Innovation is crucial for higher education to ensure high-quality curricula that address the changing needs of students, labor markets, and society as a whole. Substantial amounts of resources and enthusiasm are devoted to innovations, but often they do not yield the desired changes. This may be due to unworkable goals, too much complexity, and a lack of resources to institutionalize the innovation. In many cases, innovations end up being less sustainable than expected or hoped for. In the long term, the disappointing revenues of innovations hamper the ability of higher education to remain future proof. Against the background of this need to increase the success of educational innovations, our colleague Klaartje van Genugten has explored the literature on innovations to reveal mechanisms that contribute to the sustainability of innovations. Her findings are synthesized in this report. They are particularly meaningful for directors of education programs, curriculum committees, educational consultants, and policy makers, who are generally in charge of defining the scope and set up of innovations. Her report offers a comprehensive view and provides food for thought on how we can strive for future-proof and sustainable innovations. I therefore recommend reading this report.
DOCUMENT
Currently, various higher education (HE) institutes develop flexible curricula for various reasons, including promoting accessibility of HE, the societal need for more self-regulated professionals who engage in life-long learning, and the desire to increase motivation of students. Increasing flexibility in curricula allows students to choose for example what they learn, when they learn, how they learn, where they learn, and/or with whom. However, HE institutes raise the question of what preferences and needs different stakeholders have with regard to flexibility, so that suitable choices can be made in the design of policies, curricula, and student support programs. In this workshop, we focus on student preferences and share recent insights from research on HE students' preferences regarding flexible education. Moreover, we use participants’ expertise to identify new (research) questions to further explore what students’ needs imply for several domains, namely curriculum-design, student support that is provided by educators/staff, policy, management, and the professional field. Firstly, a conceptual framework on flexible education and student’s preferences will be presented. Secondly, participants reflect in groups on student personas. Then, discussion groups have a Delphi-based discussion to collect new ideas for research. Finally, participants share the outcomes on a ‘willing wall’ and a ‘wailing wall’.
MULTIFILE
Information about a workshop which is specifically aimed at higher education staff (policy makers) and teachers.
LINK
The purpose of this final chapter is twofold: (1) to provide the synthesis of learnings on quality in teaching and teacher education on the basis of the analysis and discussion of the fourteen chapters collected in this monograph, and (2) to discuss implications for future research on quality in teaching and teacher education, policy and practice. In so doing, we ask: What do we know about quality in teaching and teacher education from the collected chapters and how can these findings inform future research, policy and practice in these areas? In order to answer these questions, the chapter is divided into five main parts. In the first part we identify a call that is present in all chapter: to move beyond a reductionist notion of education. In the second part we recognize the growing attention for teaching quality both as a blessing and a burden. In the third part we identify seven key dilemmas that arise from the different chapters. Next we use these dilemmas to identify implications for teacher education practice, policy and research. We conclude this chapter with some final reflections.
DOCUMENT
Across the globe, linguistically heterogeneous populations increasingly define school systems at the same time that developing the ability to communicate cross-culturally is becoming essential for internationalized economies. While these trends seem complimentary, they often appear in paradoxical opposition as represented in the content and execution of nationwide education policies. Given the differing geopolitical contexts within which school systems function, wide variation exists with regard to how policymakers address the challenges of providing language education, including how they frame goals and design programs to align with those goals. Here we present a cross-continental examination of this variation, which reveals parallel tensions among aims for integrating immigrant populations, closing historic achievement gaps, fostering intercultural understanding, and developing multilingual competencies. To consider implications of such paradoxes and parallels in policy foundations, we compare language education in the US and in the EU, focusing on the Netherlands as an illustrative case study.
LINK
Recent studies have identified that the teacher is the most important factor influencing the quality of education. Following this line of reasoning, it is likely to assume that the teacher educator is the most important factor influencing the quality of teacher education. Although many research studies and policy documents attempt to identify the qualities of teachers, only a few publications address the quality of teacher educators. This paper examines the contemporaryEuropean policy debate on the quality and status of teacher educators. Two issues will be addressed. Firstly, to what extent is teacher educator regarded as a profession? Secondly, what actions and measures are proposed to maintain or increase the quality and status of the teacher educator profession? Based on literature on professions and professionalism, a framework has been developed to guide our examination of European policy documents on teacher education to identify to what extent these documents express notions of teacher educators as professionals.
MULTIFILE
Presentation at EFYE Conference, Bergen, Norway. Overview: •Dutch higher education in a nutshell •Quality in diversity: Strategic agenda for higher education Focus on: student-study fit •Moving forward enrolment date •Matching activities •First results
DOCUMENT
This study examines how the contemporary European policy debate addresses the further development of the quality of teacher educators. A classification framework based on the literature on professionalism was used to compare European and Member State policy actions and measures on the quality of teacher educators through an analysis of seven European policy documents and a questionnaire completed by key policy-makers in 16 European countries. The findings show that European Union policy documents pay limited attention to the quality of teacher educators. However, the professionalism of teacher educators receives more policy attention at the level of individual Member States. Most of these policies are part of general policies for higher education teachers, while the initiative lies with governments and teacher education institutes. The role of the professionals themselves in developing policies to strengthen their professionalism seems very limited.
DOCUMENT
A welcome policy can be embedded in a municipal authority organisation in a number of different ways. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. To be effective, the local policy makers must be clear on how they hope to make use of the welcome policy and how this will benefit or suffer from different organisational structures. No one ‘ideal’ structure will ‘fit’ all municipal situations in Europe. However, to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the organisational structure that most closely resembles the local situation can increase the chances of successful policy implementation.
DOCUMENT
Abstract (165)European policy makers consider higher education essential for the development of high-level employable professionals but who is responsible for ensuring that Europe has the professionals that it needs. In this article, we examine how policy from three European countries – the Netherlands, Germany and England – position the responsibility for producing professionals in the interplay between higher education, society and the economy. Our findings show substantial differences between the three countries, which highlight possible opportunities and risks for students, within a single European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Differences in who decides, and at which level of detail the design of higher education is defined challenges the rights all European citizens to have similar educational opportunities for employment. Given that the EHEA was created to ensure equality and comparability between European societies, this finding underlines the necessity of not only looking at formal and legislative arrangements but also at the strategic and visionary perspective of European legislation to gain a common understanding of higher education across the EHEA.
LINK
