship. Critical Publishing. Hounsell, D., McCune, V., Hounsell, J., & Litjens, J. (2008). The quality of guidance and feedback to students. Higher Education Research & Development, 27(1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07294360701658765 Johnson, W. B. (2015). On being a mentor: A guide for higher education faculty. Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9781315669120

References

107

Jousilahti, J., Tanhua, I., Paavola, J.M., Alanko, L., Kinnunen, A., Louvrier, J., Husu, L., Levola, M., & Kilpi, J. (2022). Report on the state of equality and diversity in Finnish higher education institutions. Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2022:40. https:// julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/164427 Jyrhämä, R. (2021). Teacher’s pedagogical studies 60 credits: Broad-based studies for teacher qualification – Situation description 2021. Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2021:41. https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-263-866-3 Karhu, M. (2014). Accessible and inclusive studying at higher education institutions in Finland. In Actas del VI Congreso Internacional sobre Aplicación de Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicaciones Avanzadas (ATICA 2014) (pp. 101–108). http://www.esvial.org/wp-content/ files/ATICA2014pp101-108.pdf Killick, D. (2015). Developing the global student: Higher education in the era of globalization. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315764801 Kosunen, T. (2021). Towards more accessible higher education and higher education institutions. Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2021:35. https://urn.fi/URN: ISBN:978-952-263-838-0 Kreber, C. (2008). Supporting student learning in the context of diversity, complexity and uncertainly. In C. Kreber (Ed.), The university and its disciplines: Teaching and learning within and beyond disciplinary boundaries (pp. 1–16). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203892596 Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2021). Language use in English-medium instruction at university: International perspectives on teacher practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9781003134534 Lundmark, S. (2022). Equality needs more than words! National Union of University Students in Finland website 30.9.2022. https://syl.fi/en/equality-needs-more-than-words/ Macaro, E., Akincioglu, M., & Han, S. (2019). English medium instruction in higher education: Teacher perspectives on professional development and certification. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12272 Mathies, C., & Karhunen, H. (2021). Do they stay or go? Analysis of international students in Finland. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 19(3), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14767724.2020.1816926 McDuff, N., Hughes, A., & Sharma, S. (2020). The inclusive curriculum. In S. Marshall (Ed.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice (5th ed., pp. 106–122). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429259500 Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment. (2021). Government proposes legislative amendments to increase retention of international students. https://valtioneuvosto.fi/ en/-//1410877/government-proposes-legislative-amendments-to-increase-retention-of-interna tional-students Ministry of Education and Culture. (2019). Vision for higher education and research in 2030. https://okm.fi/en/vision-2030 Ministry of Education and Culture. (2022a). Equality, non-discrimination and diversity among teaching and research staff in higher education institutions. https://okm.fi/en/project-kotamo Ministry of Education and Culture. (2022b). Teacher education development programme 2022– 2026. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2022053140998 Moltzen, R. (2011). Personalizing the student experience. In I. Hay (Ed.), Inspiring academics: Learning with the world’s great university teachers (pp. 156–162). McGraw-Hill Education. Nokkala, T., Bataille, P., Siekkinen, T., & Goastellec, G. (2020). Academic career, mobility, and the national gender regimes in Switzerland and Finland. In L. Weimer & T. Nokkala (Eds.), Universities as political institutions (pp. 262–286). Brill Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/ 9789004422582 Nordentoft, H. M., Thomsen, R., & Wichmann-Hansen, G. (2013). Collective academic supervision: A model for participation and learning in higher education. Higher Education, 65(5), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9564-x Preece, S. (2009). Posh talk: Language and identity in higher education. Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1057/9780230245365

108

7

Supporting Diverse and International Students

Race, P., & Pickford, R. (2007). Making teaching work. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/ 9781446214886 Richards, J. C., & Pun, J. (2021). A typology of English-medium instruction. RELC Journal, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368822096858 Rose, H. (2021). Students’ language-related challenges of studying through English: What EMI teachers can do. In D. Lasagabaster & A. Doiz (Eds.), Language use in English-medium instruction at university (pp. 145–166). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003134534 Samuels, D. R. (2018). Becoming a culturally inclusive education. In M. Kozimor-King & J. C. Chin (Eds.), Learning from each other: Refining the practice of teaching in higher education (pp. 201–214). University of California Press. Soruç, A., Altay, M., Curle, S., & Yuksel, D. (2021). Students’ academic language-related challenges in English medium instruction: The role of English proficiency and language gain. System, 103, 102651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102651 Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers (3rd ed.). ASCD. https://files.ascd.org/ staticfiles/ascd/pdf/siteASCD/publications/books/QualitiesOfEffectiveTeachers3rdEd_ Stronge_0318.pdf Su, F., & Wood, M. (2012). What makes a good university lecturer? Students’ perceptions of teaching excellence. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 4(2), 142–155. https:// doi.org/10.1108/17581181211273110 Timonen, L., & Kantelinen, R. (2017). Moninaiset oppijat, moninaiset opettajat – opettajan uudet osaamisvaateet [Diverse learners, diverse teachers – teacher’s new skill requirements]. Kieli, koulutus ja yhteiskunta, 8(4) https://www.kieliverkosto.fi/fi/journals/kieli-koulutus-jayhteiskunta-syyskuu-2017-1/moninaiset-oppijat-moninaiset-opettajat-opettajan-uudetosaamisvaateet Tuomainen, S. (2017). Student anxiety and learning difficulties in academic English courses. In ECLL17 The European conference on language learning conference proceedings. http://papers. iafor.org/papers/ecll2017/ECLL2017_35207.pdf Tuomainen, S. (2018). Supporting non-native university lecturers with English-medium instruction. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 10(3), 230–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JARHE-03-2017-0022 Tuomainen, S. (2022). Academic English reading skills to support Finnish nursing science students. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 16(1), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.47862/apples. 107857 UNIPS (University Pedagogical Support). (2022). How to teach multicultural groups. https://unips. fi/how-to-teach-multicultural-groups/ Välimaa, J., & Muhonen, R. (2019). Reproducing social equality across the generations: The Nordic model of high participation higher education in Finland. In B. Cantwell, S. Marginson, & A. Smolentseva (Eds.), High participation systems of higher education (pp. 358–385). Oxford University Press. Vermunt, J. D., Bronkhorst, L. H., & Martínez-Fernández, J. R. (2014). The dimensionality of student learning patterns in different cultures. In D. Gijbels, V. Donche, J. T. E. Richardson, & J. D. Vermunt (Eds.), Learning patterns in higher education (pp. 33–55). Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315885438 Wisker, G., Exley, K., Antoniou, M., & Ridley, P. (2008). Working one-to-one with students: Supervising, coaching, mentoring, and personal tutoring. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9780203016497

8

Instructional Communication

Abstract

This chapter discusses how communication and interaction with students are the cornerstones of effective connections and supporting students’ learning in teaching and instruction situations. In broader terms this can be referred to as instructional communication. The foundations of classroom interaction, whether live or online, are similar and rely on the clarity and organisation of teaching, promoting active learning, recognising the differences between various disciplines, and encouraging a positive learning atmosphere, interaction, and rapport. Keywords

Instructional communication · Communication in teaching · Clarity · Active learning · Discipline-specific teaching

As a teacher, your ability to communicate is essential to your capacity to help people learn. It is not just your command of your subject [. . .] but it is your ability to make connections with others and to transmit ideas that will bring your subject alive. (Moore et al., 2007, p. 5)

8.1

The Impact of Effective Communication in Instruction

When I teach university pedagogy courses for both new and experienced university lecturers, we often discuss and work on pedagogical communication during teaching, in other words instructional communication. Instructional communication refers to communication in instruction, i.e. teachers and students creating meanings through verbal and nonverbal messages and being affected by the communication (LeBlanc Farris et al., 2018).

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Tuomainen, Supporting Students through High-Quality Teaching, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39844-5_8

109

110

8

Instructional Communication

Instruction communication is based on the foundations of good and effective communication in teaching and taking students actively into consideration, even at the university level, through clarity, sincerity, interaction, and emotional support (Tuomainen, 2018). Hativa (2000), for instance, maintains that clarity, organisation, interest, engagement, and classroom climate are the main dimensions of effective teaching, and are most concretely demonstrated in teaching situations. When this type of communication works well, be it in the classroom or in online environments, it promotes not only good teaching and learning but also positive outcomes in education. Instructional communication involves teachers’ classroom or group management strategies, their influence on students’ motivation, and the variety of delivery methods and the classroom atmosphere, such as discussions, clarity, and activities (Houser & Waldbuesser, 2017). Moore et al. (2007, p. 34) aptly summarise the purpose of effective communication in teaching with the following: Good didactic delivery, when combined with opportunities for interaction and active engagement, can still be a vital anchor with which to build competence and knowledge in almost any area. But it is also important to steer away from uninspiring, monotonous transfer of information. Formal teaching sessions achieve their aims of engagement and learning by using a range of different techniques. Telling a story, posing a problem, asking a question, presenting a conundrum or paradox, demonstrating the practical implications of a concept or illustrating your points in colourful imaginative ways can all serve to ignite your students’ levels of engagement and enhance their learning.

Still, there may be teachers at HEIs who feel there is nothing to be learned about teaching and it is not their responsibility if adult students learn or not. They perhaps will not change their teaching practices or delivery because of student feedback to ‘gain popularity’, nor do they feel the need to improve their teaching or delivery as their expertise on the subject should be sufficient. They may also feel that teaching is an inherent and implicit skill that cannot be developed. Luckily these days these types of teachers are a minority in HEIs, but many may hold the belief that teaching cannot be developed through courses or training. However, in many university pedagogy courses or courses for university teaching staff we work on how to ensure students learn and gain most of the instruction, also through the delivery and communication. A teacher, at any educational level or in any situation, cannot work in a vacuum and provide a monologue about their knowledge and thoughts on the subject. Instead, teachers should actively: • • • •

Attempt to convey their message clearly, Provide information and instructions clearly, Attempt to create a positive learning environment, and Promote active learning and student motivation.

If teachers explore and recognise the interactive and communicative nature of teaching, they will also recognise their own communicative competence in teaching. Further, if teachers modify their approach, for example by clarifying slides, reviewing students’ understanding, structuring content more clearly, actively communicating

8.2 Clarity in Teaching

111

with students, and answering questions, they are in fact adapting their teaching to instructional communication and hopefully reaching the various, diverse and multicultural student groups in today’s higher education.

8.2

Clarity in Teaching

Clarity in teaching should permeate all functions of a teacher, both orally and in writing: speaking, explaining content, giving instructions, explaining the course outcomes and assessment and answering questions. As students learn and process information in different ways, teachers should try to cater to all needs by providing clear information and instructions in a variety of modes and methods. Instructional clarity effectively promotes student growth and learning (Blaich et al., 2016; Rodger et al., 2007). Clarity is raised in many studies about teaching quality or good teachers. Essentially it refers to the teacher explaining everything clearly. We cannot assume students will know the information they are there to learn but they need clear information, justification, explanations, and practical examples to connect the pieces. Yes, even the good students. Accepting that making issues and information clear to students is perhaps the most essential part of teaching is one step towards effective teaching. One of the basics of teaching is speaking clearly. Studies have found that students perform better academically if they are taught by teachers with high and clear verbal skills (Stronge, 2018). Clarity in speaking is particularly significant in teaching as the listeners only hear the message once (unless recorded and viewed again later) and it should be immediately and easily understood. Clarity in teaching, including instructions and other forms of communication, can arguably be easily accomplished by most academic personnel as they are usually also good writers. Even in an academic context, explaining content as academically and scientifically as possible will not make students look in awe at the great scientist and researcher but the effectiveness relies on the clarity of the message. This does not mean overly simplifying the message but providing concrete information and examples to ensure all the learners in the audience will receive the message. Blaich et al. (2016, p. 7) have aptly justified the role of clarity in effective teaching with the following: Sometimes in this sea of information we lose sight of the fact that there is another way to sharpen teaching and strengthen the educational impact of our institutions – improving the clarity and organization of our classes. Although this may not sound as transformative or exciting as some of the pedagogies and high-impact practices [. . .], it turns out to be very important for student learning.

The capacity to explain is critical in teaching, and it is integrated into all modes of teaching from instructions, discussions, seminars, practicals, and tutorials. Explanations can be divided into types such as descriptive, interpretive, and reasongiving (Hativa, 2000). The first type is used to tell students how something is achieved

112

8

Instructional Communication

or accomplished, whereas the second provides clarification and the final type clarifies why something has occurred (ibid.). In teaching, we can also talk about instructional explanations, similar to all students, and disciplinary explanations which are specific to the content of a particular field of study (Wittwer & Renkl, 2008). Ultimately, clarity in teaching can be achieved for instance with the following practical functions: • • • • •

Create clear, accessible and easy-to-understand course materials, Communicate with students clearly and concisely, Speak at an appropriate pace and stop frequently to check students understand, Highlight and emphasise main points, Explain difficult ideas and concepts as clearly as possible, with examples or practical advice, • Repeat difficult issues or topics automatically. • Explain items in various ways with more than one example, and • Ask and invite questions frequently to ensure students understand.

8.3

Promoting Active Learning

Active learning is a varied instructional concept, often relying on constructivism, whereby learning is student-centred and applies a variety of activities (Hartikainen et al., 2019). Many learning theories rely on cooperation, collaboration, and active processing of information as part of learning. As a result, to encourage active learning, teachers should apply a variety of teaching methods, materials, and tasks to promote the seeking, activation, and reflection of knowledge. These days active learning naturally also takes place outside the classroom in blended and online learning, or as a combination of preparation and implementation, such as in flipped learning where methods often include video materials and quizzes before class where time is then spent on activities (Shnai, 2022). Many tasks that activate students alone or together force them to think, pause, reflect and be intellectually challenged during classes. Therefore active learning is connected to both collaborative learning and self-regulated learning (Niemi et al., 2016). The function of various tasks can be e.g. problem-solving, assessment, or evaluations of discussed materials and the lesson topic, discovering more information about the topic, and generating questions about the topic or lesson content. Some tasks that promote active learning and communication throughout all instructional situations, all applied by many teachers frequently in their classes, include (e.g. Lumpkin et al., 2015): • • • • • •

Discussions in pairs, Group discussions, Short reading assignments, Short writing tasks, Note-taking, and Asking questions.

8.4 Positive Atmosphere Through Communication

113

Encouraging students to ask questions and actively answering their questions is another common element of active learning and instructional communication. At times teachers complain that students do not ask anything during classes but then stay behind to ask or email their questions later. Other teachers may have also noticed that if students do not ask questions in class, they then consult their fellow students during or after class to ensure they have understood the information or instructions correctly. The same function can take place online through chats, emails or social media accounts. Actively inviting questions during classes or posing questions yourself and then answering them can function to support students’ active learning and to deter misunderstandings or uncertainty. Technology can also be used to incite questions in the classroom, either anonymously, with nicknames or with actual names. Classroom clickers have been used for a long time and allow students to react to polls or vote on content or questions (Bojinova & Oigara, 2013; Camacho-Miñano & del Campo, 2016; Welsh, 2012). Further, live participation platforms (LPP) are one easy method to encourage questions, create polls, answer questions in either synchronous or asynchronous teaching and to promote active learning and thinking (Mehta et al., 2021). In a study I conducted with Finnish bachelor students, more than half of the students found the LPP used in the course useful, although some saw it as more entertainment than educational (Tuomainen, 2022). Still, the anonymity provided by the LPP when asking questions was strongly appreciated as asking questions in front of peers can be stressful to students. Generating a class atmosphere that encourages questions is essential to active learning, including asking students what they think or how they feel about the issues covered. To get all students to answer you can ask students at random, not relying on raised hands, or ask those who initiate eye contact with you (if culturally appropriate); often a sign that they would like to say something, or know the answer, but would rather not be active about it. Positive reinforcements on students’ active learning and participation in your teaching should ignite a positive response, i.e. complementing students on their activity in discussions or tasks and providing positive reinforcement on completed tasks or questions posed, as also discussed earlier in this book in connection with constructivist teaching methods. Some scholars may feel adult students need no reinforcement, no verbal pats on the back, but the response to positive reactions or acknowledgement is almost always positive, will resonate with many students and consequently, continue to promote their active learning.

8.4

Positive Atmosphere Through Communication

A fairly universal truth may be that if you do not enjoy teaching, it will be very difficult to become good at it. Similarly, if you do not enjoy teaching, it can be difficult to portray your enthusiasm about your field to your students. According to Jahangiri and Mucciolo (2012), happiness is one of the easiest personality traits to read in teaching, easily visible in expressions when facing others. Cavanagh (2016)

114

8

Instructional Communication

also refers to emotional contagion as part of effective teaching and learning, even in online learning environments. The atmosphere created by the teacher for the class, the lesson or the tasks sets the tone also for the students. Ideally, the tone and emotions involved would be positive ones. Teaching is in no small part performing. How you present yourself and your message matter to the audience. When I teach presentation skills to students, essentially all the elements apply also to teachers and their teaching situations, although arguably they should not be the centre of attention for some 15-20 minutes. However, many teachers do not consider their delivery as they present or lecture and how the effectiveness of their delivery will have an impact on the students. Similarly, tailoring the message to that particular audience, i.e. group of students, will make a difference. Generated through delivery and the overall communication, positive relationships between teachers and students are needed to establish trust in cooperation and as Bovill (2020) calls it, co-creating learning and teaching through relational pedagogy. However, to establish these strong connections and trust between the teacher and students, teachers need to “demonstrate that they care about students through effective communication of and interest in, respect for, and believe in students and their capabilities” (Bovill, 2020, p. 3). As discussed earlier in engaging students, a positive atmosphere and generating rapport can come from small everyday functions such as humour, being energetic, enthusiastic and applying positive body language, all part of both verbal and non-verbal communication (Mazer, 2017). Face-to-face contact with the students and maintaining eye contact (if appropriate in the culture) are also ways to signal a reciprocal communicative atmosphere in teaching. I would argue that as a teacher, you are there to explain and support, not talk and judge. Nilson (2016, p. 4) also highlights the emotional connection in learning: People learn better when the material evokes emotional and not just intellectual or physical involvement. In other words, a lasting learning experience must be moving enough to make the material memorable or to motivate people to want to learn it.

Humour can help to lift the mood and make difficult topics easier to digest (Bolkan et al., 2018). Practical examples, stories and anecdotes work similarly to connect students more strongly and in practical terms to your topic. Positivity also comes from encouraging all students to participate and supporting their participation through approval and interest. To support collaborative learning and a collaborative approach to taking part in your course: • Get students acquainted with each other, • Frequently assign them to work in pairs, threes or small groups, • Apply a variety of tasks, including roleplays and simulations, case-method teaching and problem-based teaching, and • Utilise learning analytics to check on students’ progress and allow them to check their own progress.

8.5 Adapting Approach and Content to Disciplines

115

Developing relationships and rapport through instructional communication in the classroom has a positive effect on teaching and learning. Previously rapport has been connected to students’ increased attention, attendance and satisfaction with the course (Garcia, 2022). Student-teacher rapport can influence students’ learning experience and outcomes, and in some studies, students have emphasised the relationship with their teacher over the learned content (Lammers et al., 2017). However, much of the impact of the teacher-student relationship can also take place outside the classroom or online environments, so that “student interactions with college and university faculty may also take a less formal posture, with interactions potentially occurring before or after class, in hallways and faculty offices, at other campus sites, off campus, and via digital communication” (Hoffman, 2014, p. 13). For instance, over the years I have had the pleasure to meet and discuss with students in various locales and contexts outside the classroom. These have included said hallways and offices, but also chance encounters in cafés and grocery stores and more scheduled appearances in student association balls and events. I firmly believe the encounters with students in more informal circumstances have strengthened their perceptions of me as an approachable teacher and someone who has the students’ best interests at heart. Why not discuss with students outside the classroom, have a chat with them over lunch or accept every invite they graciously offer you? After all, again, we are all humans.

8.5

Adapting Approach and Content to Disciplines

Adjusting teaching to different students is crucial for effective teaching. Being the expert on a subject but unable to communicate the subject to others is troublesome and can easily lead to frustrated students. However, thinking that understanding any content relayed in any way is the responsibility of university students is surprisingly common in higher education. Particularly teachers who have had to battle through their own studies may adopt a similar stance on teaching the next scholarly generation. How teachers in various disciplines teach often depends on the traditions in the field, the department, and the teacher’s own conceptions of teaching (Norton et al., 2005). Unless pedagogical training has been undertaken, often the skills for teaching one’s subject in higher education have been acquired tacitly through previous education and implemented as academics themselves have been educated (Kahn, 2016). Teaching one’s subject similarly to previous teachers is common because of the discipline-specific nature of the subject. Different scientific disciplines indeed have their own language use, knowledge base, culture, and ways of perceiving the world (Becher & Trowler, 2001). Often scholars who know their field thoroughly may wish to talk about it quite quickly and fluently, assuming that students will be able to follow and understand the points and that students have (or should have) prior knowledge needed to grasp these new issues. However, teachers should be aware that students in higher education come from increasingly diverse backgrounds, as

116

8

Instructional Communication

discussed earlier in this book, and many have very differing schooling, prior knowledge, and even differing study methods compared to the preferred ones in the discipline. When other elements such as motivation, needs, and expectations are added into the mix, any course or group of students will include as many individuals as there are participants. Students’ interests and aptitudes may also vary based on whether they are majoring in the subject or completing minor studies. In Finland, in many fields of study, students have to take an entrance examination to gain access to a programme, while for others, access can come through upper secondary school results or the Open University path. There may also be instances in which a student has enrolled to an ‘easier’ programme in the hopes of later gaining access to a more competitive programme through an in-house transition (Ahola et al., 2018). Disciplines do create a major issue in the variety of approaches to teaching and learning in science and higher education. In various fields of study, the tradition of teaching and learning varies, and students’ own learning methods vary. In studies students from particular disciplines have responded very differently to teaching methods and styles, often roughly divided into hard sciences and soft sciences (e.g. Neumann, 2001; Norton et al., 2005). If a particular method or approach works for students of physics, it may not necessarily work for students of education, roughly stated. For instance, Murray (2007) lists the following teaching behaviour as inducive to overall teaching effectiveness: clarity, expressiveness, interaction, organisation, task orientation, interest, and rapport. The order was also shown to be mostly the same within different fields of study, although students in natural sciences and mathematics had less interest in the teacher’s interaction compared to students in arts, humanities and social sciences. Further, in a study of Finnish university students, Lindblom-Ylänne et al. (2006) discovered clear variations in the approaches of students and teachers across disciplines and teaching contexts. As perhaps the case in most universities, teachers from so-called hard sciences (e.g. mathematics, chemistry, physics medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, and pharmacy) applied a more teacher-focused approach to their teaching, while those in softer sciences (e.g. education, law, and social sciences) were more student-focused. To start any course, whether discipline-specific or more general, it would be useful to obtain information about the students, their existing knowledge, what they most expect from the course, and what they expect to be challenging. Some type of needs analysis is a useful tool to gather information and help specify the course content and materials for that particular group of students (Ho & Lim, 2021). Collecting (anonymous) student feedback mid-way through the course can also help decipher how the first half has materialised and what should be clarified, added or omitted. The feedback can take the form of questionnaires, quizzes, reflections, or discussions (e.g. Walker, 2012). It is not necessary to change one’s style of teaching to differ drastically from the culture and tradition of the discipline. As said earlier, disciplines do have their own styles and students may also prefer a certain style of teaching and learning that is

8.6 Example Discipline: English for Academic Purposes

117

strongly connected to the field and its information. It is also useful to recognise that award-winning university teachers from around the world come from various disciplines and various backgrounds (Carless, 2015; Kember & McNaught, 2007; Kuiper & Stein, 2019). It is, however, still useful to consider how one discipline can be taught in a versatile, student-friendly and supportive manner, worthy of a teaching award or student recognition, compared to less effective methods. Still, being an expert in one field is a great premise to build on pedagogical expertise for the ultimate combination of expertise and effectiveness.

8.6

Example Discipline: English for Academic Purposes

As an example discipline, I will introduce my own field of teaching and research, English for academic purposes (EAP). It is a branch of languages for specific purposes (LSP), and English for specific purposes (ESP), taught in HEIs around the world. Academic English is included to some extent in most ESP courses in higher education, but some courses can also be defined as purely EAP. In EAP courses the focus is on learning and developing academic English for study and research purposes through academic texts, communicative situations, and other content relating to English for science and academia (Carkin, 2005; Hyland & Hamp-Lyons, 2002). The focus of EAP teaching is then to develop students’ skills in academic English reading, writing, and oral proficiency, and courses can be organised for native or non-native speakers of English (Charles & Pecorari, 2016). After all, “there are no native speakers of academic language” (Mauranen, 2012, p. 69, emphasis in original). What is essential in teaching EAP is that the courses are planned and organised to the specific needs of the students, for their discipline, studies and academic careers. Therefore the learning outcomes for various courses include items such as reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, oral fluency, listening comprehension, and presentation skills, all specified on the field-specific needs of the students (Flowerdew, 2013). Finnish university degrees include required language and communication studies (in Finnish, Swedish and another foreign language) and the foreign language for the overwhelming majority is English (Tuomainen, 2015; Tuomi & Rontu, 2011). Therefore a number of ESP and EAP courses are mandatory for most degree programmes at the bachelor’s level, to some extent at the master’s level and usually optional at the PhD level. As one can imagine, when EAP courses are required for all the students of the university, not only one faculty, department, or programme, the teachers essentially face the entire spectrum of the university student body, in diversity, aptitude and motivation. In fact, Karlsson-Fält (2010) has argued that during their language and communication courses Finnish university students’ motivations can range anywhere from goal-oriented, ambitious, and interested, to only hoping to pass the course and obtain the required credits. This, however, is not unusual for many courses in any discipline.

118

8

Instructional Communication

Yet this is both a richness and a challenge for EAP teachers: they will meet all manner of students, with various backgrounds, ages, and interest levels, and naturally also students who have not come to university to study English but their own degree programme. Students may have various challenges with language use, study skills, technology, learning difficulties, or anxiety, which are often revealed in communication-intensive EAP courses (Tuomainen, 2017). Because of the sheer range of students in EAP courses, the teachers have to apply a range of learning methods and materials to address the varying needs and levels of the students. Moreover, most courses are also tailor-made for particular degree programmes or disciplines. For this reason, the inherent nature of EAP practitioners is student-centred teaching and learning. EAP teachers are usually pedagogically trained and engage in continuous in-service training for new pedagogies, learning environments and pedagogical technology to support the diverse student population and their versatile backgrounds and needs. To further support all students, there is a variety of opportunities for diverse and individual study paths, including extensive online and blended learning options as well as extensive recognition systems for accrediting formal learning and assessing and validating non-formal and informal learning. For EAP teachers in various HEIs to ensure successful and beneficial learning experiences for their students, it is essential to create courses as relevant to students’ academic and disciplinary needs as possible, with varied and pedagogically sound teaching methods, materials, or learning environments. Students can also be supported through research-based teaching and providing effective recognition processes for previously acquired skills and knowledge. Recommended Reading Houser, M. L., & Hosek, A. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives. Routledge. Kreber, C. (Ed.). (2008). The university and its disciplines: Teaching and learning within and beyond disciplinary boundaries. Routledge. Rowan, L. & Grootenboer, P. (Eds.) (2017). Student engagement and educational rapport in higher education. Palgrave Macmillan. Sellnow, D. D., & Sellnow, T. L. (Eds.). (2021). Communication in instruction: Beyond traditional classroom settings. Routledge. Wisker, G., Exley, K., Antoniou, M., & Ridley, P. (2008). Working one-to-one with students. Routledge.

References Ahola, S., Asplund, R., & Vanhala, P. (2018). Higher education admissions and the policy of shortening transition and study times. Publications of the government’s analysis, assessment and research activities 25/2018. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-287-529-7 Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories. McGraw-Hill Education.

References

119

Blaich, C., Wise, K., Pascarella, E. T., & Roksa, J. (2016). Instructional clarity and organization: It’s not new or fancy, but it matters. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 48(4), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2016.1198142 Bojinova, E., & Oigara, J. (2013). Teaching and learning with clickers in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 25(2), 154–165. Bolkan, S., Griffin, D. J., & Goodboy, A. K. (2018). Humor in the classroom: The effects of integrated humor on student learning. Communication Education, 67(2), 144–164. https://doi. org/10.1080/03634523.2017.1413199 Bovill, C. (2020). Co-creating learning and teaching: Towards relational pedagogy in higher education. Critical Publishing. Camacho-Miñano, M. D. M., & del Campo, C. (2016). Useful interactive teaching tool for learning: Clickers in higher education. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(4), 706–723. https://doi. org/10.1080/10494820.2014.917108 Carkin, S. (2005). English for academic purposes. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 85–98). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10. 4324/9781410612700 Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment: Learning from award-winning practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315740621 Cavanagh, S. R. (2016). The spark of learning: Energizing the college classroom with the science of emotion. West Virginia University Press. Charles, M., & Pecorari, D. (2016). Introducing English for academic purposes. Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9781315682129 Flowerdew, L. (2013). Needs analysis and curriculum development in ESP. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 325–346). Wiley. https:// doi.org/10.1002/9781118339855 Garcia, J. S. (2022). Relational learning: Creating a “workroom alliance” in the classroom. In D. Westfall-Rudd, C. Vengrin, & J. Elliot-Engel (Eds.), Teaching in the university (pp. 1–10). Virginia Tech College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. https://doi.org/10.21061/ universityteaching Hartikainen, S., Rintala, H., Pylväs, L., & Nokelainen, P. (2019). The concept of active learning and the measurement of learning outcomes: A review of research in engineering higher education. Education Sciences, 9(4), 276. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040276 Hativa, N. (2000). Teaching for effective learning in higher education. Kluwer Academic. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0902-7 Ho, Y. Y., & Lim, L. (2021). Targeting student learning needs: The development and preliminary validation of the Learning Needs Questionnaire for a diverse university student population. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(7), 1452–1465. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07294360.2020.1818062 Hoffman, E. M. (2014). Faculty and student relationships: Context matters. College Teaching, 62(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2013.817379 Houser, M. L., & Waldbuesser, C. (2017). Emotional contagion in the classroom: The impact of teacher satisfaction and confirmation on perceptions of student nonverbal classroom behavior. College Teaching, 65(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2016.1189390 Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: Issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00002-4 Jahangiri, L., & Mucciolo, T. (2012). A guide to better teaching: Skills, advice, and evaluation for college and university professors. Rowman & Littlefield. Kahn, P. (2016). Teaching in higher education as a collective endeavour. In B. Leibowitz, V. Bozalek, & P. Kahn (Eds.), Theorising learning to teach in higher education (pp. 158–171). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315559605 Karlsson-Fält, C. (2010). Kielikeskuksissa toimivien kieltenopettajien käsityksiä ja kokemuksia massayliopiston luomista haasteista [Challenges of mass university conceived and experienced

120

8

Instructional Communication

by university language centre language teachers]. Doctoral dissertation. University of Turku. https://www.utupub.fi/handle/10024/63261 Kember, D., & McNaught, C. (2007). Enhancing university teaching: Lessons from research into award-winning teachers. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203962947 Kuiper, A. C., & Stein, S. J. (2019). Engaging, innovating and inspiring: The paradox of the mediated voice of award-winning teachers. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(6), 1197–1212. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1626811 Lammers, W. J., Gillaspy, J. A., Jr., & Hancock, F. (2017). Predicting academic success with early, middle, and late semester assessment of student–instructor rapport. Teaching of Psychology, 44(2), 145–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628317692618 LeBlanc Farris, K., Houser, M. L., & Hosek, A. M. (2018). Historical roots and trajectories of instructional communication. In M. L. Houser & A. M. Hosek (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 1–20). Routledge. https://doi.org/ 10.4324/9781315189864 Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A., & Ashwin, P. (2006). How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600680539 Lumpkin, A., Achen, R. M., & Dodd, R. K. (2015). Student perceptions of active learning. College Student Journal, 49(1), 121–133. Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring EFL: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge University Press. Mazer, J. P. (2017). Associations among classroom emotional processes, student interest, and engagement: A convergent validity test. Communication Education, 66(3), 350–360. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1265134 Mehta, K. J., Miletich, I., & Detyna, M. (2021). Content-specific differences in Padlet perception for collaborative learning amongst undergraduate students. Research in Learning Technology, 29, 2551. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v29.2551 Moore, S., Walsh, G., & Risquez, A. (2007). Teaching at college and university: Effective strategies and principles. McGraw-Hill Education. Murray, H. G. (2007). Low-inference teaching behaviors and college teaching effectiveness: Recent developments and controversies. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 145–183). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5742-3 Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120052071 Niemi, H., Nevgi, A., & Aksit, F. (2016). Active learning promoting student teachers’ professional competences in Finland and Turkey. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 471–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1212835 Nilson, L. B. (2016). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors (4th ed.). Wiley. Norton, L., Richardson, T. E., Hartley, J., Newstead, S., & Mayes, J. (2005). Teachers’ beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher education. Higher Education, 50(4), 537–571. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6363-z Rodger, S., Murray, H. G., & Cummings, A. L. (2007). Effects of teacher clarity and student anxiety on student outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13562510601102255 Shnai, I. (2022). The flipped classroom: A case study over five years. In L. Chechurin (Ed.), Digital teaching and learning in higher education: developing and disseminating skills for blended learning (pp. 29–43). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-00801-6 Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers (3rd ed.). ASCD. https://files.ascd.org/ staticfiles/ascd/pdf/siteASCD/publications/books/QualitiesOfEffectiveTeachers3rdEd_ Stronge_0318.pdf

References

121

Tuomainen, S. (2015). Recognition, assessment and student perceptions of non-formal and informal learning of English for specific purposes in a university context. Doctoral dissertation. University of Eastern Finland. https://erepo.uef.fi/handle/123456789/15291 Tuomainen, S. (2017). Student anxiety and learning difficulties in academic English courses. In ECLL17 The European conference on language learning conference proceedings. http://papers. iafor.org/papers/ecll2017/ECLL2017_35207.pdf Tuomainen, S. (2018). Supporting non-native university lecturers with English-medium instruction. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 10(3), 230–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JARHE-03-2017-0022 Tuomainen, S. (2022). The role of anonymity in live participation platforms for online language learning. In R. Kantelinen, M. Kautonen, & Z. Elgundi (Eds.), Linguapeda 2021 conference proceedings (pp. 206–226). Suomen ainedidaktisen tutkimusseuran julkaisuja. Ainedidaktisia tutkimuksia 21. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/352128 Tuomi, U. K., & Rontu, H. (2011). University language centres in Finland – Role and challenges. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 5(2), 45–50. https://apples.journal.fi/article/ view/97823 Walker, H. M. (2012). Mid-course corrections. ACM Inroads, 3(1), 20–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2077808.2077813 Welsh, A. J. (2012). Exploring undergraduates’ perceptions of the use of active learning techniques in science lectures. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(2), 80–87. https://www.sei.ubc.ca/ bitstream/seima/2142/1/Welsh_Student%20PerceptionsActiveLearning_JCST2012.pdf Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instructional explanations. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701756420

9

Interviews with Award-Winning University Lecturers

Abstract

This chapter provides more perspectives on university teaching and learning through interviews with award-winning Finnish university teachers from various disciplines. The purpose is to provide practical and concrete examples and advice on high-quality teaching for new and experienced teachers. These lecturers have all received an award for their excellent university teaching. All with over 20 years of teaching experience in their fields, they have encountered various students and situations but all are still actively and systematically developing their teaching. In the interviews we talked about what they enjoyed most in teaching, their perceived qualities of good teachers and their qualities as excellent teachers, their students in various disciplines and their learning styles and the support they needed, and other elements such as professional training and English-medium instruction. Keywords

Award-winning lecturers · Teaching excellence · Interview · Teacher perceptions · Professional development

The most effective teachers [. . .] use various techniques (such as questioning and observing students) to diagnose student learning and then adjust instruction promptly to close the gap between where the students are and where they should be. Thus, effective instruction involves a dynamic interaction among content, pedagogical methods, characteristics of individual students, and the content in which learning is to occur. (Stronge, 2018, p. 93)

Four interviews with award-winning Finnish university lecturers from different disciplines in slightly abbreviated form are below. All interviews were conducted in October and November 2022, either in Finnish or English, with the former ones translated into English. The interviews, either face-to-face or online, lasted for # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Tuomainen, Supporting Students through High-Quality Teaching, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39844-5_9

123

124

9 Interviews with Award-Winning University Lecturers

approximately 30 minutes. My warmest thanks again to these teachers for their views and thoughts on high-quality teaching and learning! On purpose I wanted to ask these high-quality university teachers about the themes covered in this book, i.e. qualities of good and excellent teachers, support for students, student diversity and internationalisation, the importance to professional development and pedagogical training. In addition, I wanted to reflect on the lecturers’ comments in connection with Alan Skelton’s (2015) book Understanding teaching excellence in higher education: Towards a critical approach.

9.1

Vesa, Biology, 20 Years of Experience

Satu

So Vesa, what is the best or most meaningful part of university teaching for you? Definitely that if students can be motivated for their various tasks and they can put in the effort, then they will be able to complete more challenging problem solutions for which they don’t have ready-made answers. At the same time, they can learn new skills that they didn’t know they could even learn. What kind of qualities make a good university teacher or maybe even an excellent one? Above all, the teacher is flexible so that there is not just one way to do things. If you are an experienced teacher, then you start to have different methods in your back pocket, which you can alternate and that gives you versatility. Then you can react to student feedback and change your courses. Do you think that experience is a key part of it, or can even a new teacher be a good teacher? Yes, many new teachers are good teachers, it just always requires that we care about students and that we are there to teach them so that they learn, not that we fill up the teaching hours. You too have received an award for excellent teaching. What do you think are some of your qualities that led to that award? In natural sciences, there were quite a few teaching developments [I was involved in] and I’m constantly trying to contact the students and ask how they’re doing and help them with their learning. What do you think about such awards for teaching at the university level? Are they a good or a bad thing? In my opinion, very good. Because in the past I felt that the development of teaching was secondary, the most important thing was that everyone got a lot of research funding. Now there are efforts to show that teaching is also considered important. Very true. So, you teach biology. Do you feel that biology students are special in some way and that certain teaching methods work better for them than for students in other fields?

Vesa

Satu Vesa

Satu Vesa

Satu Vesa

Satu Vesa

Satu

9.1 Vesa, Biology, 20 Years of Experience

Vesa

Satu Vesa

Satu Vesa

Satu

Vesa

Satu Vesa

Satu

Vesa

125

Many of my students like to have a teacher who tells them a lot of new things, they come to the courses to learn new things and for someone to tell them new information. But I also always try to remind them that we don’t know everything, we just know this much about this subject! Has your students’ learning developed or perhaps changed over the past 2, 3, 5 years? There have mainly been changes in how many of the students try to complete courses the final night [before a deadline]. If they do, it explains an awful lot of why some don’t pass the course. That’s why I wanted to change my teaching methods so that students can’t do the tasks in one evening, instead, there are weekly assignments and so on. If we give them challenging tasks and if we give them appropriate support, then the tasks can be done just as well as 20 years ago, and that has not disappeared. What kind of support do your students usually want from you? They want to meet the teacher either live or remotely even once in a while. For that, I like to organise sessions several times a week and at different times. A few years ago, for instance, some students had already registered and paid for an Open University course at another university and then they noticed that there was no contact teaching there. In the end, they enrolled with us instead for that course because they wanted to see and meet the teacher, that it’s not just click click online. An important topic in education is also diversity, is it visible in your classes or your student groups? Some teachers mention that it has increased significantly and how students talk about their challenges. Yes, it has, and it’s really good that recently students have brought it up better. It has been visible all the time I’ve been teaching but earlier students tried to cover their difficulties and never mention them, and then they might drop their courses or studies. These issues should be brought up. It is also a kind of success for the teacher when they do want to talk about these issues. So that I haven’t been too scary that the student dared to contact me and tell me that they have such and such, and then we can try to find ways to help their learning. How about English in your teaching? How many international students do you have that you get to teach in English? A quarter of my teaching is in English and that’s how it’s been for the last 20 years. That is, it doesn’t matter whether I speak Finnish or English, and I have noticed that doing various group work tasks and such has worked surprisingly well, some students are in other countries, and some are in Finland. There have been no particular cultural conflicts in organising group work. Do you notice changing your teaching in any way when you use a foreign language and you know that your students use English as a second language? Does it affect your teaching in any way? Yes, it takes some more time to prepare the lessons because you always have to think in a foreign language; how to tell this matter, to tell it as simply as

126

9 Interviews with Award-Winning University Lecturers

Vesa Satu

possible and in such a way that when people come from different backgrounds, you can’t start from the assumption that they have the same background knowledge. But on the other hand, it’s always a tremendous richness to get to teach people who come from a background other than our own education pipeline. How do you like to maintain and develop your professional skills, or which are your preferred ways for professional development? It’s really good that we now have a relatively formal education for teachers’ professional development. Originally I graduated as a subject teacher, which means I have pedagogical qualifications. I also try to read literature related to my teaching methods and I try to participate in events related to the development of teaching. For the past 8 years, I have probably tried to participate in all of them and I like to go and talk to different people about developing teaching. How about research, do you have time for research? If so, do you research your field or do you also research teaching? At the moment, I conduct research only about teaching. Sounds great. Thank you, Vesa!

9.2

Minna, Translation Studies, 20 Years of Experience

Satu Vesa

Satu

Satu Minna

Satu

Minna

Great to talk to you, Minna. An easy question to start with. . . What do you enjoy most about teaching at university? Well, I think one aspect is the freedom of teaching. Of course within the limits of the curriculum, but we have the freedom to try new teaching methods and new approaches, together with colleagues and students. Then obviously the teaching itself; for instance, I have many interactive classes, and very few lectures, so we can have stimulating discussions. The students always come up with solutions or perspectives that I would have never thought of myself. It’s such a learning experience. Also that you’re accompanying the students for roughly 5 years on their journeys of professional and personal growth. There are some cases where things don’t turn out so well, but in other cases, students somehow manage to turn things around and overcome all kinds of obstacles. A new student coming from Finnish upper secondary school and then [during their studies] becoming an adult and a professional, that’s amazing. I know! One of my favourite things is also if I meet a student in the first year, OK, they’re new to their studies, and then if I see them in the third year, it’s amazing how they’ve grown in many ways, and they think about their studies and everything in different ways. Yes. One part of my work is that I supervise students with their learning portfolios during the BA degree and in their first year they think, OK,

9.2 Minna, Translation Studies, 20 Years of Experience

Satu

Minna

Satu

Minna

127

I might be interested in this or that, and I’m not really sure. Then in their third year, they look back, reflect and have a clearer idea of what they want to do and what they’re interested in and that’s amazing. I think probably a large part of your success as a teacher and how your students view you is because of that personal connection, and you want to be there for them and support them. In connection with this, you have an award for excellent teaching. If you think back to the reasons for your award, what are some of the qualities that contributed to you being recognised? Well, something that was definitely necessary was the pedagogical training I undertook at the university. The pedagogical training was important because it was about developing teaching skills and getting theoretical background for what you’re doing, learning to reflect on what you’re doing, and getting new ideas and feedback from your colleagues. That was very important and then the reflective tasks where you had to explicitly verbalise and plan your aims, the learning outcomes and how you’re going have the students achieve them. All this explicit verbalisation was fundamental. At the same time, I wouldn’t be the teacher that I am without collaboration and networking with my colleagues in Translation Studies, not just at our university, but with other universities in Finland. We have a very cooperative, open and warm community. Most teachers of translation in Finland know each other and that makes it very easy to exchange ideas. You have this trust from knowing your colleagues and that everyone is working towards the same aims. That has helped a lot. We have developed a teaching methods database for teaching translation and interpreting. It was very inspiring for me and I worked very actively with two of my colleagues building the database, we had great fun and we came up with lots of teaching methods that I wouldn’t have thought of on my own and it has kept me working on my teaching. I think it’s great when you have a programme or a field where you can have close connections within one country, but also internationally. Also, one of the benefits of pedagogical training is that you can be observed when teaching and you can get feedback from your peers. However, for many teachers, it is scary and they don’t want to put themselves in that position. And as you said, reflection is difficult, especially if you’re fairly established in your field or as a teacher. It can be tricky to try to reflect and find development or recognise you may need development. Yeah, putting yourself out there and being subject to possible criticism does require an atmosphere of trust, and that’s not always easy to establish. I have been lucky in that respect as well that I have found these colleagues in pedagogical training from other fields and within my field. I feel I can trust them; I can throw out ideas, and if they’re crazy I’ll be told so but I don’t get undermined. I don’t know how common that is, but I think that’s very valuable.

128

Satu

Minna

Satu

Minna

Satu

Minna

9 Interviews with Award-Winning University Lecturers

Maybe in connection with this and how you talked about yourself and your qualities: do you feel there are certain qualities that you connect strongly with somebody who’s considered a good teacher or even an excellent teacher? You can be a good or excellent teacher in very different ways. There is room for different ways of teaching, but you need to have awareness of and openness to students’ needs, willingness to find out where they’re starting from, and what they actually need, and consider that without compromising the quality of learning and the quality of scientific rigour, and that’s not always easy. You must also have respect for the students. Some of my colleagues have said that they try to think of students as junior colleagues. You need to have expertise in your own discipline and some pedagogical training. . . Well, it’s not necessary because I have seen some very good teachers who don’t have any but I think in most cases it’s helpful. At the same time, I think it’s important not to make unreasonable demands on teachers’ time because we also need to do research and we have administrative duties, so if you start requiring pedagogical training, you also need to give it time in the work plan. You also need to have empathy for yourself because you can’t be an excellent teacher 100% of the time. Sometimes you try something and then you realise it doesn’t work at all. So forgiveness and empathy for yourself and the students. On the other hand, also dare to challenge yourself, and challenge the students. Start working on something, although you don’t necessarily know where it will go and if it will work out. And being open to students about it, Okay, I’m trying this thing and I’m not quite sure if it will work, but let’s see together. Having honesty and not trying to be the authority who knows everything. How about your students in more detail, do you feel that students’ learning has changed or developed in certain ways in recent years? Or how do your students in humanities or arts like to learn? Do you encounter a variety of learning methods with students? I think the students these days are more aware of the different ways of studying and learning and then showcasing their learning. The role of audio-visual materials is more emphasised. For example, students revise by using lecture recordings and they also understand informal learning better. I don’t know if there’s a fundamental change; it hasn’t changed that some students have a strong preference for interactive tasks like pair work and group work and others don’t enjoy it. So I try to mix the two because they need to learn to do both. Let’s talk about support because you’ve touched on it many times, what you do with students, how you want to help them learn and how you want to help them develop. Support, of course, is a very multi-layered term but what kind of support do your students hope to have from you? In the humanities in particular, where [in Finland] you can choose your minors freely, the idea is that through the minors you find a direction for

9.3 Erkki, Computer Science, 34 Years of Experience

Satu

Minna

Satu

129

your studies and an individual path to what you want to become. And that’s not easy. So that’s definitely where students want and need support and that’s why we have teacher tutors in the humanities and the degree portfolios [at this university]. So I hope that helps, but it still requires a lot of work from the students. I’ve started thinking about whether the students get enough guidance or if they have the skills for self-regulation, managing their time, and persistence if they encounter some difficulties. At the same time, I’ve thought a lot about accessibility and that we would need to develop more alternative ways of studying. They should be built into the curriculum so that the students don’t need to apply for individual arrangements so often. But resources are required and competence is required of the teachers. . . My concern with accessibility is whether we will have enough resources and support for implementing that. I think that’s going to be a bigger thing in the future, and it’s also needed for students’ rights, social justice and equal opportunities. Yes, we’re going to see increasing numbers of very diverse students from various backgrounds and supporting all those students and offering these accessible materials is going to be a challenge. OK, we touched a little bit on professional development already when you talked about your pedagogical training. What type of professional development is your favourite at the moment? Anything interactive. You definitely need that input and feedback from your colleagues. Of course, feedback from students is also very valuable. I have gotten a lot of great ideas from students over the years. I have enjoyed university pedagogical courses because they have provided me with a theoretical background. Fortunately, there is currently one journal focused on translator training, The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, where I can find relevant articles. I also follow some pedagogical researchers on Twitter, so I have gotten lots of useful ideas for instance on feedback literacy. I don’t know if I have a preferred type as such, but a combination of interactive feedback from colleagues and students, and then articles you can read on your own. Thank you, Minna, for sharing your thoughts with me!

9.3

Erkki, Computer Science, 34 Years of Experience

Satu

So Erkki, what do you think is the best or most meaningful part about teaching at university for you? What motivates me is that when I see students learning something, even difficult subjects, that they process it and understand it, that’s the best thing of all. Also of course at university, you have quite a lot of freedom as a teacher to choose your teaching methods and materials, you can have quite a

Erkki

130

Satu

Erkki

Sat Erkki

Satu Erkki

Satu Erkki Satu

Erkki

Satu

9 Interviews with Award-Winning University Lecturers

lot of influence on all of them. I’ve noticed that when I’ve done flipped learning, for instance, I have always tried all kinds of interesting things in teaching that I’ve come across, different methods to use in teaching. What do you think in general is good teaching at university or effective teaching, is it the same, or excellent teaching... What kind of qualities do you think are associated with it? I think it has to do with the fact that students should be made to understand the content and get excited about learning. I remember when I was studying myself, there was a teacher who was really enthusiastic about the subject and told examples and stories and simplified things so that you understood them. It was a nice way to learn, to get excited about learning. In my teaching, I try in every way to get the students to do something so that they learn and understand and realise new information. Learning by doing? Learning by doing, yes. If they sit in the classroom and just listen to me, it doesn’t help. But if they listen and do something with that information, process it, think and calculate, then they understand it much better and it sticks in their minds. For example, I’m currently running an introduction to computer science course for 400 people. There is nothing compulsory in the course. Oh really? But in the course, students collect points for different tasks. To evaluate their learning I use a system where I reward students for everything they do: review tasks, homework, exercises, participation in group discussions, and exams. In fact, the exam carries very little weight or even no weight at all. So there is flexibility in it and students can make a package of the course that suits them. They do have to do a lot of work and collect a lot of points to complete the course. That is very interesting. Of course today, students are so diverse that it is useful to have those options, such as alternative methods for a course, or alternatives within a course, it works quite well. Let’s talk for a moment also about your teaching award. What do you think led to your award; what qualities make you such an accomplished teacher or excellent teacher? Probably the desire to improve my teaching. I listen to students’ feedback, what works and what doesn’t and try to make the teaching work, that’s one side of it. I have received feedback from students and my courses seem to work, that’s one reason. Then I’ve been involved in various teacher networks and been able to share my ideas there, and then I get ideas from others about what they’ve tried and how teaching can be organised and it allows me to further develop my teaching. If we come back to students again; have you seen any change in your students’ learning, methods or even learning difficulties over the years? How do your students learn now, versus let’s say 10 years ago? Is there a change or is it always just learning and it varies based on each individual?

9.3 Erkki, Computer Science, 34 Years of Experience

Erkki

Satu

Erkki

Satu

Erkki

Satu

131

Yes, it has changed, there have been many things that affect it. When I started, our enrolment was 30 students. Now we have 400 students. Contact with students is different because the numbers have increased. You can’t know the students, and before you knew everyone. Before students listened to lectures and took notes with pen and paper, now everything is done on a computer so the technology is there, and online learning environments. Some still like to go to the lecture hall and have the teacher speak there and be present, and some want to study completely remotely. The majority are certainly satisfied that there are materials and tasks online but that we are also on campus and doing them together. I also think students are more heterogeneous now that student numbers have increased. Some students have the skills for university study, but in practice, it can be tough to get started with their studies. The student range is now so wide that there are more of those with difficulties with studying. Of course, there is another extreme where everything goes well. But taking this into account is one challenge. I have tried to fix this by having groups in my course that the students belong to so that they work as a group and have that support group. Based on the feedback, they have found it useful, they meet weekly online, and the same group continues throughout the course, they have really nice conversations. Creating such a small group, a support group, certainly works well in most fields. We could also talk more about support. What kind of support do your students need in their learning or is it more technical support, mental support or related to study skills? Are you being told about personal matters? At the very beginning of their studies they need some technical support to access our [IT] systems. After that, it’s more about study skills and general support. We now have older students as teaching assistants in so-called difficult courses and they have been very useful. There is a homework club and tutoring sessions related to the course, which are run by the teaching assistants. We also have discussion channels online, where we can offer assistance. Would you say that students of computer science like to learn in certain ways? Or do they think about teaching in certain ways? Does it differ from students from some other disciplines? They want precise answers. What are the right answer and the right solution exactly, this is expected from teaching and learning. Then some students find it challenging if the course has a reflection task, such as Think about ethical questions related to this theme and write an essay about them. Many students entering our programme are technically oriented. I try to expand their thinking and doing but it can be challenging for them. We talked about different students earlier so does diversity show in your students also, do you encounter issues related to challenges? Perhaps learning difficulties, physical or mental challenges?

132

Erkki

9 Interviews with Award-Winning University Lecturers

Satu

All of them, and then we discuss how those students could do a task that is challenging for them, and we think about alternative ways of doing it. In teaching situations, some may have a problem with reading or listening. Another element connected to diversity is that students come from increasingly different backgrounds, and you have to think if there is something to consider. Another issue is what you talk about and how in teaching, such as what kind of jokes you can and can’t tell. Some students are quite sensitive that you have to talk about certain things in a very appropriate way. On the other hand, it is a very good thing that these things are talked about and considered. If we talk about you again, you have a lot of experience and you are an active participant in many areas. If you think about a teacher’s professional development, do you have any methods or activities that you enjoy the most at the moment? At the moment it’s all the networks I am part of, and also the Pedaforum days [pedagogical development conference for Finnish HEIs] when I can learn new things to try and test out in my teaching solutions. It’s about talking to others about how they teach and sharing my ideas and getting ideas from them as well; that’s maybe the main thing for me at the moment. In pedagogy networks, you can discuss things related to teaching and very practical things, ideas and good practices are shared. If you have time to do research, do you do field-specific research in computer science or research related to teaching? It is related to the teaching of computer science. How about teaching in English, how much do you get to teach in English or can you? I don’t actually teach in English. I do deal with international students to some extent, but currently, I don’t teach them. However, we are about to start a bachelor’s program in English, so I am preparing materials for that. Thanks for your time, Erkki!

9.4

Terhi, Nurse Teacher Education, 22 Years of Experience

Satu

Terhi, what have been the best or perhaps still are the best elements for you in university teaching? For me, it’s the students. When they learn and new ones come every autumn, it gives me energy. I also learn at the same time because adult students are active and really want to learn, it’s contagious. Of course also that the research is interesting and my teaching is based on research. If you think generally, what is a good or excellent university teacher? What kind of qualities should they have?

Satu

Erkki

Satu Erkki Satu Erkki

Terhi

Satu

9.4 Terhi, Nurse Teacher Education, 22 Years of Experience

Terhi

Satu Terhi

Satu

Terhi

Satu Terhi

Satu Terhi

Satu Terhi Satu Terhi

133

I think that if you have good pedagogical skills, it affects many elements. I think broadly that a good teacher has communication skills, good pedagogy, is a good listener, has situational awareness, and does not rely on formulaic thinking. Good teaching is also goal-oriented but the teacher knows how to choose the right teaching and assessment methods. Both content and pedagogy go hand in hand. Do you feel that good teaching has changed during your teaching career? Was it different before or has the Covid-19 pandemic era changed it? The student body has changed in a certain way, similarly as working life has changed. We have a lot of adult students in this field. They are active and eager to learn, but just like in working life, free time can be more important for some students, they don’t value studying in the same way as before. Of course, there are also those students who are motivated, as always. But even in working life, there are people these days who value free time over work, it’s the same with studies. When you said that the student body has changed, have you noticed that students in your field have become more diverse? Do you feel that they have more study-related challenges? The range of students has expanded. There are active and self-directed ones, but on the other hand, there are those who value other things more and have an attitude of ‘As long as I get things done’. Yes, ‘as long as I pass the course’. . . But then again, our students already have a basic degree when they enrol, so they come to study with certain skills. But the challenge is also that they have so many irons in the fire: work, family, and other challenges in life. Or that their previous studies took place a long time ago and now studying itself is the challenge. Do your students need any specific support for their studies or personally? We emphasise a certain kind of flexibility because the students are in working life. Our teaching methods have been quite flexible for a long time. We have had online learning since the 1990s, so the Covid-19 era was not new for us, we already had the framework for it. We have tried to meet the students’ needs for flexible studies because they have families, children, and work... Yes, it is quite challenging for many. Many travel across the country by bus during the night [for 4–5 h] if they have classes on campus in the morning. Oh no! But they do seem to be very motivated. They are very motivated. And it provides a good challenge also for us teachers; you cannot go teach with old knowledge or information. I think your degrees have a lot of flexibility so that students can study remotely. It depends on the course. Some courses have more contact teaching on campus, and our simulations are on campus, so in their second year, they have quite a lot of campus presence.

134

Satu

Terhi

Satu

Terhi

Satu

Terhi

Satu

Terhi

9 Interviews with Award-Winning University Lecturers

What kind of teaching methods or learning methods work best for students in your discipline? Different fields can have certain learning or teaching methods, which do not necessarily work the same way in another field. Do you feel that your students prefer certain type of learning? We use a lot of participatory methods and many different methods so that when the students learn through this variety, they also get experiences for their own future teaching. Since our students often live off-campus, they also like hybrid learning so they can study from home if possible. If you think about study skills or ways of learning from a while back, have they changed? Have study styles somehow changed dramatically or changed at all, if you think 5, 10 years ago... Of course. We’ve had online teaching in various forms for a long time but simulation tasks and flipped learning have also come along. However, anything based on experiential learning works well for adult students. Although it is research-based, it can be combined with existing knowledge and it will produce results. I also often think that one person learns by hearing and another learns by seeing and so on, so you have to teach and offer tasks in various ways. What works for one doesn’t work for another, and all these students are in the same group. It’s a challenge. Likewise, the extensive age range is a challenge. On one hand, it is a benefit, but on the other, it is a challenge, such as what is the background when they enter their studies. It’s exactly that; diversity and widening access that students from different backgrounds come to university studies, and in Finland, you can come from any background. Even if it’s been 20 years since your last degree. Also the previous degrees can be from very different fields, and students have different types of work experience. Some have no work experience but come directly from the university of applied sciences [i.e. polytechnic]. But we have great guidance and support systems for students’ personal study plans. That sounds great. Let’s talk a little bit about your teaching award for excellent teaching as well. What kinds of qualities do you think led to your award? I have to say networking, cooperation and multidisciplinary work, even back then. Now it’s even more popular. Networking with different disciplines and different organisations, the desire to cooperate and the expert has to be a bit of a daredevil. One who dares to go to the limit and not settle for mediocrity. You have to throw yourself into new things and sometimes fail too. I am also student-centred; I have always liked giving guidance and working with students. I’m not a lecturer for large halls but I like to work with participatory methods, and guide students... Student-centredness describes it quite well. I have also always been interested in new teaching methods and teaching technology.

9.5 Remarks on the Interviews and Their Connections with Skelton’s (2005). . .

Satu

Terhi

Satu Terhi

Satu Terhi

Satu Terhi

Satu

9.5

135

This links well to your professional development; you’ve always been interested in new things, what are you interested in at the moment to support your teaching? It’s funny, I have done many courses in IT and pedagogy over the years, and I also took some courses in education since I had teacher qualifications already from my master’s. Then about 5 years ago I realised I almost have a master’s degree in education based on my courses over the years. Then I applied to complete my master’s in education, took an entrance exam and everything, and supplemented my studies for the full degree! How amazing! Completing studies in education over the years like that, I found it very interesting when I was teaching a lot, and I could update my research knowledge [on pedagogy] at the same time. Do you now have time for research? I assume that your research has to do with pedagogy and teaching. Yes, and I belong to many pedagogy groups, and steering groups and I have PhD students, so I do conduct research myself but also as part of research groups and as a supervisor. One of my main interests is the well-being at work of teachers in the school context and the well-being at work of health science teachers. What about teaching in English? How much English teaching do you have and do you feel that it is different in some way? I really like working with international students and colleagues. I don’t think I’m the best at English so I have to work harder at it. For instance, I have a course in English for PhD researchers, I do have to prepare more. But I think it’s fun to work with people from different backgrounds and learn new things. We also have international staff and colleagues and international projects. That’s the modern university. Thank you so much, Terhi!

Remarks on the Interviews and Their Connections with Skelton’s (2005) Notions on Teaching Excellence

Students are the focus of these accomplished teachers, and this highlights the fact that good teaching does not happen in a vacuum and it is not intended for the teacher but to support students and their learning. Motivating students to gain the most of their studies and learning was a significant part of these lecturers’ approaches to teaching, creating challenges that the students to meet and supporting those who had difficulties with their studies. Regardless of the discipline, these teachers emphasised the role of active learning and learning by doing, not lecturing or speaking with authority. Another element visible in the teachers’ interviews was flexibility towards the students. At times some teachers may feel that providing more flexible options for

136

9 Interviews with Award-Winning University Lecturers

students takes too much time from their busy schedules and that all students should adhere to the same guidelines and deadlines. However, these teachers provide flexible options for their students, especially for those with difficulties in learning, and also continually apply various methods in their courses. These teachers also actively consider diverse learners and seek to support them and their various ways of learning. As Skelton (2005, p. 97) has stated, “teaching excellence involve [s] demonstrating a concern for the ‘weaker’ students, helping them with their learning difficulties and being available for ‘remedial’ help.” Student contact is also essential with these award-winning teachers. Being in contact with students, whether face-to-face or online and being available and accessible, has resonated well with students who appreciate the relationships and rapport created through these personal connections. Naturally, if class sizes are in the hundreds, personal connections are more challenging, but then dividing students into smaller groups, utilising teaching assistants or designating time for guidance and counselling meetings are effective ways to approach those who need assistance the most. Again similarly Skelton remarks that “excellent teachers can be distinguished by several personal qualities and commitments, such as enthusiasm, energy, approachability, the interest they show in students as people, their communication skills, and their ability to relate and empathize with students” (2005, p. 96). Pedagogical training is another element that arose in the interviews as an integral part of these teachers’ development. All had completed some level of either subject teacher training or university pedagogy studies and felt they were useful in expanding their theoretical knowledge about teaching but also practical advice on how to approach teaching in their own work. This relates well again to Skelton’s notions of excellent teachers who “can be distinguished by their commitment to a long-term continuous process of professional development through critical reflection” (2005, p. 96). After formal training, many teachers were more heavily invested in collaboration, networking and cooperation, and sought to work together with other teachers to discuss, develop and experiment with various teaching methods and approaches. Conferences, working groups, pedagogical networks and social media connections were popular choices to reach other teachers. Also visible in the teachers’ interviews was the dedication to research on teaching and developing teaching practices through a theoretical and pedagogical framework. In Finnish universities, teachers have the freedom to implement their teaching within the curriculum and those with an innovative disposition can both test and try different methods but also generate pedagogical research on their experiments. Research also often means collaboration with students and activating students to be part of the research and the academic community. Skelton (2005, p. 160) creates a distinction between pedagogical research and pedagogical development, with the former usually undertaken by higher education researchers on a large scale and the latter by practitioners on a smaller scale. However, many excellent teachers, such as the ones in these interviews, dedicate their research efforts to further university and higher education pedagogy, a crucial part of developing high-quality teaching and sharing the evidence of their teaching to further pedagogical research and support students through research-based teaching.

References

137

Recommended Reading Broughan, C., Steventon, G., & Clouder, L. (Eds.). (2018). Global perspectives on teaching excellence: A new era for higher education. Routledge. Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment: Learning from award-winning practice. Routledge. Cordell, R. M., Lucal, E. M., Morgan, R. K., & Hamilton, S. (Eds.). (2004). Quick hits for new faculty: Successful strategies by award-winning teachers. Indiana University Press. French, A., & O’Leary, M. (Eds.). (2017). Teaching excellence in higher education: Challenges, changes and the teaching excellence framework. Emerald Group. Kember, D., & McNaught, C. (2007). Enhancing university teaching: Lessons from research into award-winning teachers. Routledge.

References Skelton, A. (2005). Understanding teaching excellence in higher education: Towards a critical approach. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203412947 Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers (3rd ed.). ASCD. https://files.ascd.org/ staticfiles/ascd/pdf/siteASCD/publications/books/QualitiesOfEffectiveTeachers3rdEd_ Stronge_0318.pdf

The Future Teacher, Student and University

10

Abstract

This final chapter provides a look into the future of higher education teaching and learning. The Covid-19 pandemic forced a substantial transfer to online and blended learning, also in fields where previously this approach was limited. Have we moved permanently to a new normal, i.e. extensive online learning and blended learning in higher education, and what damage, if any, has the remote presence of both teachers and students inflicted on the teacher-student connection and support, quality teaching and effective learning in higher education? If we continue to provide more online and blended learning in higher education, how do we continue to successfully bond and connect teachers and students in virtual environments? Can quality teaching exist online, or have we passed the baton to students to be in charge of their learning, and to study even more independently? Keywords

Future universities · Online learning · Student engagement · Post-pandemic education

By going inward to our early learning influences and our current teaching practices, and going outward toward a greater understanding of students, we gain the possibility of a deeper understanding of learning – our own and our students’. (Chávez & Longerbeam, 2016, p. 126)

10.1

Constantly Changing Higher Education

Many education systems around the world are undergoing drastic changes, not only because of the post-Covid shift to extended education technology but also because of the fundamental changes in society. The world around us is increasingly fragmented, # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Tuomainen, Supporting Students through High-Quality Teaching, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39844-5_10

139

140

10 The Future Teacher, Student and University

individualistic and packed with information so the role of the teacher has changed from a traditional teacher and educator to a facilitator. Young adults generally also no longer enjoy reading and studying at the same level as 20–30 years ago, instead preferring to see friends or spend time online, play video games or engage in social media, also in connection with their learning and education (Baron & Mangen, 2021; Mizrachi et al., 2021; OECD, 2019). Hence, we are seeing and will see an increased elevation of the role of non-formal and informal learning also as part of higher education. Although the role and position of the teacher have changed, HEIs still impose increased accountability and requirements of excellence on their teaching staff (Ashwin, 2022; Light et al., 2009). The number and diversity of students have expanded yet the time allowed for teaching tasks remains the same, if not smaller, because of increased administrative tasks and larger enrolment of students. Teachers have to continue to reach for teaching excellence despite juggling various tasks and responsibilities in a rapidly growing and diversifying educational environment. Fleming (2021) claims that good teaching is hindered by the trappings of the modern university system. Large intakes of students and large class sizes make meaningful teacher-student connections more challenging and thus can deter good teaching, as discussed earlier in this book. Additionally, higher education systems with tuition fees can create customer-oriented thinking among students and student perceptions (Plamper et al., 2023; Reynolds, 2022) and feedback can influence teachers’ performance, career progression and rewards (Henderson et al., 2019). All this can create a stressful teaching and learning environment for both teachers and students, leading some academics to potentially enjoy teaching much less than they used to, and leading other academics to avoid teaching tasks if possible. Still, those who wish to be good teachers, even excellent teachers, have to invest time and effort into developing their skills, craft and scholarship of teaching. After all, as Pleschová et al. (2012, p. 6) maintain, “excellent teachers are made, not born; they become excellent through investment in their teaching abilities.”

10.2

The Future Is Now

Although the world and higher education continue to change rapidly, many fundamental elements of effective teaching and learning remain. These include, similar to Ashwin (2020): 1. Consistent policies and sufficient resources to support teaching, 2. Increasing value placed on prior learning and informal learning and their recognition, 3. Supporting students’ diverse individual and social processes and active engagement as part of holistic and humanistic education, and 4. Research as a part of teachers’ professional development, and supported by HEIs.

10.3

Is the Future (Again/Still) Online Teaching and Learning?

141

Many key competencies for higher education students now and in the future will involve even more independent knowledge acquisition, self-governing and selfleadership, cooperation and lifelong learning. In Finland, the new national core curriculum for basic education already emphasises thinking skills, learning to learn, increasing self-confidence and participation, creativity and social skills (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016; Lavonen, 2020). Ideally, this would signal an increased emphasis on how to teach, compared to what to teach, also in higher education, in Finland and globally. There are already increasingly diverse approaches to higher education, including so-called emergent pedagogies and sustainable pedagogy. With the former, education can be seen to function in various societal and organisational contexts that change and vary in tandem with the surrounding world, for both teachers and students and other higher education stakeholders (Wood, 2017). Through emergent pedagogies, we can look at HEIs, in the best versions of themselves, as workplaces to promote teachers’ professional growth (including professional development and research) and personal growth, including professional skills, pedagogic content knowledge, experience, reflection and again research (Dalke et al., 2007). Sustainable education, on the other hand, is another approach in education across various levels that recognises the need for sustainable solutions through empathy for the student, teacher and the environment, and the adaptability of students in sustainable learning environments. Thus sustainable education results from the relationship between the teachers, students and the professional field (Geitz & de Geus, 2019). Others will argue the future of higher education will rely on online education, customised learning opportunities and increased flexibility, or ecology (Canals et al., 2018). The opportunities and possibilities are endless. Whatever the approach to higher education teaching and learning in the future, the premise of this book relies on the meaningful relationships created by teachers and students to support each other in the process of teaching and learning. I would argue, as Felten and Lambert (2020) have, that for higher education programmes to be effective and to generate relationship-rich principles to support students, they should continue to adhere to the following four principles, for the programmes, for the teachers and the students: • • • •

Every student must experience genuine welcome and deep care, Every student must be inspired to learn, Every student must develop a web of significant relationships, and Every student must explore questions of meaning and purpose.

10.3

Is the Future (Again/Still) Online Teaching and Learning?

Online learning has become an integral part of higher education as it promotes lifelong learning by offering flexible opportunities for learning in all stages of life. Online learning, together with its relative, blended learning, where online learning is combined with face-to-face teaching and experiences, can be used to enhance

142

10 The Future Teacher, Student and University

pedagogy by creating the best mixture for each course and set of learning outcomes (Gaebel et al., 2014). Even before the attendance restrictions posed by the Covid-19 pandemic, blended and online learning were applied in increasing prevalence in HEIs for their flexibility and diversity, an enhancement to the learning experience and increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness (Lumsden et al., 2020; Moskal & Cavanagh, 2014). Both online and blended learning can take place synchronously, i.e. live, or asynchronously with more flexible scheduling. There is much to be said about the effect of both synchronous and asynchronous teaching methods in online teaching. Some students may prefer the flexibility of asynchronous learning but many teachers may prefer the immediate contact and interaction of synchronous classes and sessions (Beyth-Marom et al., 2005). Live, synchronous teaching does allow for more immediate response with students, also in peer-to-peer contacts. There is arguably more spontaneity in handling course materials and discussions, potentially a more visual presence and a facilitated manner of handling questions, inquiries, issues or problems. On the other hand, asynchronous modes allow for the beforementioned flexibility that many diverse learners appreciate (Wise et al., 2014), and this can increase participation in online discussions as there is more time for organising ideas and arguments. While online and blended learning have become an integral part of higher education, concerns remain about the lack of interaction and engagement (Kaufmann et al., 2016). Online students face several challenges related to isolation, selfdiscipline, and technical literacy (Kaufmann & Vallade, 2020). As the development of knowledge is at least in part connected to socialisation, if the online teacher does not actively engage students in collaborative learning, the environment can potentially generate isolation. It is also crucial that online teachers communicate constantly with their students to identify problems and issues without delays, and that any technical issues are solved quickly to avoid dropouts. Shaw and Northedge (2017, p. 103) remind us that [s]ome students will be highly capable, confident and well equipped for whatever online working you throw their way. Others will be moderately equipped and able, but needing support when they encounter new technology or software. However, depending on the diversity of your student intake, a proportion may be complete newcomers to the online world – lacking a computer, or adequate broadband access, or basic skills and confidence.

Online learning has been connected to multiple learning theories, including behaviourist, constructivist, lifelong, collaborative, situated and informal learning (Crompton, 2013). Most often it appears to be associated, in its best versions, with social constructivism and activity theory as both focus on supporting learning, engaging, and retaining learners and creating learning environments inducive to meaningful experiences (Blessinger & Wankel, 2013). This sense of building rapport can be seen as critical to the success of an online course (Mehall, 2020; Peachey, 2017).

10.4

Inspiring, Supporting and Engaging Students in Online Learning

143

Therefore, online teachers should actively foster student-student and instructorstudent collaboration and communication (Fehrman & Watson, 2021) to support students’ active presence and learning. Indeed, online courses with regular interaction between the teacher and students and other students with regular feedback on learning have been more likely to retain students (Blake & Guillén, 2020; WalmsleySmith et al., 2019). Further, most students do wish to engage, communicate, and collaborate with their peers also in online learning (Harasim, 2017; Kaufmann et al., 2016). However, Nichols (2020) has argued that in online learning or digital teaching, the teacher as a person no longer matters as such and the main function is how the teaching takes place, i.e. teaching over teacher. This is also connected to the several creators and actors in large-scale online teaching, such as the academic lead, the learning activity designer, the tutor and the support staff. However, in many university courses, more restricted in scope and size, the teacher has all these roles and is in charge of all these elements. In my own online and blended learning courses, hosting a maximum of 25 students, using support staff would feel excessive (and luxurious). Instead, the planning of the course is done by me, both pedagogically and technologically, the implementation online is mine, I am the teacher, the tech support, the assessor, the developer. . . My own experiences with online and blended learning began around 2010 and I continue to teach both fully online and blended courses alongside classroom teaching (also Tuomainen, 2016). Following the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions, most of my courses are now blended learning as many students are used to online elements. However, I still encounter students’ need for teacher presence and contact with the teacher. In my online courses, students most seem to appreciate the feedback and comments I provide on their learning, and the forum discussions they can have with each other. In blended learning, usually without fail the best part of the course for the students is the contact day or limited sessions on campus. Some students react positively to online learning and some negatively as they prefer contact classes (Tuomainen, 2023). Even if students elect to take a blended learning course instead of a campus course, they still mostly seem to appreciate face-to-face encounters. We are all human, after all.

10.4

Inspiring, Supporting and Engaging Students in Online Learning

Higher education teaching and learning have become more technology-enhanced with online learning environments, blended learning, videoconferencing, online courses, mobile devices, classroom response systems, social media and gamingrelated learning. The Covid-19 pandemic forced teachers to examine their methods and materials and how they could be applied in online teaching and learning. In the worst case, this meant giving students book exams or papers to write instead of engaging in any teaching through online methods or modes. Of course, essay assignments can also produce valuable learning (e.g. Reynolds et al., 2020).

144

10 The Future Teacher, Student and University

However, for many teachers, after the initial shock of the forced online existence subsided, teaching methods began to see more variety and innovative applications. Ome teachers have also returned to the tried and true campus implementations. These days the applications for online and blended learning are endless. We can apply flipped classrooms where students familiarise themselves with materials in advance and join classes to discuss them. We have novel ideas for design thinking, gamification and the use of social media for various learning purposes. Technology has provided us with blogs, podcasts, forums, chat rooms and videoconferences to assist in teaching and learning and to support all students. For instance, some argue that the use of social media can democratise the classroom, allow for public recognition and inclusion, and give voice to more introverted or second-language students (Brookfield, 2017). We can also support our diverse students by increasing the accessibility of the materials such as offering pre-recorded lessons directed at the students as the audience. The gamification of learning is an ongoing and increasing phenomenon addressing students’ twenty-first century skills, including interaction, communication and social skills. Gamification can effectively lead to knowledge acquisition, reflection, progression and the development of ideas (Jensen & Dau, 2022). Activating students together and alone is essential in student-centred online learning as it encourages interaction. Therefore modern learning applications, including games, simulations, quizzes, and live or forum discussions should all be applied for learning, engagement and dialogue also in online learning. Ideally no student should be left alone to apply only self-directed learning in online environments, unless the optimal choice for the subject, materials and learning preferences. After all, providing students with opportunities to participate, collaborate and inquire through asynchronous and synchronous tools is essential in online learning (Aldrich et al., 2017). Blessinger and Wankel (2013) also maintain that discourse through technology should apply the same functions as live classroom teaching, i.e. social learning, fostering inquiry, problem-solving and critical and collaborative thinking. Providing variety and engaging students are crucial in online learning as the potential for students’ non-learning related multitasking is strong, e.g. viewing other Internet content, social media sites or chatting with friends (Deng et al., 2021). Kanasa (2017) maintains that rapport with students in online learning is not impossible but in fact required additional effort by the teachers. This means communication should be increased if it takes place primarily through non-verbal methods. The structure of the online course and the learning tasks should be clear and supportive of communication and rapport, and students should be actively in contact with each other and the teacher to support their learning. I try to engage students in online learning constantly and persistently. I try to approach live online classes as regular classes as if I had the students in the classroom with me. In the classroom they would probably not cover their faces so why not have cameras on online? Going over new information or knowledge is always followed by discussion, pair work, tasks and assignments, as would the equivalent classroom learning. We cannot let technology be the teacher, as it will not

10.5

Quo Vadis University, Teacher and Student?

145

care about the students. If you care about the students, you will keep them active, engaged and supported also in online environments.

10.5

Quo Vadis University, Teacher and Student?

Higher education relies heavily on expertise and researched information. This should apply particularly to teachers and researchers but also to the administration and it influences the students. In Finland and most other higher education systems, universities serve three purposes: teaching, research and social interaction (Jakubik, 2021). Therefore universities have a great social responsibility to react to the society in which they operate, including modifying their operations to suit the current society and changing communities. Some scholars may hold on to the notion of the university as a beacon of truth that must act independently and adhere only to its own rules and established traditions. However, the university, as any institution, must change and adapt to stay viable. University teachers have either field-specific expertise or multidisciplinary expertise and those are one of the main assets of universities as educators. However, strong twenty-first century skills, as are asked of our students and are already part of basic education in many countries such as Finland (Leppänen et al., 2019), must also apply to the teachers. We must be able to communicate effectively about science to support students’ learning but we must also be able to support students in their journeys to be future academic experts in their respective fields. The foundations of university teaching and learning today are built on the foundations of university operations over centuries. We can all subscribe to the commitment to learning and the learning communities, and how teaching is built on the latest research. However, contrary to how universities operated centuries ago, we are no longer one entity or concept, but rather various systems and approaches adopted by the thousands of universities and other HEIs across the globe. The modern university is no longer one conception of the university, but instead a multiversity (Kerr, 1963) or even an omniversity (Bassett, 2021). Therefore any university today hosts dozens of disciplines, hundreds of majors, and countless professors and teachers. In science, individuals talk, teach, research and learn in different ways. In Finland and other Nordic countries, the notion of the so-called Humboldt university persists, in which research operates alongside teaching at the university (Patomäki, 2019). Therefore the university is responsible for the scientific education of its students, not the general education that has been provided earlier in upper secondary school. Yet the approaches to teaching and learning vary, as do the ideals of good, effective or excellent teaching, and how to support students comprehensively. Excellent teaching is arguably different now than it was 20, 30, or 100 years ago. The omniversity idea engages teachers to collaborate, communicate and develop their teaching in cooperation with others, not in a vacuum (Bassett, 2021). Contacts, communication and meaningful relationships with students, peers, supervisors, fellow researchers and administration are all an integral part of becoming and

146

10 The Future Teacher, Student and University

being an excellent university teacher. If the function of a teacher is essentially to teach, that function cannot take place successfully without the target audience i.e. the students agreeing that this is good teaching or excellent teaching. High-quality teaching now and in the future should be based on an open operating culture and thoughtful providers of education. What students take from their university education and experience is not only the degrees but the connections that will shape their thinking, learning and knowledge, and stay with them for years to come. To support students we should provide them with opportunities to recognise and realise what effective learning is and how it impacts science and society. This rarely happens without effective communication, without a human touch to teaching and learning and without the right conditions for interaction. I would argue that the human and the humanist university are still the future. As a patch next to my office says, A humanist will leave a mark. Effective partnerships and relationships between teachers and students, as discussed in this book, are essential to continue building high-quality teaching and learning processes. Collaborative learning in various formats, modes and implementations will continue to be a cornerstone for effective education for the various student groups that enter higher education in the next decades. Many countries, including Finland, aspire to increase higher education enrolments and thus further widen access to higher education. This will inevitably mean that students will be even more diverse in their background knowledge and education, age range, study skills and even motivation. Consequently, this will affect education in the near and more distant future, and without effective cooperation between teachers and students, high-quality teaching can be difficult to achieve. As students become more diverse, so will eventually the teachers. Students already appreciate flexibility in their university learning environments (Valtonen et al., 2021). As older generations of teachers and scholars retire, new generations of university teachers will introduce their impact to education. Therefore, we will see new methods, new pedagogical thinking, new innovations and new approaches to teaching and learning in the future. Some of them are definitely technological advances, including the use of artificial intelligence, but again, the human touch and the human connections will arguably continue to increase in value. As the Covid-19 pandemic demonstrated, after it has been removed out of necessity, there is nothing quite like the human connection (e.g. Cairns et al., 2020; Moore & March, 2022). The role of non-formal and informal learning as part of higher education will also continue to rise, and subsequently, so must the resources and systems for the recognition of prior learning. As students’ learning paths become increasingly individualised, we will need more resources to address the various alternative methods to complete courses and degrees. The concepts of lifelong and lifewide learning will continue to be emphasised in higher education and curricula and teaching practices must address this accordingly. Current and future students will increasingly require problem-solving skills, critical thinking skills, creativity, computational know-how, employability skills, digital literacy and the ability to cooperate and self-regulate (González-Pérez & Ramirez-Montoya, 2022).

References

147

Emergent pedagogies, sustainable education, and inclusive and diverse pedagogies must be part of future university education. For teachers to effectively train and support future students and thus future academics and professionals, we must have up-to-date skills in both knowledge and pedagogy. We also should see students increasingly as partners or junior colleagues, as discussed in this book. Integrating students strongly into the university community is crucial because students help to shape the future university as they create, re-create and reinvent the university experience. The same also applies to the staff, for both teaching and research. An open operating culture should be adopted more fully to support the well-being of teachers and students. The university culture and community are strengthened through a sense of belonging and cooperation. Will more people-centred approaches to higher education be achieved through digitalisation? Possibly, or possibly not, as seen in the post-pandemic return to campuses, classes, meetings, discussions and other faceto-face live contacts. Instead, a functional mixture of technology and human contact, availability, accessibility, humour, care, concern and support could be keys to highquality teaching and support for students also in the future. Recommended Reading Bergan, S., Gallagher, T., Munck, R., & van’t Land, H. (2021). Higher education’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic: Building a more sustainable and democratic future (Vol. 25). Council of Europe. Byrne, E., & Clarke, C. (2020). The university challenge: Changing universities in a changing world. Pearson. Engwall, L. (2020) (Ed.). Missions of universities: Past, present, future. Springer. Kirschner, P. A., & Hendrick, C. (2020). How learning happens: Seminal works in educational psychology and what they mean in practice. Routledge. Nichols, M. (2020). Transforming universities with digital distance education: The future of formal learning. Routledge.

References Aldrich, R. S., Kaufmann, R., & Rybas, N. (2017). Fostering effective communication in online courses. In R. C. Alexander (Ed.), Best practices in online teaching and learning across academic disciplines (pp. 11–17). George Mason University. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/74310 Ashwin, P. (2020). Transforming university education: A manifesto. Bloomsbury. https://doi.org/ 10.5040/9781350157279 Ashwin, P. (2022). Developing effective national policy instruments to promote teaching excellence: Evidence from the English case. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 6(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2021.1924847 Baron, N. S., & Mangen, A. (2021). Doing the reading: The decline of long long-form reading in higher education. Poetics Today, 42(2), 253–279. https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-8883248 Bassett, R. M. (2021). From university to multiversity to omniversity: HEIs as hubs for dynamic development. In H. van’t Land, A. Corcoran, & D. C. Iancu (Eds.), The promise of higher education (pp. 401–405). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67245-4

148

10 The Future Teacher, Student and University

Beyth-Marom, R., Saporta, K., & Caspi, A. (2005). Synchronous vs. asynchronous tutorials: Factors affecting students’ preferences and choices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(3), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2005.10782436 Blake, R. J., & Guillén, G. (2020). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning (3rd ed.). Georgetown University Press. Blessinger, P., & Wankel, C. (2013). Creative approaches in higher education: An introduction to using classroom-mediated discourse technologies. In C. Wankel & P. Blessinger (Eds.), Increasing student engagement and retention using classroom technologies: Classroom response systems and mediated discourse technologies (pp. 3–16). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2044-9968(2013)000006E014 Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Cairns, M. R., Ebinger, M., Stinson, C., & Jordan, J. (2020). COVID-19 and human connection: Collaborative research on loneliness and online worlds from a socially-distanced Academy. Human Organization, 79(4), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.17730/1938-3525-79.4.281 Canals, L., Burkle, M., & Nørgård, R. T. (2018). Universities of the future: Several perspectives on the future of higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15( 4 6 ). https://educationaltechnolog yjournal.springero pen.co m/ universitiesofthefuture Chávez, A. F., & Longerbeam, S. D. (2016). Teaching across cultural strengths: A guide to balancing integrated and individuated cultural frameworks in college teaching. Stylus Publishing. Crompton, H. (2013). A historical overview of m-learning: Toward learner-centered education. In Z. L. Berge & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning (pp. 3–14). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203118764 Dalke, A. F., Cassidy, K., Grobstein, P., & Blank, D. (2007). Emergent pedagogy: Learning to enjoy the uncontrollable – And make it productive. Journal of Educational Change, 8(2), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-007-9021-2 Deng, L., Liu, Y., Ku, K. Y. L., & Lin, L. (2021). In-class multitasking with smartphones and laptops: Exploring student experiences and perceptions. College Teaching, 70(4), 443–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2021.1973947 Fehrman, S., & Watson, S. L. (2021). A systematic review of asynchronous online discussions in online higher education. American Journal of Distance Education, 35(3), 200–213. https://doi. org/10.1080/08923647.2020.1858705 Felten, P., & Lambert, L. M. (2020). Relationship-rich education: How human connections drive success in college. Johns Hopkins University Press. https://doi.org/10.1353/book.78561 Finnish National Agency for Education. (2016). New national core curriculum for basic education: Focus on school culture and integrative approach. https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/ documents/new-national-core-curriculum-for-basic-education.pdf Fleming, P. (2021). Dark academia: How universities die. Pluto Press. Gaebel, M., Kupriyanova, V., Morais, R., & Colucci, E. (2014). E-Learning in European higher education institutions: Results of a mapping survey conducted in October–December 2013. European University Association. https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/e-learning%20in%20 european%20higher%20education%20institutions%20results%20of%20a%20mapping%20 survey.pdf Geitz, G., & de Geus, J. (2019). Design-based education, sustainable teaching, and learning. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1647919. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1647919 González-Pérez, L. I., & Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. (2022). Components of education 4.0 in 21st century skills frameworks: Systematic review. Sustainability, 14(3), 1493. https://doi.org/10. 3390/su14031493 Harasim, L. (2017). Learning theory and online technologies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9781315716831

References

149

Henderson, M., Ryan, T., & Phillips, M. (2019). The challenges of feedback in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(8), 1237–1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02602938.2019.1599815 Jakubik, M. (2021). Searching for practical wisdom in higher education with logos, pathos and ethos. Case: Finnish universities of sciences. Philosophies, 6(3), 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/ philosophies6030063 Jensen, C. G., & Dau, S. (2022). Reflective and innovative learning designs inspired by gaming principles. In E. Books, S. Dau, & S. Selander (Eds.), Digital learning and collaborative practices (pp. 120–131). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003108573 Kanasa, H. (2017). Establishing and maintaining rapport in an online, higher education setting. In L. Rowan & P. Grootenboer (Eds.), Student engagement and educational rapport in higher education (pp. 67–85). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46034-5 Kaufmann, R., & Vallade, J. I. (2020). Exploring connections in the online learning environment: student perceptions of rapport, climate, and loneliness. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(10), 1794–1808. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1749670 Kaufmann, R., Sellnow, D. D., & Frisby, B. N. (2016). The development and validation of the online learning climate scale (OLCS). Communication Education, 65(3), 307–321. https://doi. org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1101778 Kerr, C. (1963). The uses of the university. Harvard University Press. Lavonen, J. (2020). Curriculum and teacher education reforms in Finland that support the development of competences for the twenty-first century. In F. M. Reimers (Ed.), Audacious education purposes: How governments transform the goals of education systems (pp. 65–80). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41882-3 Leppänen, J., Neuvonen, A., & Saarinen, M. (2019). Hidden competences: Finnish employers’ and students’ appreciation of the effect of learning abroad on employability. In R. Coelen & C. Gribble (Eds.), Internationalization and employability in higher education (pp. 39–48). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351254885 Light, G., Cox, R., & Calkins, S. (2009). Learning and teaching in higher education: The reflective professional (2nd ed.). Sage. Lumsden, C., Byrne-Davis, L., & Scott, K. M. (2020). Blended learning. In S. Marshall (Ed.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice (5th ed., pp. 95–105). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429259500 Mehall, S. (2020). Purposeful interpersonal interaction in online learning: What is it and how is it measured? Online Learning, 24(1), 182–204. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i1.2002 Mizrachi, D., Salaz, A. M., Kurbanoglu, S., & Boustany, J. (2021). The Academic Reading Format International Study (ARFIS): Final results of a comparative survey analysis of 21,265 students in 33 countries. Reference Services Review, 49(3/4), 250–266. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-042021-0012 Moore, K. A., & March, E. (2022). Socially connected during COVID-19: Online social connections mediate the relationship between loneliness and positive coping strategies. Journal of Stress, Trauma, Anxiety, and Resilience (J-STAR), 1(1), 10.55319/js.v1i1.9. Moskal, P. D., & Cavanagh, T. B. (2014). Scaling blended learning evaluation beyond the university. In A. G. Picciano, C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives, Volume 2 (pp. 34–51). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9781315880310 Nichols, M. (2020). Transforming universities with digital distance education: The future of formal learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429463952 OECD (Organisation of Economic Co-operation). (2019). PISA 2018 Insight and Interpretations. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA%202018%20Insights%20and%20Interpretations%20 FINAL%20PDF.pdf Patomäki, H. (2019). Repurposing the university in the 21st century: Toward a progressive global vision. Globalizations, 16(5), 751–762. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2019.1578533

150

10 The Future Teacher, Student and University

Peachey, N. (2017). Synchronous online teaching. In M. Carrier, R. M. Damerow, & K. M. Bailey (Eds.), Digital language learning and teaching: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 143–155). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315523293 Plamper, R., Siivonen, P., & Haltia, N. (2023). Student-as-customer discourse as a challenge to equality in Finnish higher education–The case of non-fee-paying and fee-paying master’s degree students. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 32(1), 140–160. https://doi. org/10.1080/09620214.2022.2121307 Pleschová, G., Simon, E., Quinlan, K. M., Murphy, J., & Roxa, T. (2012). The professionalisation of academics as teachers in higher education (Science position paper). European Science Foundation. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/60324/1/Pleschova%2C%20G%20et%20al%202012%20 Professionalisation%20of%20academics%20as%20teachers%20in%20higher%20 education.pdf Reynolds, A. (2022). ‘Where does my £9000 go?’ Student identities in a marketised British higher education sector. SN Social Sciences, 2(8), 125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00432-6 Reynolds, J. A., Cai, V., Choi, J., Faller, S., Hu, M., Kozhumam, A., Schwarzman, J., & Vohra, A. (2020). Teaching during a pandemic: Using high-impact writing assignments to balance rigor, engagement, flexibility, and workload. Ecology and Evolution, 10(22), 12573–12580. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6776 Shaw, G., & Northedge, A. (2017). Learning and teaching in the online era. In N. Rolls, A. Northedge, & E. Chambers (Eds.), Successful university teaching in times of diversity (pp. 83–109). Bloomsbury. Tuomainen, S. (2016). A blended learning approach to academic writing and presentation skills. International Journal on Language, Literature and Culture in Education, 3(2), 33–55. https:// doi.org/10.1515/llce-2016-0009 Tuomainen, S. (2023). University students’ perceptions of teaching quality before and after the Covid-19 pandemic. European Journal of Education Studies, 10(7), 37–60. https://doi.org/10. 46827/ejes.v10i7.4863 Valtonen, T., Leppänen, U., Hyypiä, M., Kokko, A., Manninen, J., Vartiainen, H., Sointu, E., & Hirsto, L. (2021). Learning environments preferred by university students: A shift toward informal and flexible learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 24, 371–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09339-6 Walmsley-Smith, H., Machin, L., & Walton, G. (2019). The E-design assessment tool: An evidence-informed approach towards a consistent terminology for quantifying online distance learning activities. Research in Learning Technology, 27, 10.25304/rlt.v27.2106. Wise, A. F., Hausknecht, S. N., & Zhao, Y. (2014). Attending to others’ posts in asynchronous discussions: Learners’ online “listening” and its relationship to speaking. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(2), 185–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11412-014-9192-9 Wood, P. (2017). From teaching excellence to emergent pedagogies: A complex process alternative to understanding the role of teaching in higher education. In A. French & M. O’Leary (Eds.), Teaching excellence in higher education: Challenges, changes and the teaching excellence framework (pp. 39–74). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781787147614

Index

A Academic maturity, 83 Accessibility, 100, 129, 144, 147 Active learning, 112 Administration, 4, 30, 48, 145 Adult learning, 62–64 Adult students, 6, 61, 63–65, 98, 113, 132–134 Anxiety, xv, 49, 98, 100, 118 Approachability, 39, 68, 70, 136 Approachable, 37, 39, 115 Assessment, 6, 9, 20, 32, 34, 36–39, 48, 49, 60, 67–70, 72, 77–89, 97, 98, 101, 111, 112, 133, 137 Assessment criteria, 70, 72, 80, 82, 87 Asynchronous, 142, 144 Authentic assessment, 78 Autism spectrum disorder, 98 Availability, 147 Awards, 7, 10, 23, 24, 34–37, 46, 54, 71, 117, 123, 124, 127, 130, 134, 136, 137

B Behaviourism, 60, 62 Blended learning, 10, 15, 17, 49, 64, 70, 96, 118, 141–144 Blogs, 144

C Chat rooms, 144 Clarity, 6, 10, 30, 38, 39, 68, 104, 110–112, 116 Classroom climate, 69, 110 Coaching, 47, 105 Cognitive constructivism, 61 Cognitive learning, 60

Collaboration, 3, 6, 9, 23, 32, 49, 69, 102, 112, 127, 136, 143 Collaborative learning, 62, 64, 72, 112, 114, 142, 146 Communication, xv, 9, 69, 71, 99, 102, 104, 109–118, 133, 136, 143–146 Communicative competence, 110 Comprehensive school, 3 Computer-assisted assessment, 82 Concern, 31, 37, 65, 129, 136, 147 Conferences, 136 Confidence, 29, 46, 69, 96, 142 Consideration, 9, 36, 73, 103, 110 Constructivism, 60–62, 64, 112, 142 Contact teaching, 15, 125, 133 Cooperation, 32, 53, 60, 72, 112, 114, 134, 136, 141, 145–147 Coping mechanisms, 98 Covid-19 pandemic, 4, 10, 15, 96, 133, 142, 143, 146, 147 Creativity, 141, 146 Curriculum, 4, 16, 18, 36, 53, 126, 129, 136, 141

D Delivery, 39, 104, 110, 114 Depression, 98 Design thinking, 144 Dewey, J., 37, 50 Didactics, 3, 5, 16, 17 Disability, 98 Discipline, 60, 115–117, 128, 134, 135, 142 Discrimination, 18, 99, 100 Discussions, 20, 32, 38, 72, 110–113, 116, 126, 130, 142–144, 147

# The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Tuomainen, Supporting Students through High-Quality Teaching, Springer Texts in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39844-5

151

152 Diversification, 96 Diversity, 4, 15, 31, 39, 48, 63, 78, 80, 96–101, 117, 125, 131, 132, 134, 140, 142

E Education branding, 2 Effective teacher, 47 Effective teaching, v, xv, 9, 31–34, 48, 103, 105, 110, 111, 114, 115, 130, 140 Effectiveness, 16, 33, 48, 65, 111, 114, 116, 117, 142 Emergent pedagogies, 141 Emotional support, 6, 110 Empathetic, 101 Empathy, 68, 105, 128, 141 Engagement, 34, 48, 60, 66, 69, 105, 110, 118, 140, 142, 144 English for academic purposes, 2, 117 English for specific purposes, 117 English-medium instruction, xv, 9, 10, 49, 103, 106 Enthusiasm, 30–33, 37, 38, 69, 72, 113, 136 Enthusiastic, 37, 38, 114, 130 Equality, 13, 14, 18, 97, 99, 100 Equity, 16 Ethics, 17–19 Examinations, 30, 67, 98 Exams, 98, 130, 143 Excellent teacher, 36, 128, 130, 132, 146 Excellent teaching, v, 34, 38, 124, 127, 130, 134, 145, 146 Experience, 5, 10, 20, 32–35, 37, 46, 48–50, 65, 68, 70, 97–99, 114, 115, 124–126, 132, 134, 141, 142, 146, 147 Experiential learning, 51, 60, 63, 64, 134 Expertise, v, 2, 4, 17, 31, 33–35, 38, 39, 45–47, 49, 51, 53, 62, 68, 70, 71, 110, 117, 128, 145 Extrovert teachers, 70

F Facilitator, 7, 60, 63, 65, 103, 140 Fairness, 17, 18, 68, 79, 81, 82, 87 Feedback, 6, 9, 20, 31, 32, 34, 36, 38, 49, 50, 60, 68, 69, 73, 78, 80, 83–89, 105, 116, 127, 129–131, 140, 143 Feedback literacy, 9, 86, 87, 129 Feedforward, 9, 78, 85 Flexibility, 14, 15, 35, 67, 68, 124, 130, 133, 135, 136, 141, 142 Flipped learning, 24, 112, 130, 134, 144

Index Forgiveness, 128 Formal education, 4, 64, 126 Formative and summative assessment, 78 Formative assessment, 78 Forums, 144 Freedom, 16, 17, 63, 126, 129, 136

G Gamification, 144 Gender inequality, 100 Good teacher, 4–6, 29, 31, 32, 36, 38, 39, 63, 124, 128, 133 Good teaching, 9, 31, 34, 35, 37, 38, 63, 65, 70, 110, 130, 133, 135, 140, 146 Grading, 37, 69, 71 Guidance, 9, 31, 36, 38, 68, 105, 129, 134, 136

H Happiness, 113 Heterogeneous students, 19, 131 High-quality teaching, v, 3, 20, 30, 37, 39, 53, 124, 136, 146, 147 Holistic, 17, 32, 63, 140 Holistic assessment, 9, 80 Homework, 130, 131 Honesty, 18, 34, 128 Human contact, 147 Humanist, 146 Humanistic, 37, 63, 64, 140 Humanities, 116, 128 Humboldt, 3, 16, 17, 20, 145 Humour, 69, 71, 114, 147 Hybrid learning, 134

I Impostor syndrome, 36 Inclusion, 96, 144 Inclusive pedagogy, 97–98, 100 Informality, 39, 103 In-service training, 5, 47, 118 Instructional communication, 109 Interaction, 6, 9, 20, 31, 36, 38, 61, 65, 97, 110, 116, 123, 142–146 International classrooms, 101–103 Introvert teachers, 70 Isolation, 142

J Junior colleagues, 128, 147

Index K Knowledgeable, 37 Kolb, D.A., 51

L Language of science, 103 Learning by doing, 130 Learning difficulties, xv, 36, 49, 98, 105, 118, 130, 131, 136 Learning-oriented assessment, 78 Learning outcomes, v, 3, 30, 36, 60, 62, 65, 68–70, 117, 127, 142 Learning patterns, 31, 101 Learning styles, 9, 10, 33, 34, 51, 60, 65, 96, 102 Learning theories, 63, 65, 112, 142 Lecture recordings, 128 Lecturing, 65, 135 Lifelong learning, 14, 45, 51, 65, 67, 105, 141

M Mathematics, 116 Mentoring, 47, 53, 97, 105 Metacognition, 84 Mobile devices, 143 Motivation, 29–31, 39, 48, 60, 65, 68, 105, 110, 116, 117, 146 Multidisciplinary, 24, 47, 134, 145 Multiple-choice, 81, 82 Multiversity, 145

N Natural flair, 36 Natural sciences, 116, 124 Needs analysis, 116 Networking, 23, 53, 127, 134, 136 New teachers, 35, 124 Non-formal and informal learning, xv, 63, 64, 67, 68, 118, 140, 146 Non-traditional students, 67, 97 Numerical grading, 87

O Observations, 67 Office hours, 105 Omniversity, 145 Online learning, xv, 6, 10, 15, 47, 112, 114, 131, 133, 141–144 Online teaching, 15, 134, 142, 143 Open University, 54, 116, 125

153 P Participatory methods, 134 Pass-Fail grading, 87 Pedagogical competence, 20, 24, 31, 38, 104 Pedagogical leadership, 9, 52–54 Pedagogical qualifications, 126 Pedagogical studies, 2, 9, 17, 23 Pedagogical training, v, xv, 3–5, 7, 22, 47, 51–53, 115, 127–129 Pedagogy, 3, 9, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 33, 35, 36, 46, 47, 51, 52, 73, 97, 114, 132, 133, 135, 136, 141, 147 Peer assessment, 9, 84 Peer observations, 52 Personal connection, 72, 105, 127 Personality, 36, 38, 39, 70, 71, 113 Physical disability, 98 Plagiarism, 82, 87 Podcasts, 144 Policies, 14, 24, 34, 48, 53, 67, 99, 100, 103, 104, 140 Politeness, 101 Portfolios, 67, 126, 129 Positive reinforcement, 60, 62, 65, 113 Pragmatism, 64 Previous knowledge, 61 Prior learning, 9, 33, 51, 67, 68, 72, 140 Prizes, 35 Professional development, xv, 2, 5, 7, 10, 20, 23, 46–51, 53, 126, 129, 132, 135, 136, 140, 141 Pronunciation, 104 Publications, 3, 4, 7, 20, 46, 49

Q Quality, v, xv, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 14, 17, 20, 24, 29–32, 34, 37–39, 49, 52–54, 102, 111, 124, 128, 136, 146, 147

R Rankings, 34 Rapport, 10, 33, 69, 70, 114–116, 118, 136, 142, 144 Ratings, 34, 37 Recognition of prior learning, xv, 49, 68, 146 Recruitment, 35, 53, 54, 100 Reflection, xv, 16, 20–22, 30, 32, 46, 49–52, 64, 68, 84, 85, 87–89, 101, 102, 112, 127, 131, 136, 141, 144 Reflective practice, 4, 6, 9, 24, 50 Reflective tasks, 127 Relational teaching, 68

154 Reliability, 67, 79, 84 Research, v, xv, 2–5, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 30–36, 39, 47–50, 52–54, 64, 68, 69, 100, 101, 104, 106, 117, 118, 124, 126, 128, 132, 134–137, 141, 145, 147 Research-based teaching, 47, 53, 118, 136 Resources, 21, 23, 36, 51, 97, 129, 140, 146 Respect, 17, 18, 31, 65, 69, 103, 114, 127, 128 Rubrics, 79, 81, 84

S Scaffolding, 60, 97 Scholarship of teaching, 6, 31, 45, 50, 140 Schön, D.A., 50 Self-assessment, 9, 69, 83–85, 89 Self-awareness, 67, 69 Self-confidence, 68, 141 Self-directed learning, 51, 60, 62, 65, 133, 144 Self-evaluation, 51, 52 Self-reflection, 51 Self-regulated learning, 51, 65, 112 Seminars, 46, 47, 111 Simulations, 67, 114, 133, 144 Sincerity, 6, 110 Social constructivism, 61 Social justice, 67, 129 Social sciences, 116 Socialisation, 96, 98, 142 Stress, 49, 98 Student engagement, 60, 69 Student feedback, 3, 4, 20, 23, 30, 36, 37, 46, 49, 50, 110, 116, 124 Student perceptions, 49, 140 Student-centred, 9, 21, 36, 60, 61, 63, 64, 67, 68, 73, 112, 118, 134, 144 Students as co-creators, 69 Students as co-learners, 37 Students as customers, 14, 30 Students as partners, 69 Study skills, 3, 96, 118, 131, 134, 146 Summative assessment, 78 Supervision, 9, 16, 105

Index Sustainable pedagogy, 17, 141, 147 Synchronous, 142, 144

T Teacher behaviors checklist, 33 Teacher education, 2, 5–7, 16–18, 22, 52 Teacher identity, 4, 18, 21, 99 Teacher networks, 23, 130 Teacher presence, 143 Teacher-student relationship, 38, 101, 115 Teaching assistants, 131, 136 Teaching excellence, 7, 24, 33, 34, 37, 39, 52, 124, 135–137, 140 Teaching philosophy, 3, 17, 50, 54, 64 Teaching qualifications, 2, 47 Technical literacy, 142 Technology, 3, 4, 35, 48, 60, 101, 118, 131, 134, 139, 142–144, 147 Test anxiety, 81 Testing, 16, 67 Time management, 98 Transformative learning, 60, 62 Transparency, 68 Trust, 10, 17, 69, 114, 127 Tutorials, 97, 111 Tutoring, 97, 105, 131

U University pedagogy, 2, 3, 5, 23, 24, 52, 53, 104, 109, 110, 136 University pedagogy training, 2, 52, 104 University reform, 14, 15, 24

V Validity, 50, 67, 79 Videoconferencing, 143 Vygotsky, L.S., 64

W Widening access, 97