Centres for Excellent Education

Centres for Excellent Education is a national prestige scheme established to contribute to the development of excellent quality in Norwegian higher education. The scheme was established by the Ministry of Education in 2010 and was managed by NOKUT until 2019. The scheme is now managed by The Directorate for Higher Education and Skills.

2020

  • Learning from Innovations in Higher Education

    Evaluation of innovation impacts of the Norwegian Centres for Excellence in Education initiative

    Management summary

    To support innovation and enhancement of teaching and learning in Norwegian higher education, the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research in 2010 established a policy for “Centres for Excellence in Higher Education” (the SFU initiative) as a focused and long-term effort. The ambition of the initiative was to contribute to the development of excellent quality in higher education and to highlight that teaching and research are equally important activities for universities and university colleges. One major goal of the SFU scheme is that the centres contribute not only to the enhancement of the quality of teaching and learning at their host institutions and consortia partners but also stimulate other higher education institutions in Norway (and beyond) to engage in these activities.

    This study focusses on the extent educational innovations disseminate in the Norwegian higher education system. For this study, we conducted a review of literature on innovation in higher education, did scoping interviews, systematically analysed documents such as centre plans and their evaluations and held a sector-wide survey among potential adopters of SFU achievements within Norwegian higher education. (n=1.254).

    The first question we address in this report is whether, and if so, how and to what extent, the SFU initiative has stimulated enhancement in teaching and learning (education) in the Norwegian higher education sector?

    This study provides evidence that the initiative has stimulated enhancement in teaching and learning in the Norwegian higher education sector. Already prior evaluations of the more mature centres that were funded in the first call for the initiative pointed to their enhancement potential. The current study highlights how the initiative stimulates the enhancement beyond the funded institutions.

    The survey revealed that 63 % of the survey respondents answered that they know the SFU-initiative, and – accordingly – 37 % did not know it. In the analysis of the survey data, respondents who provided sufficient data were assigned to one of the following Types: Adopters (6 %), Adapters (25 %), Observers (29 %), and Not aware of the SFU-initiative (40 %).

    The distinction of Adapters and Adopters foremost represents how frequently the SFU-users have actively engaged with the SFUs and their innovations but both User-types might have adapted or even adopted the SFU enhancements. However, the profile of these two types differ. Adopters are predominantly institutional leaders and educational advisors. Adapters are more often professors and teaching staff.

    Both groups report that educational enhancement is very important in their institutions. Important drivers for engaging in the enhancement and innovation of teaching and learning are personal interests in improving teaching skills, or their wish to try out a new educational approach. Adapters and Adopters assess the institutional readiness and overall climate for enhancement of teaching positively, and they are aware that enhancement is dependent on the provision of resources and institutional support.

    A third User-Type we identified among the survey respondents are the Observers. These respondents know about the SFU-initiative but never used an SFU-achievements. They are the biggest group we identified, and their percentage is highest among the professors and other academic staff (more than 50 % are Observers). However, Observers are also engaged in education enhancement but use other resources than SFU achievements. Compared with Adapters and Adopters, Observers perceive the readiness of their institutions and the availability of resources more often as limited.

    Based on the evidence above we can state that the SFU initiative has stimulated education enhancement in the Norwegian higher education sector. The initiative, however, has been received differently among the different sorts of university staff. We find that members of institutional leadership and educational advisors engage with it and its achievements frequently, and a lot of them were classified as adopters. Academic staff who have teaching obligation do not employ or relate with the initiative as frequently. They are more often observers of the programme. This difference is mostly due to their divergent perception of the institutional readiness for the enhancement of education and to what extent they find that the SFU achievements fit their context. Respondents adopting SFU achievements were more positive about both aspects. Currently, observers doubt foremost that the SFU achievement would fit their teaching environment. For the future, it could be considered to make greater use of the adopters as disseminators, as they often have a leading role in their institutions. They could spread their experience of adoption within their institutions, and simultaneously show how the institution supports education enhancements.

    The second questioned we researched is to what extent has NOKUT’s management of the initiative contributed to or hindered the dissemination?

    From the experiences of other national initiatives on the enhancement of teaching and learning, we identified five possible ways in which programme management can stimulate dissemination.

    First, in the selection process, the programme management can already select those initiatives that have appropriate dissemination strategies. One experience from the first call was that the dissemination strategies of the SFUs were not well developed. Also, their actual dissemination activities often deviated and were more time-consuming than the planned ones. Therefore, the mid-term evaluation recommended a more strategic approach to dissemination. The NOKUT management took this into account, learned from this, and required applicants to develop more appropriate dissemination strategies in the second call.

    Second, programme management can play a pivotal role in raising awareness about the need for enhancement in higher education and increasing excellence in teaching in learning. We conclude that the existence of the SFU initiative raised awareness about both. NOKUT contributed to this through employing several dissemination channels such as their a website, the SFU Magazine, podcasts, reports and conferences. However, the use and appreciation of these channels were rather low among the respondents. Most frequently, they mentioned having learned about the SFU initiative through word-tomouth communication or from the calls for applications.

    Thirdly, programme management can develop an infrastructure for knowledge exchange, knowledge building and continued dissemination of project results. NOKUT learned from the British CETL example, and consciously created a coherent network among the SFUs. Such a network facilitates interdisciplinary learning. Some interviewees who work in the SFUs doubted the usefulness of the network, and others were more positive about the network. This perception also depends on the topic or discipline of the SFU. SFUs that are located in disciplines that can be understood as an auxiliary science such as mathematics, teaching training or computing are more likely to connect to a broader range of disciplines as the SFUs that are located in disciplines that do not easily connect to other areas.

    The last two ways in which the programme management can stimulate the dissemination of the initiative’s achievements refer to a so-called Theory of Change. This theory guides the strategic choices of the programme management, its activities and interventions. This theory can guide the programme management in developing a set of projects that address different aspects and phases of the diffusion process of achievements and innovations. It can also help understanding how and why the desired change will happen in a particular context, and thus what activities are needed to make the initiative a success. NOKUT has not explicitly used such a Theory of Change. The document analysis made clear that the SFU initiative has moved to a stage in which programme management can learn from the first stages to develop such a Theory of Change and guide the dissemination and diffusion of teaching enhancements.

    Our third question is what the lessons are for DIKU’s management of the SFU initiative from 2019 and NOKUT’s work with stimulating enhancement of teaching and learning in the Norwegian higher education sector?

    From experiences abroad, as well as from the results of this study, we conclude that the programme management should go beyond the selection of the centres, administration of the overall budget and monitoring progress. In order to realise a more significant impact that goes beyond the SFU networks and communities, it is pivotal to realise an infrastructure that reaches out more broadly to teaching staff so that they can learn from the SFU results and exchange about the SFUs achievements more frequently.

    As the SFU initiative is only one in a wide variety of initiatives for teaching enhancement in Norway, it could be useful to join dissemination forces. For example, an online portal that serves as a one-stop desk could help to spread knowledge and experiences of innovation in higher education across the country.

    Building upon the experiences of the current eight SFUs, the programme management can also help to improve dissemination strategies. For the next years, one may expect that SFUs have a clearer idea for dedicated forms of dissemination to realise the full innovation potential of their results. An essential tool in this is improved monitoring of impacts. So far, this was lacking in the annual reports and evaluations.

    Considering the aim of the SFU initiative to have impacts at the system level and knowing that the dissemination and stimulation of education enhancement could disseminate top-down in the institutions, we suggest that DIKU should develop an explicit Theory of Change. Such a Theory of Change could be helpful in the selection process of new SFUs, monitoring and evaluation the impact of existing centres, and support the selection of appropriate dissemination channels.

    Authors: Andrea Kottmann, Don Westerheijden, Barend van der Meulen

    Read the report (pdf)

2019

  • Developing Educational Excellence in Higher Education

    Lessons learned from the establishment and evaluation of the Norwegian Centres for Excellence in Education (SFU) initiative

    Conclusion

    The SFU initiative is a prestigious initiative. Institutions spend time preparing their applications and invest time and money in developing the bid. There is tough competition for achieving the status and only a small proportion are successful. Being awarded a centre gives acclaim, legitimacy, leverage, and money. The interim evaluations of the appointed centres have also put the bar high for keeping the status for the second period.

    The external evaluations and research, as well as the results from the interim evaluations, point to positive results for higher education institutions (those with formal affiliations with SFUs and those without), educators and students in the first phase of the initiative.

    In addition, managing the initiative has been a learning process for NOKUT. As we are now handing over the management to DIKU, we find this to be a good point for summarizing some of these lessons learned.

    Some of the lessons learned
    Setting up, managing and developing a new initiative with ambitious goals is not easy in itself. Up until 2010, NOKUT’s work was primarily as a quality assurance agency, and there was uncertainty as to whether NOKUT was the appropriate agency for managing a quality enhancement initiative such as the SFU (see for instance Universities Norway 2009). We therefore had a steep learning curve and something to prove.

    Managing the SFU initiative has been a tremendous learning experience for individual NOKUT staff, units within the organization and the organization as a whole. Summarizing it all seems like an almost equally daunting task. We have therefore chosen to use the topics and sections of this publication as a starting point to highlight some of the lessons that we take with us as NOKUT continues to work for quality enhancement through other means than managing the SFU initiative.

    Teaching excellence
    Section 1 introduced the SFU initiative. In Section 2, the concept of teaching excellence (TE) was discussed and we have also discussed our interpretation in previous publications (Andersen Helseth & Bråten 2018; Andersen Helseth et al. 2017; Bråten & Børsheim 2016).

    TE was a new concept for NOKUT and to a large extent for higher education more generally when the SFU initiative was introduced. Not in the sense that there were no high quality practices being carried out at universities and university colleges, but in terms of being explicit about aspects that characterize quality in education and about how to identify, document and stimulate excellence. This is an ongoing learning process for all involved, including NOKUT. Norwegian The criteria for awarding SFU status are devised to be relevant across all institutional categories and disciplines, and open in the sense that it is up to the applicants to define and argue their case for excellence. There are no fixed parameters that the bidders for SFU status have to meet, rather there are questions to be answered, given in the guidance document (NOKUT 2016a). The institutions and programmes themselves define their focus and demonstrate their excellence. The documentation can be related to the mission and vision of the institutions applying, their teaching philosophy, the discipline and other contexts (Skelton 2005). Based on excellence in existing provision, the institutions and academic environments themselves define the centre plan and with that, the enhancement projects that they want to take on (Andersen Helseth & Bråten 2018). The latest government white paper underlines how the SFUs are to be defined locally (Meld. St. 16 [2016–2017], p. 84). As described in Section 2, a supportive institutional culture and context is a necessary starting point for local enhancement projects to flourish. The value of being open and responsive to local needs and ideas, and the importance of quality cultures, are two key ideas that will inform NOKUTs future work.

    Although, the SFU criteria are devised to be open, there are some aspects that are highlighted in the criteria and which we have emphasized in our management of the initiative. Examples include “students as partners”, see Section 3 and below, and R&D-based education. These aspects have a solid foundation in research in terms of contributing to educational quality, and choosing them thus speak to a scholarly approach.

    We have also tried to stimulate such a scholarly approach in the sector. An important aspect in both Section 2 and 5 in particular, was how taking risks is a part of TE. Experiencing so-called “glorious failures” is part of taking risks and trying out new things. What is important is, of course, to learn from what failed. As part of the SFUs’ dissemination mandate, it is important that others are also able to take part in this learning, both of things that work and things that do not. In order to facilitate this, we have emphasized what can be called “the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL)” (Boyer 1990). This is a form of pedagogical research, but one where academics in other disciplines seek to examine and understand teaching and learning in their own classrooms through their own observations and analysis (Gale 2007, p. 36). Teachers should take well-informed choices about learning methods based on knowledge (Meld. St 16, [2016–2017]). Such scholarly inquiry can be seen as vital to teaching excellence (Gale 2007; see also Andersen Helseth & Bråten 2018). SoTL is now gaining momentum in Norway both for practitioners and policy-makers (for instance as evidenced by the SFU bioCEED hosting the 2018 International Society for Scholarship of Learning and Teaching conference, attracting a large national audience, and by Meld. St 16 [2016-2017]). The Centres and the SFU initiative have played a part in this. NOKUT has learned a lot about working with a scholarly but practice oriented approach ourselves and encouraging the sector to do so as well. This is something to build on in our future work.

    Students as partners – an example of a multifaceted  dissemination strategy
    Sections 3 and 5 (and others) reflected on two important aspects of the SFU initiative; students as partners and dissemination. The importance of both of these aspects in relation to educational quality, teaching excellence and achieving enhancement at large through a national initiative, is well documented. This includes evaluations of excellence initiatives that preceeded the SFU initiative, and that enabled us to learn from their successes and shortcomings (see for instance for Raaheim and Karjalainen 2012; SQW 2011; Saunders et al. 2008). Dissemination has therefore been seen as key to achieving the goal of enhancing quality at large through appointing and financing a small number of excellent educational communities.

    With students as partners having a firm basis in research (Trowler 2010; see also Section 3) we have through the course of our management of the initiative sought to consistently bring the Centres’ and the wider sector’s attention to this topic. In order to do this, we have used a set of different means and approaches. Together they constitute a dissemination strategy aimed at ultimately achieving dissemination for action (Harmsworth & Turpin 2000) – something we might consider appropriate for other topics and goals in the future.

    Students as partners is a topic that has been highlighted by a number of presenters in different fora that we have set up, both for the Centres exclusively and for the wider sector. For instance, network gatherings for the Centres have included workshops with well renowned international experts on the topic. We also gathered students from the Centres for them to share experiences, discuss challenges and learn more about student partnerships through workshops with sparqs (student partnerships in quality Scotland) and representatives from the national union in Norway.

    Students as partners was furthermore the topic of an issue of the SFU magazine which NOKUT and the Centres have issued twice every year since 2015. This again brought the Centres’ attention to the topic, making them go through their portfolio of projects with this in mind and disseminate experiences and results. Perhaps this pushed them to disseminate at an earlier stage than they would normally do (which might facilitate dissemination for awareness and action [Harmsworth & Turpin 2000]).

    To further stimulate developments in this regard, we also gave the Centres seed money to projects for students and staff and supported master’s students in writing about the topic. Through other NOKUT events and the NOKUT podcast, attention has also been directed at the topic and the Centres have been able to showcase results and ways of incorporating students as partners.

    As seen in Section 3, however, as well as in the final recommendations from the panel to NOKUT (Ashwin et al. 2017), the topic of students as partners still needs attention. This goes for the SFU initiative itself, but is also relevant for the wider sector. NOKUT has learned a lot about both the theoretical basis of students as partners and the different practical ways the Centres have incorporated this in their work, which we will seek to draw upon in future work. The necessity for continuous work and using a number of instruments to draw attention to and stimulate enhancement in a (welldocumented) area is also a lesson to take on.

    Partners and critical friends
    Section 4 reflected on the dual purpose of the 2017 interim evaluation – both to make a recommendation concerning further funding and contributing to developing the Centres. We reflected upon the process partly in relation to the concept and collegial approach of “critical friends” (Handal 2016; Prchal and Messas 2017). As managers, we have emphasised following up the Centres closely, but as informally as possible, with a focus on building personal relationships of trust and support, and hence taking on the role of “critical friends.”

    We have interacted with the Centres by attending their main events to learn more about their work, being observers on their boards, having dialogue meetings, trying to make formal reporting and evaluations as enhancementdriven as possible, and creating networks between the different centres and ourselves in the spirit of a “community of practice” (see for instance Wenger 1998).

    The close relationship between NOKUT and the Centres has generated positive results for all parties. Being close to the Centres has been a fruitful way for NOKUT to learn from excellent academic communities and researchers. Furthermore, the Centres have acted as partners for development influencing NOKUT and national policies – making it a topdown and bottom-up relationship (Førland & Bråten 2018).

    Feedback we have received from the Centres and external evaluations emphasizes the importance of this approach. It is also commended by Ashwin et al. (2017, p. 29):

    The panel were impressed with the success of the SFU initiative to date. This success is based on the excellent work of the Centres but it is also based on NOKUT’s excellent relationship with the Centres. There was a strong sense of trust between NOKUT and the Centres, which seemed to be based on NOKUT’s expertise in quality assurance and enhancement and their collegial approach to working with the Centres. Without this trust, it is unlikely that the initiative would have been nearly so effective.

    Collaborating with educational communities in this way is not a common feature for most quality assurance agencies and was also fairly new to NOKUT at the time, at least collaboration to this extent. Over time, however, and based partly on the experience from the SFU initiative, NOKUT has placed more emphasis on collaboration and external activities, building trust, good relationships and networks with the sector. This will not end with NOKUT’s management of the SFU initiative, but is something that we have learnt a lot from and which we will take on in our future work.

    In Section 4 we asked, however: “(…) may it be so that we too have become friends, from whom criticism is not expected?” There is an important message here for NOKUT of getting the right balance between being “close” and keeping an appropriate distance. Keeping the right balance is an issue in individual NOKUT activities, but also for NOKUT as a whole, being both about assurance and enhancement. However, these close relationships bring us closer to actual practice and to research, which is a good knowledge base for developing NOKUT’s policies and activities so that they respond to the needs of higher education institutions.

    Theory of change
    Section 6, in particular, addressed the necessity of an explicit theory of change for the Centres and the initiative as a whole. This was also highlighted in Ashwin et al. (2017, pp. 28–29):

    “First, it is clear that the Initiative would benefit from having a more explicit theory of change that helps to inform its approach and decision making. This would involve developing a clearer sense of how the SFU is expected to lead to changes in educational practices in higher education in Norway and internationally. This would enable NOKUT to have a clearer sense of the success of the SFU initiative (...) it would also be helpful if the SFU initiative found ways of supporting the Centres to move beyond their institutions in Norway. Two of the Centres had excellent institutional and international links but appeared to find it much harder to develop strategic cross-institutional links within Norway.”

    The SFU initiative has always been about stimulating change, as the purpose is to increase the quality of education in the sector at large through funding a small number of Centres, but we would be the first to support the feedback from Ashwin et al. (2017). The ways of stimulating this change, why they were chosen and what we intended for them to achieve could have been more explicitly expressed both internally and externally, and it could have been done at an earlier stage. In the latter years, we have sought to be more explicit in papers and presentations, see for instance Andersen Helseth & Bråten (2018), Andersen Helseth et al. (2017) and Bråten & Børsheim (2016), but there is still some way to go.

    Through managing the initiative, especially through the feedback of international experts, we have learnt a lot about articulating the change intended (including daring to say that change is the goal) and the steps towards achieving it. These are important lessons learned for NOKUT as an organization in its present and future activities.

    Academic leadership
    Section 7, building on the preceding sections, highlighted the role of academic leadership. Ashwin et al. (2017, p. 29) also pointed to the role of leadership in the Centres:

    “(…) the previous points all highlight the challenge of developing educational leadership. This is a challenging area to work in but the long-term success of the SFU initiative will be shaped by its ability to support the development of educational leaders who have a clear strategic vision, which is inclusive of institutions across Norway and involves students as active partners. An integral part of this is the need to further develop project management capacity in the Centres of Excellence.”

    Strategic leadership coupled with distributed leadership throughout the organization is necessary for creating an environment where change can take place. There is an obvious link here to facilitating change outside of the SFU initiative, as described above. This is already an important issue for NOKUT, for instance as highlighted in our policy document “Quality areas for study programmes” (NOKUT 2016b), and something that we will continue to be concerned with. Through the SFU initiative, we have not only become even more aware of its importance, but we have also encountered examples of both great academic leadership at different levels and of how difficult this is. We will definitely draw on this learning in our future work.

    Concluding remarks
    In this epilogue, we have tried to reflect upon some results and some lessons learned. Were it not for the hard work of the Centres and their willingness to be partners with us as managers, the results and lessons mentioned above would never have been achieved.

    The Centres as well as the academic communities striving for an SFU status are all characterised by courage and generosity. They approach the unknown, engage in processes where they are unsure of the results, yet they are open to invite other people in, be it NOKUT, senior managers, other academics or students. When applying for centre status they document excellence and show practices and aspects of teaching and learning that they are proud of. At the same time, however, they expose themselves and their weaknesses. In the SFU initiative, where there is a high degree of transparency with, for instance, bids and feedback (including grading from the expert panel), this must be quite daunting. All the applicants and Centres, with their will to change, improve and learn, should be commended for inviting us all in to share their learning experience. It is with tremendous gratitude for what we have experienced that we hand over the management of the initiative.

    This gratitude should also be extended to the experts and critical friends that we have had the pleasure of working with through the SFU initiative. Hence, we want to end this epilogue and the whole publication by highlighting the role of experts. Feedback from critical friends, and the international perspective they bring (which is a function of their experience and competence more than simply their nationality), has been invaluable in developing the management of the initiative and supporting the Centres’ development. In this collaboration, NOKUT has been able to draw upon yearlong experience of using experts in accreditation and supervision activities. Through the SFU initiative we have, however, to a larger extent than before, invited experts to be our critical friends by giving us feedback on how we set up our activities. Receiving criticism has not always been easy, but has given us valuable opportunities to learn how those “at the other side of the table”, those that are subjects of NOKUT assessment processes, experience them.

    Last, but not least, a special thank you should be addressed to our cowriters in this publication; Christine Alveberg, Paul Ashwin, Celia Duffy, Stephanie Marshall, Trine Oftedal, and Richard J. Reece. You have all acted as critical friends to the SFU initiative at different stages as well as taken part in assessment and evaluation processes. Our joint writing up of these reflections is a testimony to our fruitful collaboration and hopefully interesting reading for others with an interest in the SFU initiative.

    Authors: Ingvild Andersen Helseth, Christine Alveberg, Paul Ashwin, Helen Bråten, Celia Duffy, Stephanie Marshall, Trine Oftedal, Richard J. Reece

    Read the report (pdf)

2018

  • Exclusive but Inclusive: The Norwegian Centres for Excellence (SFU) Initiative

    Paper presented at the  EAIR 40th Annual Forum in Budapest, Hungary

    Abstract

    With the proliferation of different excellence initiatives in higher education, there is discussion about what purposes such initiatives should serve. To most, the term ‘excellence’ must entail someone or something standing out from the rest. It is often linked to some form of competition. However, in this paper, we explore, based on our experience with the Norwegian Centres for Excellence in Education (SFU) Initiative, how one can manage an excellence scheme so that it is foremost about inclusivity, cooperation and quality enhancement at large rather than competition and ranking.

    Authors: Ingvild Andersen Helseth and Helen Bråten

    Read the paper (pdf)

2017

  • Inspiring Excellence – The Norwegian Way

    Concluding remarks

    In this paper, we have shown that interpretations of excellence in the SFU initiative are situationally and historically contingent. That the term ‘excellence’ is situationally and historically constructed also means that a paper like this cannot present a final, neverchanging definition, but must rather put forward an interpretation under constant development.

    In the management of the SFU initiative, we argue that excellence needs a multi-actor, multilevel and multi-dimensional approach. Excellence as a continuous effort is furthermore important to us. The will and search for quality enhancement is a prominent characteristic of individuals and academic environments, putting emphasis on quality cultures (cf. Kottman et al. 2016; Elton 1998). With the focus on knowledge and research-based development of education the initiative has developed new arenas to discuss teaching and learning and fostered increased awareness about the concept of excellence, use of indicators to document excellence in higher education as well as strategies and resources for education and cooperation between institutions and internally in institutions.

    The centres and the management of the initiative put emphasis on dissemination and sharing of knowledge and experience hence being centres for excellence advocating an inclusive and enhancement based notion of excellence.

    Authors: Ingvild Andersen Helseth, Helen Bråten, Ole-Jacob Skodvin

    Read the paper (pdf)

2016

  • How Can One Create a Culture for Quality Enhancement?

    Executive summary

    Background of the study
    This report is the result of the project ʹHow can one create a culture for quality enhancement?ʹ, commissioned by NOKUT, the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education. The work was carried out by the Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), University of Twente, the Netherlands and the Centre for Higher Education Governance Ghent (CHEGG), Ghent University, Belgium. The project sought to increase the knowledge base about quality cultures in teaching and learning, possible measures to increase the quality of higher education at national, institutional and programme level, with a specific emphasis on creating and enhancing quality cultures.

    Questions of ensuring quality culture are obviously not new, but have become more salient in recent times, particularly the question of how to manage such cultures. In a search for a proper point of departure, EUA´s (2006) definition of quality culture was chosen. It defines quality culture as the organisational culture that intends to enhance quality permanently and is characterised by two distinct elements: a cultural/psychological element of shared values, beliefs, expectations and commitment towards quality and a structural/managerial element with defined processes that enhance quality and aim at coordinating individual efforts. 

    Key lessons
    From our study the following key lessons can be drawn:

    • Establishing a baseline of shared values that defines high quality teaching and learning is important to successfully implement further quality work or quality management and to enhance quality cultures.
    • The motivation of academic staff to engage in quality work can be triggered by framing teaching and learning activities as having similar traits as research activities. Integrating teaching achievements in career schemes institutionalises the importance of teaching and learning. Offering resources, in particular time, to staff to engage more strongly in teaching and learning activities gives impetus to quality enhancement.
    • Effective leaders are those who commit themselves to implementing changes with careful timing and convincing narratives. A blended leadership style – bottom-up collegial initiatives combined with a managerial vision – is particularly relevant.
    • Staff are more strongly motivated to engage in professional development if goal conflicts (e.g. time constraints due to prioritizing research over teaching) are prevented and if professional training is embedded in communication structures that allow teachers to discuss and exchange their experiences. Creating a quality culture may be a challenge, the same goes for sustaining it. Institutionalising regular reporting and reflecting on achievements are important mechanisms. Formal and institutional accreditation may support sustainability, but sufficient attention must be paid to continuing the involvement and ownership of academics.

    How did we arrive at these lessons?
    The general project question was broken down in two sub-questions. The first sub-question was: Quality (enhancement) cultures: what do we know? A literature study was carried out to explore questions related to the concept of quality culture, national policies and organisational strategies to enhance quality cultures in teaching and learning, and realised and perceived effects of quality culture practices at the institutional level.

    There was a limited amount of literature pointing at drivers and inhibitors of quality culture. It should be borne in mind that much of the research so far was small-scale and carried out in specific contexts, which puts limits to the generalisability. Also, most studies were not explicit about the potential outcomes of enhancing quality cultures and the drivers/inhibitors affecting these outcomes but not others.

    That said, the literature pointed at the following factors of influence at the individual level:

    • Perceptions, values and beliefs of individual teachers;
    • Teachers' motivational factors (including potential goal conflicts);
    • Professional development activities related to teaching and learning;
    • Leadership styles.

    At the organisational level, the literature review revealed the following factors:

    • Support from institutional leadership;
    • Communication;
    • Data driven reflection of enhancement activities;
    • Design of enhancement instruments;
    • Decision-making structures;
    • Provision of sufficient resources/staff development.

    The second sub-question was: What are the perceptions and experiences of practitioners working in communities to promote or enhance quality culture? With respect to communities, the focus was on Centres of Teaching and Learning (CTLs), representing a broad set of organisational initiatives that intend to enhance quality (cultures). Five case studies from five countries were selected:

    • Centre of Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CELT), Birmingham City University, United Kingdom;
    • bioCEED, Centre of Excellence in Biology Education, Norway;
    • Genombrottet, The Academic Development Unit at the Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, Sweden;
    • EDLAB, Maastricht University, the Netherlands; and
    • the Zentrum für Qualitätsentwicklung in Studium und Lehre (ZfQ, Center for Teaching Quality Development), University of Potsdam, Germany.

    For these case studies, documents were analyzed and interviews and focus groups – with CTL leaders, quality and teaching and learning experts and practitioners – conducted. The case studies intend to describe and analyze the interplay between the elements that build a quality culture.

    The case studies revealed four generic factors that play a role for (creating a) quality culture and quality enhancement:

    • Leadership: Here commitment of leaders was emphasised, as well as “walking the talk”. Furthermore blended leadership, combining managerial and academic values in teaching and learning, was deemed important, and also addressing the collective (not solely targeting individual teachers).
    • The provision of resources: It seemed imperative to create time and space for academics. In other words, money may not be the key issue, but reducing workloads and offering expertise seem to be key.
    • Communication: This is linked to leadership, but also goes beyond it. It relates to creating a shared language and a baseline of shared values defining high quality teaching to talk about learning and teaching and to share good practices. Furthermore emphasising that teaching is something that can be learned appeared to be helpful.
    • Recognition of teaching and learning activities. With respect to the recognition of teaching and learning activities, it appears to be helpful to create mechanisms that institutionalise attention to teaching and learning (vis-à-vis research). Valuable instruments are: teaching awards, creating career paths, institutionalising leadership roles and making career progress on teaching and learning achievements.

    Closing comment
    It should be emphasised again that the findings – and therefore also the key lessons – need to be qualified in light of the limited amount of research, the small scale of some of the studies, the different conceptualisations of quality (culture) and enhancement, the different contextualisations and furthermore differences in foci of the outcomes (e.g. what counts as a relevant outcome: learning outcomes, student achievements, student satisfaction or staff satisfaction?). It should also be stressed that the factors identified in the case studies are based on the experiences and perceptions of the interviewees. They obviously build on their context-dependent expertise and experiences. This puts limitations to the generalizability of the findings.

    Authors: Andrea Kottmann, Jeroen Huisman, Lisa Brockerhoff, Leon Cremonini, Jelle Mampaey

    Read the report (pdf)

  • The Potential of Centres of/for Excellence in Higher Education

    Introduction

    At the start of this chapter reflecting on Centres of Excellent Education (or Sentre for fremragende utdanning – SFUs), it is appropriate to set out the nature of this chapter and its contents. This chapter is neither a theoretical discussion of the concept of excellence, nor is it a piece of empirical research outlining potential measures of excellence. Instead, the chapter contains experiential evidence from someone who has been involved with SFUs in Norway and their English equivalents, Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETLs), for the last decade. As aconsequence of this, the reader must accept that there is considerable subjectivity within the material presented here – this is not a rigorous piece of academic research, it is not reproducible or verifiable.

    In view of the personal and experiential nature of the material presented here, I should begin by outlining where and how this experience was gained. In 2004, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) launched its CETL scheme. Following a two-stage bidding process, sigma, Centre for Excellence in University-wide Mathematics and Statistics Support came into being. I was co-Director of sigma, which was a collaborative centre shared between Loughborough and Coventry Universities.

    The CETL programme ran for five years from 1 August 2005 to 31 July 2010. Unlike Norway’s SFU programme, there was no possibility of continuation funding and the majority of CETLs ceased to function on 1 August 2010.

    However, sigma remained in operation having secured funding first from the National HE STEM* programme (2009–2012) and then directly from HEFCE to embed mathematics and statistics support across the sector and develop a sustainable community of practice (2013–2016). Although I no longer work at Coventry University, I remain a Director of sigma.

    In 2013, NOKUT launched the second call for SFUs with the aim to create up to three further SFUs (following the establishment of ProTed, the first SFU, in 2011). This was an open call, unlike the first call, which had been restricted to teacher education.  I chaired NOKUT’s international expert panel charged with sifting the applications and making a recommendation to the NOKUT Board as to which three proposals should be awarded SFU status.

    Finally, in 2015, ProTed reached the time for its mid-term evaluation to determine if it should continue as an SFU for a further five years.  NOKUT assembled an Expert Committee to carry out this mid-term evaluation by consideration of a self-evaluation document produced by the ProTed leadership and other documentation, including ProTed’s annual reports, and a site visit to the two institutions (the Universities of Oslo and Tromso) that make up ProTed. I chaired this Expert Committee on NOKUT’s behalf.

    These then are the experiences that I bring to writing this chapter. In the following sections, I will begin by outlining the CETL programme in England, tracing its roots back to a government white paper and summarising what it was intended to achieve. This will be followed by an evaluation of the programme exploring CETL successes and failures at the levels of both individual centres and the programme as a whole.  In view of the shortcomings identified at programme level, I will use hindsight to suggest an alternative framework for the CETL programme, which might have led to greater programme level success, without detriment to individual centre level successes. I will then turn to the SFU programme in Norway, covering its roots and objectives and comparing these with the English CETL programme.  Although all of this material is presented in the light of my personal experience, recounted above, it draws on the work of others.  The final substantive section of the chapter is much more subjective, describing my thoughts of what an SFU should aspire to be and what it might achieve.

    * STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. The National HE STEM Programme was an initiative funded by HEFCE, running from 2009 to 2012, to promote STEM in higher education.

    Author: Duncan Lawson

    Read the article (pdf)

  • sigma: A case study of an enduring centre for excellence

    Introduction

    In 2003, the Government published a white paper entitled The future of higher education (DFES, 2003). This white paper contains a chapter entitled ‘Teaching and learning – delivering excellence’. At the heart of this chapter is the principle that “All students are entitled to high quality teaching” (p.46) and one of the key proposals to bring this about is the establishment of Centres of Excellence:

    “We should also celebrate excellent practice in teaching departments. The very best will be designated as Centres of Excellence and given funding of £500,000 a year for five years to reward academics and to fund extra staff to help promote and spread their good pedagogical practice … Their status will help to raise the profile of excellent teaching” (p 54).

    In 2004, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) issued a call for proposals for Centres for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CETLs). 259 proposals were submitted and after a two-stage selection process, 74 CETLs were established each with funding for 5 years from 1 August 2005 to 31 July 2010. The funding awarded to CETLs was large. The total funding available for the programme was £315 million, with individual CETLs receiving revenue funding of up to £500,000 per year and capital funding (which had to be spent in the first two years) of up to £2 million.

    In the guidance relating to drafting proposals, the major emphasis was put on establishing existing excellence and on the plan of activities for the five year funding period. CETLs were expected to develop teaching practices which would further enhance their existing excellence. Bidders were specifically encouraged to be innovative and explore ‘risky’ developments (particularly with regard to the use of new technologies) which, it was accepted, might not succeed.  Although the white paper had focused on reward for academic staff who had delivered excellence and funding for additional staff to help “spread their good pedagogical practice”, reward and dissemination appeared to be less significant in the bidding guidance.

    One of the CETLs established through this process was sigma, Centre for excellence in university-wide mathematics and statistics support.  sigma was a collaborative CETL between Loughborough and Coventry Universities30. This case study records the history of sigma during its time as part of the CETL programme (2005–2010) and its development since the end of the CETL programme (and accompanying funding). The vast majority of CETLs ceased to exist as discrete entities after July 2010, sigma on the other hand has flourished securing funding from both host institutions to maintain the work it had carried out directly with students. In addition, sigma has continued its cross-sector activities, initially through participating in the National HE STEM Programme (2009–2012) and, following that, with a project funded by HEFCE specifically aimed at developing a sustainable mathematics and statistics support community (2013–2016). Having traced the development of sigma from 2005 to date, the case study will close by looking to anticipated future developments.

    Author: Duncan Lawson

    Read the article (pdf)

2015

  • Centre for Professional Learning in Teacher Education (ProTed)

    Mid-term evaluation –  Centre of Excellence in Higher Education

    Summary

    NOKUT appointed an Expert Committee to carry out the mid-term evaluation of ProTed, the first SFU. The Expert Committee was charged with making a recommendation to NOKUT as to whether or not ProTed’s SFU status should be extended for a further five years, following the completion of their first five years as an SFU. The final decision on this question is to be taken by the NOKUT Board.

    The Expert Committee was comprised of Norwegian and international colleagues, and included student representation. NOKUT asked the Expert Committee to review ProTed against four criteria: progress towards the goals of the SFU scheme; progress towards the goals ProTed set itself in its original application to become an SFU; the impact of ProTed as an SFU; and the sustainability of ProTed’s activities.

    The Expert Committee scrutinised documentation from ProTed, including annual reports from its time as an SFU and a self-evaluation document. In addition, the Expert Committee carried out a week-long site visit, which involved going to both host universities. During the site visit, a series of interviews took place with the leadership of both universities, the ProTed leadership, ProTed staff, student representatives, students, representatives of University Schools and other external colleagues including the Knowledge Centre for Education and The Norwegian Centre for ICT in Education.

    After thorough consideration of all the evidence it had available, the Expert Committee concluded that, in many areas, ProTed has made significant advances from the point at which it was awarded SFU status. This is seen most clearly in its development of the University School concept, which the Expert Committee regard as, currently, ‘the jewel in ProTed’s crown’. ProTed has also made major progress in the curriculum design and practice of research-informed integration in teacher education (with University Schools playing a crucial role in this).

    ProTed has had a major impact in the two host institutions and is making a growing contribution nationally. Colleagues from ProTed have undertaken extensive dissemination activity to a wide range of audiences, including Government and policy makers as well as fellow academics.

    The Expert Committee unanimously and unreservedly recommends to the NOKUT Board that ProTed’s status as an SFU be extended for a further five years.

    If the NOKUT Board accepts this recommendation, the Expert Committee recommends that ProTed develop a new strategic plan to encompass the remaining six years as an SFU, with a focus on dissemination for action and establishing a legacy ‘post-SFU’ beginning immediately.

    Expert Committee: Professor Duncan Lawson, Newman University (Chair), Professor Elaine Munthe, University of Stavanger, Senior Research Associate Don Westerheijden, University of Twente, Professor Jeppe Bundsgaard, Aarhus University, Student Espen Tangnes, University of Bergen

    Read the report (pdf)

  • Research as foundation for education: Centres of Excellence and good practices

    Abstract

    The Norwegian Centres of Excellence (CoE) schemes in research, research-based innovation and higher education are government instruments for quality enhancement. The CoE schemes constitute the three corners of the knowledge triangle. There is no doubt that these centres produce research, innovation and knowledge that strengthen the quality of education. We show that the centres use new research in their teaching, and include students in their R&D, thus adding important value to teaching and education. Moreover, students are viewed as a resource to the CoEs’ R&D. In addition, the centres – to take advantage of their staffs expertise and R&D – establish new study programs at different educational levels. While Centres of Excellence in Research (CoE-R) and Centres of Research-based Innovation (CoE-I) mostly involve PhD and master students, the Centres of Excellence in Higher Education (CoE-E), to a larger degree, target the bachelor- and master level. The centres work actively to recruit talented students, offer their supervision, network and infrastructure, and emphasize the importance of including the students both academically and socially.

    Authors: Lisa Dahl Keller, Stein Erik Lid, Ingvild Andersen Helseth

    Read the report (pdf)