99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
European Policies and Pedagogy in Higher Education: A Comparison of Instructional Development in Six Universities of the Eutopia Alliance
Laurent Gensbittel1, Muriel Epstein2
1Université Paris 1 - CY Cergy université, France; 2CY Cergy université, France
Presenting Author: Gensbittel, Laurent;
Epstein, Muriel
Improving pedagogical practices has become a priority in the European context for both universities and governments (Lalle & Bonnafous, 2019). Eutopia, one of 41 consortia of European higher education institutions created and funded by the European Union since 2019, initially brought together 6 institutions and expanded to 10 by 2021. Each consortium has set a series of priorities in order to initiate exchanges and promote joint work. The priorities set by the Eutopia alliance are mainly focused on student-centred approaches, diversity and inclusion. In this respect, academic innovation for teacher education is an important topic.
This communication focuses on the mechanisms for improving teaching practice in six universities of the European University Alliance Eutopia, and is part of a broader research for a doctoral thesis on "Lecturer Education".
The training and support for the teaching staff can lead to changes in conceptions (Demougeot-Lebel & Perret, 2011; Gerard, 2016), but there is no evidence of changes in practice in the short (Ménard et al., 2017) and long term (Ménard et al., 2020). Some training specifications have been studied (Stes et al., 2010) making it possible to determine best periods and methodologies as well as minimum durations. But most of these studies make the same observation: differences, particularly cultural and institutional ones, can influence the effect of training and thus its results.
For this reason, our research aims to explore the pedagogical development of university faculty (Demougeot-Lebel & Lison, 2022), articulating local (departments and universities), regional, and national levels.
Whether they are public or private institutions, the universities studied have a great deal of autonomy but are nevertheless guided by the orientations of national or regional governance. We need to determine at what level the obligation to train exists, if at all, for example, whether it is a legal or a local obligation. Similarly, we would like to know whether training in higher education pedagogy is taken into account in the careers of teaching staff. The different statuses of teaching staff therefore should be questioned. Similarly, the question arises of a teaching reference framework that could lead to a certification recognised beyond the local structure. And more concretely, what resources and means have been implemented for this training at local or even national level? Finally, within the framework of the Bologna process, many elements have been put in place, whether to harmonize diplomas or to assess the quality of teaching and training curricula. European alliances aim at developing internationalization of teaching between universities. The question is, does it lead those universities to harmonize their practices by relying on European reference systems.
This is why we felt it necessary to compare these different contexts in order to describe the ecosystems (Bronfenbrenner, 1981) where teachers evolve: from the national or regional governance (macro level) to the institution (meso level), including the department in charge of teacher training, to the professional environment of the teaching staff (micro level), both during and outside the training courses.
At these different levels, the capability approach (Fernagu, 2017) aims to explore the resources that can be mobilized by teachers, such as the training offered by the institution at the meso level, but also the conversion factors that promote or hinder the mobilization of these resources. According to this theory, it is important to explore the teachers’ freedom to choose the resources that correspond to their context, their background and their wishes, as well as their training’s assessment. For instance, they should be able to choose the course and/or the kind of reflective writing they want to be evaluated on.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedWe tried to reach the 10 universities of the Eutopia alliance and were able to conduct 6 semi-structured interviews in the spring of 2022. These were the University of Warwick (UW) in England, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) in Belgium, Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF) in Spain (Catalogna), CY Cergy Paris Université (CYU) in France, Universidade Nova de Lisboa (NOVA) in Portugal, and Göteborgs universitet (GU) in Sweden.
The interviewees were responsible for teacher training in all these universities. In most countries (UW, VUB, CYU, VUB, GU) there were full professors involved in research, and in NOVA it was a PhD student. An interview grid was used to find out about the context of each university, the recruitment methods and the professional situations of the teaching staff, the different measures taken to train them, support them and evaluate their teaching practice. Finally, we wanted to know about the incentives for training and the impact of digital technology on the instructional development of teaching staff. Each interview lasted between 40 and 80 minutes.
To complete the macro level (as defined previously), we studied the CurieXplore summary sheets (https://curiexplore.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/). These are written by the Cooperation and Cultural Action Counsellors and the Science and Technology Counsellors of French diplomatic posts abroad for the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation. These sheets provide a landscape of higher education in each country, in particular its historical context, organization, funding and evaluation. These landscapes were complemented by the Trends 2018 and 2022 surveys (Gaebel & Zhang, 2018; Zhang, 2022)) conducted by the European University Association with local experts on teaching and learning in European higher education institutions.
The interviews were then analysed In December 2022, in terms of ecosystems (Bronfenbrenner, 1981) and the capability approach (Fernagu, 2017) to describe the resources that could be mobilized and the facilitating factors at different levels. Finally, we did research on the websites indicated in the documents, regarding sources or institutions, or mentioned in the interviews, regarding services or projects.
This allowed us to produce 6 monographs. The completed monographs were sent to the interviewees for proofreading or even updating in January 2023.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOur research shows there are large disparities between the six universities in terms of both the volume of training, which can vary from 40 to 400 hours, and the legal obligation to train. The latter is not widespread and is generally reduced to a local obligation of the institutions. Abandoned in Sweden in 2011, the legal obligation to train now exists only in France, along with a 32-hour release from duty that is not found in any of the other five institutions studied. Another difference concerns the certification of teaching skills. While most teacher training received at universities can be recognized at another university, only England has a tiered certification system corresponding to different stages in the career development of teachers. Finally, teaching practice is evaluated and valued differently throughout a teacher’s career. While student evaluation of teaching is widespread to varying degrees, the recognition, symbolic and/or financial, of practice can be done at the local level (GU) or at the governance level (UPF) often based on a file.
Beyond these differences, the comparison of these contexts shows the need for a systemic approach to improving teaching practice. These practices must move from the micro level of individual or team initiatives to the centre of the public space (Fraser, 2011) to be shared, discussed and valued by all stakeholders. This approach, implemented in four out of the six universities studied, leads to the development of a culture of continuous improvement of teaching practices. It is based on the assumption of responsibility, at several levels (micro, meso, macro), for the establishment of a reference framework, initiatives and means set in place both to ensure high-quality initial and continuing training and to evaluate and improve teaching practices.
ReferencesBronfenbrenner, U. (1981). The Ecology of Human Development : Experiments by Nature and Design. Harvard University Press.
Demougeot-Lebel, J., & Lison, C. (2022). Soutenir le développement professionnel pédagogique des enseignants du supérieur. Spirale - Revue de recherches en education, 69(1), 129‑145.
Demougeot-Lebel, J., & Perret, C. (2011). Une formation pédagogique peut-elle modifier les conceptions de jeunes enseignants universitaires sur l’apprentissage et l’enseignement ? Revue des sciences de l’éducation, 37(2), 327‑354. https://doi.org/10.7202/1008989ar
Fernagu, S. (2017). Le développement des compétences des formateurs de la police nationale : Une évaluation à partir de l’approche par les capabilités. Recherche et formation, 2, Art. 2. https://doi.org/10.4000/rechercheformation.2761
Fraser, N. (2011). Qu’est-ce que la justice sociale ?Reconnaissance et redistribution. La Découverte; Cairn.info. https://www.cairn.info/qu-est-ce-que-la-justice-sociale--9782707167897.htm
Gaebel, M., & Zhang, T. (2018). Learning and teaching in the European Higher Education Area (p. 109). European University Association.
Gerard, L. (2016). La formation pédagogique pour faire évoluer les conceptions de l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage. Chemins de formation, 20, 103‑118.
Lalle, P., & Bonnafous, S. (2019). La révolution pédagogique de l’enseignement supérieur, une universalité géographique et paradigmatique. Revue internationale d’éducation de Sèvres, 80, Art. 80. https://doi.org/10.4000/ries.8142
Lebrun, M., Lison, C., & Batier, C. (2016). Les effets de l’accompagnement technopédagogique des enseignants sur leurs options pédagogiques, leurs pratiques et leur développement professionnel. Revue internationale de pédagogie de l’enseignement supérieur, 32(1), Art. 1. https://doi.org/10.4000/ripes.1028
Ménard, L., Hoffmann, C., Boucher, S., & Riopel, M. (2020). Effets de la formation et de l’accompagnement pédagogiques sur le niveau de centration sur l’apprentissage des nouveaux professeurs. Revue internationale de pédagogie de l’enseignement supérieur, 36(36(1)), Art. 1. https://doi.org/10.4000/ripes.2527
Ménard, L., Hoffmann, C., & Lameul, G. (2017). Effets de la formation à l’enseignement sur les pratiques des nouveaux enseignants-chercheurs. Recherche formation, n° 84(1), 125‑140.
Stes, A., Min-Leliveld, M., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2010). The impact of instructional development in higher education : The state-of-the-art of the research. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 25‑49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.07.001
Zhang, T. (2022). National Developments in Learning and Teaching in Europe. European University Association. https://eua.eu/resources/publications/1005:national-developments-in-learning-and-teaching-in-europe.html
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Students' Outlook on Diversity in Quality Assurance of Higher Education: How Far Have We Come?
Pegi Pavletić, Irina Duma, Damir Solak
European Students` Union Quality Assurance Student Experts Pool
Presenting Author: Pavletić, Pegi
The European Students’ Union (ESU) was one of the institutions participating in the formation of the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the
European Higher Education Area (ESG) in 2005, which were amended in 2015(1) and are still used to this day. The ESGs serve as a core value of the Bologna process, assuring that the accredited institutions adhere to the same norms in higher education, and provide high quality of education across the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) member states. Based on the publication Bologna with Students Eyes 2020(3), it is visible that students are not nearly recognised enough in different aspects of higher education, however, in terms of Quality Assurance (QA), constant progress is evident. Additionally, since the launch of the Bologna Declaration in 1999, internationalisation has become one of the main goals of higher education, promoting diversity and shared knowledge cross-sector, impacting QA practices as well.
In 2009, ESU formed a Quality Assurance Student Experts’ Pool (QA Pool)(2), with the main goal to train, educate and nominate students as QA experts in various international external QA processes under partnering institutions. Since then, many changes happened within the EHEA to involve, not only checking educational standards in teaching, learning assessments and accessibility of higher education, but assuring internationalisation, diversity and inclusion as well. The ESGs mention diversity as one of their four main principles for QA in EHEA, and mention it can be achieved through a “student-centred approach to learning and teaching, embracing flexible learning paths and recognising competencies gained outside formal curricula. Higher education institutions themselves also become more diverse in their missions, mode of educational provision and cooperation, including growth of internationalisation, digital learning and new forms of delivery.” According to these principles, ESU has also changed its internal policy on social dimension, and the QA Pool amended its practices to assure the selection based on diversity rather than merit only.
In line with that, our mission is to analyse how ESU has, over the course of 14 years, improved its policies on diversity within the organisation and the QA Pool, and whether this is reflected in practice. Concretely, our research questions are:
Do ESU QA Pool’s policies assure the diversity of student experts in QA compared to other European higher education organisations with similar practices?
Is the diversity of the nominated QA student experts for reviews correlated with the changes in ESU QA Pool’s diversity policies?
Do student QA experts find that the European QA systems are diverse enough?
We aim to answer these questions by quantitatively analysing our QA Pool database and testing it against the changes in the diversity criteria for the experts’ selection. Additionally, we plan on doing qualitative research on available resources within the organisation to compare the diversity policies and practices of ESU in nominating experts compared to the bodies who also nominate experts for international external evaluations, such as The European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), The European University Association (EUA) and the European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedFor the quantitative research, we are planning on collecting, grouping and analysing data available to us on the past membership periods in the ESU QA Pool, to isolate the information on the number of Pool members, the number of partnering institutions and the number of reviews per year. This information is then divided to the pre- ESG2015 period and to the post- ESG2015 period to evaluate the difference in the Pool members’ diversity affected by these two documents. The post- ESG2015 period would be analysed in several subperiods in which ESU’s Social Dimension policies changed to incorporate more diversity into its work to see if these changes impacted the work of the QA pool in terms of student recruitment, training and nominations. From the obtained data, we are interested to see whether the changes in policies were co-dependent (did they change simultaneously) and whether these policies were effective in practice: i.e. whether the application of new criteria for diversity assured higher diversity among the applicants to the calls and the nominated experts.
When performing quantitative analysis, the following is considered diversity criteria:
Regional balance;
Gender balance;
QA experience (national and international);
Country of studies;
Language skills;
International experience (i.e. policy work, student representation).
The qualitative research involves the analysis of ESU’s, ENQA’s, EUA’s and EURASHE’s work policies related to quality assurance and higher education in general. We will analyse whether the general policies of these institutions involve internationalisation and inclusion practices, and we will look at whether this is apparent and applied through their work on QA (by analysing specific recruitment and selection criteria).
Finally, we aim to investigate whether the ESU QA Pool’s members find that the European QA landscape is diverse enough, and why do they think so. The responses are analysed based on the level of their experience and their engagement in the QA Pool, and presented in a short summary with suggestions
on further improvements.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe authors expect that this research will provide the first singular evidence of how diverse QA expert student representation is within EHEA, and discuss whether the diversity of the experts is broad enough to assure shared knowledge and practices. We also hypothesise the reasons for the lack of diversity in some European regions, based on the findings in our research.
Regarding our research questions and based on our past experience in QA on the European level, we expect the following outcomes:
Although ESU’s Policy Papers strive toward higher equality, inclusion and diversity, the theoretical institutional adaptations are not passed down to the ESU QA Pool fast enough to create immediate changes in practice and reflect in the diversity of the nominated Pool members. In comparison to ENQA, EUA and EURASHE, students require more time to develop and implement desired practices.
The increase in the number of reviews is positively correlated to the increase in the partnerships established between ESU and higher education stakeholders (QA agencies, higher education institutions). There is no significant correlation between the applied diversity criteria and the diversity of the nominated experts, when compared to the non-nominated experts.
Student QA experts find that the European QA systems are diverse, but there is a difference in the training and the available opportunities for students to develop within their national contexts. This could be the limiting factor of their participation in QA in an international context, contributing toward the lack of diverse representation of students in QA within EHEA.
Additionally, students studying in countries different from their country of origin, who were previously involved in QA in the national/international context more easily and readily involve in the QA in their country of studies.
References1.Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). 2015.
2.European Students’ Union. Quality Assurance Student Experts Pool [Internet]. 2009. Available from: https://esu-online.org/pools/quality-assurance-student-experts-pool/
3.European Students’ Union. Bologna with Students Eyes 2020 [Internet]. European Students’ Union; 2020. Available from: https://esu-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BWSE2020-Publication_WEB2.pdf
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Expecting and Negotiating Internationalisation: Lived Engagement of Students from an International Joint University
Bowen Zhang
University of Manchester, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Zhang, Bowen
Introduction
This paper aims to unpack Chinese students' experiences in an international joint university located in China - Xi'an Jiaotong Liverpool University (XJTLU). International joint university is one of the types of transnational higher education (TNHE), and the latter is defined as "the mobility of an education program or higher education institution/provider between countries” (Knight, 2016, p. 36), which is considered as an important symbol of the internationalisation of HE in China. Other types of TNHE are mainly unilateral establishments (Wilkins, 2018). Therefore, joint universities have equal parent institutions and potentially more space for internationalisation to be negotiated and constructed without being prescribed. Compared to joint universities, these unilateral institutions potentially have more limited space for students to participate in constructing internationalisation. However, there is limited research on students’ motivations and engagements in an internationalised environment where they have the space for co-construction. This study examines the reciprocal relationship between an institution-constructed internationalised environment and students’ agency, enriching understanding towards the dynamics in which internationalised aspects could be perceived and utilised.
Current literature mainly focuses on the particular type of TNHE, namely, the international branch campus. The individual situations of students are mainly examined from their relatively, and rather unexpectedly, low performance in Gaokao (Chinese national entrance examination), which prevents them from getting admitted to their first choice. Low performance in Gaokao acts as both a forceful push from domestic institutions and a pull from TNHE entry standards (Liu et al., 2021; Li, 2020). TNHE also attracts these students as a stepping stone to regaining entry to elite Chinese institutions (Fang and Wang, 2014), as well as a second chance to “make up" for their failure to obtain an undergraduate degree at one of China's top universities (Xie, 2022). However, such connotations of stepping stones and compromise may contradict with the more or less elite positioning of TNHE in China, therefore, this study attempts to link the personal motivations to the possible influence of institutions’ construction of internationalisation.
In terms of the internationalised encounter, current literature has examined the provision of English-medium instruction (EMI) in TNHE since the trend of teaching non-language subjects in English has become a significant indicator of internationalisation. EMI is defined as “the use of the English language to teach academic subjects (other than English itself) in countries or jurisdictions where the first language of the majority of the population is not English” (Macaro et al., 2018, p. 37). In reality, teaching and learning in a non-native language can cause considerable, and often unnecessary, challenges to both teachers and students. Besides, with the overall tendency for research on TNHE examining EMI, there is an overlook of other internationalised aspects, e.g., the intercultural environment (Xie, 2022). Gu and Lee (2019) talk about how students strategically navigate learning resources but are still confined to language aspects. Therefore, this study brings these aspects together and explores how Chinese students actively manage expectations by engaging with various international aspects of TNHE.
This study selects XJTLU as a case to examine its students’ engagement in internationalisation. Since the study focuses on students’ engagement, XJTLU’s emphasis on the ongoing construction of internationalisation is perceived as a meaningful lens to examine the students’ receptions of and their interactions with institutional construction. XJTLU, therefore, is hypothesised to be a negotiated space which allows students to have more opportunities to co-construct internationalisation. This study aims to answer the following research questions:
-
How does internationalisation influence Chinese undergraduate students’ decision to study in a joint venture institution?
-
How do Chinese undergraduate students’ lived experiences of internationalisation in a joint venture institution (mis-)match with their initial expectations?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedI have adopted a focus group approach. Compared to one-to-one interviews, the homogeneity that is contained in each focus group allows participants to agree or disagree with one another with justification, as well as allows them to build on one another. Therefore, the focus group approach allows students to discuss their internationalised experiences and me to explore their interactions with the institution, as well as their peers, which also constitute an important part of their social fabric.
I recruited 29 current or newly graduated Chinese XJTLU undergraduates as participants. My first step is to conveniently sample, i.e., search my social network to identify potential participants. Secondly, I send the invitation to these potential participants and engage in a snowball sampling. These two steps help me identify 31 students who responded positively. My next step is to divide them into 8 groups with either a group of 3 or 4 based on their availability, which further eliminates 2 students whose availability does not fit in any of the proposed time slots. Therefore, 8 online focus groups, with a total of 29 student participants were included in the dataset. Upon the author’s university’s ethical approval, participants have been provided with an information sheet and consent form and all the focus groups have been audio-recorded, when presenting the data, participants’ confidentiality was protected by using a pseudonym. The focus groups were all conducted in Chinese and lasted around 60-90 minutes, moderated by myself. Focus groups were conducted virtually via WeChat video call, recorded, and automatically transcribed with manual grammatical edits.
The focus group questions were semi-structured, developing from the literature review and research questions. Students were first asked to reflect retrospectively, about their prior ways of getting to know XJTLU, their motivations for attending and their expectations towards an internationalised environment. When asking about students’ lived experiences, the questions are designed to be specifically filtered to the two internationalising aspects: the 100% EMI provision and its student-centredness, according to the overview statement provided by the official website of XJTLU. These two aspects are the defining characteristics of XJTLU as a TNHE institution in China, therefore, it is hypothesised that students’ experiences revolve around these two traits. By asking about students’ expectations and engagement, this study aims to unpack the potential (mis-)match between their prior feelings which are largely linked to institutional positioning and promotions, and the actual experience on the enactment of internationalisation.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsI investigated the reasons for students choosing XJTLU and discovered that internationalisation plays an important role which has shaped by the institutional promotional strategy, where the latter emphasises its uniqueness because of the exclusive instructional usage of English. Such a strategy has been legitimised as an essential step for students who want to study abroad afterwards, as well as framed as symbolically superior in a non-English-speaking country. However, besides this outcome-oriented expectation, students also anticipated an internationalised environment, for example, more international teachers and classmates, more flexibility and independence, as compared to non-TNHE universities. Students’ engagement sometimes disappoints them in terms of the 100% EMI being compromised by adding preparatory sessions in Chinese, nevertheless, most of them started to appreciate the pragmatic value of a non-application of institutional policy and positively experience the student-centred environment, where they actively involved in the co-constructing process of internationalisation and manage the implication on them, in turn, make the most out of the internationalised environment.
While an overwhelming majority of students aim to study abroad upon completion of their study in XJTLU, there has been a mis-, or partial recognition among students regarding how their aim could be achieved. Therefore, this study adds nuance to the understanding of the potential discrepancy between a structured and legitimised way of accumulating capital, and a discretionary space where individuals can make the best out of the environment. In this study, some gradually come to the realisation that they need a more practical form of capital - the institutionalised form as in credentials - to get them into the next step of postgraduate education. The 100% EMI environment, in contrast, has been too challenging and time-consuming for most participants to effectively accumulate linguistic, and institutionalised capital at the same time, which inevitably leads to EMI becoming an end in itself.
ReferencesKnight, J. (2016). Transnational Education Remodeled: Toward a Common TNE Framework and Definitions. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315315602927
Wilkins, S., & Rumbley, L. (2018). What a Branch Campus Is: A Revised Definition. International Higher Education, 2(93), 12-14. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.0.93.10416
Liu, D., DeWinter, A., Harrison, P., & Wimpenny, K. (2021). Motivation factors in student decisions to study Transnational Higher Education in China: A comparative study of two Anglo-Sino programmes. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2021.1900487
Fang, W., & Wang, S. (2014). Chinese Students’ Choice of Transnational Higher Education in a Globalized Higher Education Market: A Case Study of W University. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(5), 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315314523989
Xie, X. (2022). Transnational higher education partnerships in China: Exploring the impact of Chinese students’ intercultural communicative competence on their motivation to study abroad. Educational Research and Evaluation, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2022.2041871
Macaro, E. (2020). Exploring the role of language in English medium instruction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(3), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1620678
Gu, M. M., & Lee, J. C.-K. (2019). “They lost internationalization in pursuit of internationalization”: Students’ language practices and identity construction in a cross-disciplinary EMI program in a university in China. Higher Education, 78(3), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0342-2
Feng, Y. (2013). University of Nottingham Ningbo China and Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University: Globalization of higher education in China. Higher Education, 65(4), 471–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9558-8
|
