NIFU report 2015:22 – Summary
Outstanding quality is currently high on the education policy agenda. Quality education is seen as vital for a positive development of society and economy. The establishment of Centres of Excellence in Higher Education (SFU) in the Norwegian context, and for similar measures in other countries are part of a trend of combining work on quality assurance and quality development when it comes to teaching excellence: the ambition to develop world-class universities; increasing global competition for the best brains among students and staff; and funding systems based on various forms of rewards and rankings.
The SFU scheme in Norway was initiated by the Ministry of Education and Research, and has been managed by the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT) since 2010. The scheme is application-based and can be assigned to groups demonstrating outstanding quality and innovative practices in the education they offer. In addition, there is a requirement that communities will also contribute to the dissemination of results.
As of today there are four centres that have been awarded SFU status:
- ProTed (Centre for Professional Learning in Teacher Education)
- bioCEED (Centre of Excellence in Biology Education)
- CEMPE (Centre of Excellence in Music Performance Education)
- MatRIC (Centre for Research, Innovation and Coordination of Mathematics Teaching)
NIFU has studied how the possibility of establishing such centres has influenced institutional strategies and priorities, contextually and financially, and to what extent the scheme has triggered other measures that have an impact directly and indirectly on developing outstanding academic quality. The report is based on policy documents, application forms, strategic plans, committee reviews and interviews with various agents who have been key in application processes: academic staff, centre management, faculty and institution management.
Useful tool for subject-specific quality challenges
The study shows that such developments, as well as some measures represented by the SFU scheme, have helped to raise awareness around the issue of educational quality. Educational institutions themselves have also been contributing to prioritise institutional resources to develop and improve education. The SFU scheme can thus be understood as one of several expressions of major institutional transformation at universities and colleges. The SFU scheme helps them work to make quality improvement systematically rooted in institutional management.
We find that the SFU is an instrument that is well suited to the distinctive quality challenges in particular subjects. In mathematics, work is for example related to the need for more differentiated teaching, while in the architectural profession it is aiming at developing better language and concept development around the coupling of theory and professional practice. In the field of music the SFU scheme is used as an opportunity to rethink learning methods connected more closely to a changed competitive labour market; in biology the focus is on improved tools for learning; and in teacher training for competence needs in a technology-rich knowledge society characterised by binding partnerships and lifelong learning.
SFU contributes to integration and cooperation on quality improvement
The SFU scheme has contributed to better integration between departments and administration, and between institutional strategies and academic priorities in development projects for improved academic performance. The initiative has also contributed to better contact and greater cooperation between relevant research communities, those involved in student teaching and those responsible for student administration. This includes the establishment of forums for learning across disciplines, as well as research projects where PHD students are active participants.
In addition to top-up funding of the research groups that have received SFU status, the initiative has helped to encourage initiation and financing of development projects, preparation of relevant applications for SFU status and other research, focus on teaching skills for recruitment and merit purposes, and increased attention on the quality of education as a management responsibility. There is a common understanding that the SFU scheme is an example of the development of current policy, nationally and locally, to develop the quality of higher education.
Balance between diversity and standardisation in the SFU scheme
Both leaders of SFU host institutions and applicants/centres provide feedback that can be interpreted to mean that the central education authorities, NOKUT, and other future stakeholders, should strive to achieve an appropriate balance between the opening of sufficient diversity in the applicants’ approach to education and the use of standardised criteria for evaluating SFU applications.
Further development of the SFU scheme will also have to depend on the development of policy priorities for higher education nationally. On the one hand this signals the desire to promote world-class environments, and on the other hand, study programmes that are resource efficient. Can the SFU scheme contribute to better performance with respect to both of these quality dimensions?
As pointed out by the informants, outstanding education can be defined in various ways. It is not given that SFU is the only measure that is useful in developing outstanding quality in higher education. The report also provides a brief overview of other possible measures, such as Honor Programs and Teaching Academies.
The potential for the SFU scheme and the opportunity to succeed in interacting with other measures depends on the various policy strategies and measures seen in context. Expectations of policy initiatives for changes in the merit system are at least as great as the expectation that the SFU scheme will now be established as a permanent arrangement.
The interviews revealed that scholars would rather have fewer centres receiving more support than too many centers of excellence based on very little funding. Our findings indicate that the scheme should continue as part of the work done by the Ministry of Education and Research but with more stability and longer-term goals. There is a clear expectation that the government, after five years of experience and two rounds of evaluations of the scheme, should come to a decision on institutionalizing the SFU scheme as part of regular policy.