Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

Higher education institutions today operate in a rapidly changing environment and this is undoubtedly reflected in their core functions of teaching and learning. Teaching and learning in higher education are influenced by a well-rehearsed set of global trends such as the changing demography of student populations and higher participation of non-traditional students; growing global interconnectedness and the proliferation of digital media; and an increasing market orientation in higher education.

This chapter analyses how the topic of teaching and learning has evolved in the political discourse of the Bologna Process and of the policy actors who shape European higher education policy. This exercise is particularly stimulating because learning and teaching evolved from a topic of little significance to a forefront concern and a dimension presented as capable of making the difference for the success of the proposed reforms. It is the rise in prominence, the underlying rationales and the dimensions of teaching and learning that the chapter intends to disentangle. Based on an analysis of the central policy documents of the Bologna Process and key reports of other influential supra-national actors, a proposition is put forward that attention to teaching and learning became focal when this dimension began to be perceived as critical to ensure that higher education served the mission assigned to it by policy-makers, primarily of a utilitarian and economic nature. In making this claim, it is suggested that this evolution has been largely determined by the European Commission (EC) and the OECD as prominent supra-national agents and vectors of globalization. The chapter also cautions against the alienation of academics from policy-making which impacts on teaching and learning, an academic territory by excellence.

Student engagement has increasingly been positioned as a defining characteristic of high quality teaching and learning in higher education. This is because as a concept it can comfortably serve the purposes of various stakeholders across learning and teaching, institutional management, and national policy contexts. However, as many commentators have pointed out, its meaning is not clear. In this chapter, we argue that this is not, as some suggest, due to a lack of criticality on the part of researchers or because engagement is poorly defined, but rather because student engagement has . We argue that by analysing the focus and degree of student engagement, it is possible to address the problems associated with the apparent vagueness of student engagement. This conceptual ground clearing allows us to ask more challenging questions about the relations between different foci and degrees of student engagement, and explore the implications of these questions for future research and policy initiatives related to student engagement.

How students experience higher education? What activities they conduct inside and outside classroom? Are they satisfied with teaching, with learning environments and student services? These questions are of central importance for university officials, for prospective students and their families, and for the state as the main funder of higher education in Europe. Student surveys have become one of the largest and most frequently used data source for quality assessment in higher education. The widespread use of student survey data raises questions of reliability and validity of student survey data used as evidence in higher education decision-making. This chapter addresses the development of student survey instruments, and the use of student data analytics for the improvement of teaching and learning practices and learning environments. First, we discuss policy context in which student survey research has proliferated. Next, we offer an overview of the most influential student survey designs and discuss their limitations. Third, we present different institutional approaches to student data analytics as part of institutional research. In conclusion, we offer recommendations to policy-makers regarding quality standards for survey design, and the use of student survey data as evidence in decision-making. Among other things we suggest that the advances in educational technology and students‘ universal use of technology offer new possibilities for data collection directly from students. Methods, such as digital ethnography, which seeks to adapt qualitative methods to digital use, are particularly promising.

Over the last decade, the practice of higher education in Europe has become highly diversified and more complex. Among the visible phenomena related to the organization of studies that have appeared there are new forms of teaching and learning linked to digital learning environments. Faced with these developments, sometimes called a revolution, actors—policy makers, teachers, students—have very little in the way of scientific results to rely on. Such practices are still relatively new, and research done in this area rarely goes beyond feedback from experiences, case studies and satisfaction surveys. As such, research has not yet produced sufficient knowledge to provide a solid basis for decision-making. This chapter aims to start to address the current lack of scientific work in this area. More specifically, its ambition is to provide a theoretical framework based on the state of the art as well as research trials to answer two major questions: 1. How do student characteristics and those of digital learning environments interact? 2. What are the configurations emerging from these interactions that can lead to quality learning?. The overarching outcome will be to make new forms of teaching and learning linked to digital learning environments in higher education more intelligible.

In most parts of the world higher education is in demand like never before. As systems and institutions expand and diversify, more energy must be invested in ensuring that sufficient learning has been achieved to warrant the award of a qualification. Yet traditional approaches to assessment do not scale well, and given that assessment has yet to be modernized there remains a pressing need to transform this core facet of education. Accordingly, this chapter starts by analysing imperatives for improving the assessment of student learning outcomes. It introduces a model for reviewing progress in the field, and applies this model to several case study initiatives. This exercise yields findings that are distilled into recommendations for advancing assessment and thereby enhancing transparency hence the quality and productivity of future higher education.

The growing phenomenon of disadvantaged and non-traditional students increases the risk of educational underachievement and drop-out in universities in Europe. Within the European funded project INSTALL () researchers developed a qualitative methodology — (NMP) — consisting of a group training process targeted to disadvantaged students. NMP, based on the psychological concept of ‘mentalization’‚ also known as ‘reflexive competence’, combines into one methodology four discursive modules: Metaphoric, Iconographic, Written and Bodily. In this chapter, we present the findings from an evaluative study about how participating students experienced the NMP training process, how NMP is able to support non-traditional students and the implications for policy makers. The results suggest that the use of different discursive modules supports the students in developing their reflexive competence during a formative experience which enables them to better adjust to the university context. Several propositions are made as to how NMP methodology can be integrated in various institutional contexts, and some key issues about policies and practice in supporting non-traditional students are made available for policy makers.

Despite the fact that improving equity in higher education is a major policy priority of many European governments, the topic of the social dimension within the Bologna process has been described as an agenda that yet to find a means of implementation. This paper briefly reviews the global evidence on improving equity outcomes, and then looks at the possibilities for moving the social dimension agenda forward both in terms of creating public reporting systems and in improving peer learning. The suggests that to the extent the social dimension can be portrayed as an exercise in peer learning it will succeed, and to the extent it is seen as an “accountability tool” for national governments it will fail.

The social dimension is the neglected child of the European Higher Education Area, and faces an uncertain future. It lacks a concrete definition and activities relating to it often do not have measurable outcomes. However, the immediate future could see a turning point. This paper addresses several issues: the need for a social dimension, the history of the social dimension, the successes and failures of its implementation and potential ways to develop it in the future. In order for the European Higher Education Area to successfully develop and re-define the social dimension within higher education either proactive measures should be taken. While the social dimension is politically managed at the European level, among the measures we propose in this study is to extend its governance to practitioners and institutions at the regional/national governments’ level.

Whilst the social dimension has been a main focus for the Bologna Process, at least since it was expressly defined as objective for the European Higher Education Area in 2007, it has been difficult to translate it into a manageable policy agenda. Using findings from surveys of students from the EUROSTUDENT project and the analyses of policy interventions within higher education systems carried out as part of the project Peer Learning for the Social Dimension (PL4SD), the authors of this contribution have tried to seek solutions to this quandary of inaction by proposing a different approach.