Masaryk University
Faculty of Arts
Pedagogy
Mgr. Gabriela Pleschová, MSc., Ph.D.
The Long-Term Effects of Educational Development
Programmes.
Collaboration, Trust, and Leadership
Habilitation thesis
2024
2
I declare that I prepared the habilitation thesis independently using the mentioned sources
and literature.
……………………
Signature of the author of the thesis
3
Dedication
To the memory of Joanna Renc Roe, a strong advocate for student-centred learning, reflective
teaching and the scholarship of teaching and learning.
4
Acknowledgements
Research for this work has been co-funded by the European
Commission through the Erasmus+ Cooperation partnerships
project BELONG: Better Education through Long-term
Investment into Inclusiveness and Student and Staff Wellbeing,
2021-1-SK01-KA220-HED-000023528:
www.fphil.uniba.sk/belong
Data collection for this work was conducted by Matthew Mokhefi-Ashton, Agnes Simon, Mátyás
Szabó, and Zuzana Vařejková. Data coding was performed by Lucia Hlavatá, Natalia Marakhovska,
Paulo Nascimento Sousa, and Agnes Simon. Lynn McAlpine contributed substantially to the research
design, along with Agnes Simon, Eszter Simon, Mátyás Szabó, Jitka Vidláková, and other collaborators
of the BELONG project.
Eszter Simon managed this study’s ethics approval process at Nottingham Trent University. John
Peter Butler Barrer and Linda M. Steyne kindly reviewed my translations of interview quotes from
Masaryk University programme graduates. Mikaela Auerbach from the University of California,
Berkeley, provided assistance with English language proofreading, the funding for which was covered
by the Faculty of Arts, Comenius University Bratislava.
The following colleagues reviewed and offered feedback on draft chapters: Nicholas Bremner, Huang
Hoon Chng, Helga Dorner, Alexis Hart, Rachel Forsyth, Miriam Glessmer, Katarina Mårtensson, Lynn
McAlpine, Anne Nevgi, Kathleen M. Quinlan, Marvi Remmik, Anna Serbati, Eszter Simon, Julie
Timmermans, and Vanessa Woods. Any remaining errors or misinterpretations are my sole
responsibility.
I extend special thanks to all the interviewed programme graduates and their colleagues for
generously sharing their insights with the research team.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 10
LIST OF TABLES 11
SECTION I. EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES AND THE CHANGE THEY ARE
HOPED TO FOSTER 12
Chapter 1. Student-centred learning and reflective teaching 12
Student-centred learning 13
The definition and emergence of SCL as a concept 13
Relevance of SCL 14
Evaluation of SCL in this research 15
Helping teachers teach in a student-centred way 17
Reflective teaching 18
The definition and emergence of reflective teaching as a concept 18
Relevance of reflective teaching and the role of context in impacting reflection 18
Ways to stimulate and assess reflective teaching 19
Evaluation of reflection in this research 20
References 21
Chapter 2. Design of research on the long-term impact of four educational development
programmes 26
Research sites and collaborators 26
Collected data 26
Sampling 27
Approaches to interviewing 28
Interview duration 29
Research ethics 29
Data coding and analysis 29
Perspectives taken by the research team 32
Limitations of this research 33
References 33
SECTION II. FOUR CASE STUDIES 35
Chapter 3. A university committed to transforming how students learn in the region:
Central European University 35
CEU’s mission 35
Institutional goals related to education and support of student-centredness 35
The educational development programme 36
Programme definitions of student-centredness and reflectiveness in teaching 37
Sampling strategy and sample characteristics 37
6
References 37
Chapter 4. A fast-growing, ambitious university: Masaryk University 39
MUNI’s mission 39
Institutional goals related to education and support of student-centredness 39
The educational development programme 39
Programme definitions of student-centredness and reflectiveness in teaching 40
Sampling strategy and sample characteristics 40
References 41
Chapter 5. An institution that trains both scholars and teachers: The Slovak Academy of
Sciences 42
SAS mission 42
Institutional goals related to education and support of student-centredness 42
The educational development programme 42
Programme definitions of student-centredness and reflectiveness in teaching 43
Sampling strategy and sample characteristics 44
References 44
Chapter 6. A university that holds the Gold for teaching: Nottingham Trent University 45
NTU’s mission 45
Institutional goals related to education and support of student-centredness 45
The educational development programme 45
Programme definitions of student-centredness and reflectiveness in teaching 46
Sampling strategy and sample characteristics 46
References 47
SECTION III. DIVERSE PATHS OF GRADUATES FROM ED PROGRAMMES 48
Chapter 7. Four paths of higher education teachers 48
The pragmatic teacher path 48
Path summary 48
Alex 49
Characteristics and teaching approach 49
Student-centredness 49
Reflective teaching 50
Use of student and colleague feedback 50
Influence from context 51
Overall characteristics 51
The enthusiastic student-centred innovator path 51
Path summary 51
Bailey 52
Characteristics and teaching approach 52
7
Student-centredness 52
Reflective teaching 53
Use of student and colleague feedback 53
Influence from context 54
Overall characteristics 54
The dedicated teacher frustrated with their institution path 55
Path summary 55
Cameron 55
Characteristics and teaching approach 55
Student-centredness 55
Reflective teaching 56
Use of student and colleague feedback 57
Influence from context 57
Overall characteristics 58
The converted teacher-centred scholar path 58
Path summary 58
Characteristic and teaching approach 59
Teacher-centredness 59
Reflective teaching 60
Use of student and colleague feedback 60
Influence from context 61
Overall characteristics 61
Evaluation of the four paths 61
References 62
Chapter 8. Student-centred and reflective teaching of ED programme graduates five and
more years on 63
What literature reveals about long-term results from ED 64
Student-centred and reflective teaching of programme graduates from this research five
and more years on 65
Understanding of student-centred learning 65
Reflective teaching practices 69
Contextual influences 71
Discussion 72
Student-centred learning 72
Reflective teaching 72
Contextual factors 72
Conclusion 73
References 74
Chapter 9. Teaching collaboration 76
8
What counts as teaching collaboration and what the literature reports on it 76
Method 79
Teaching collaboration of graduates from ED programmes 79
More than half of graduates engage in teaching collaboration 80
Graduates collaborate with different individuals and in a variety of ways 80
Sporadic collaboration with coaches/mentors from ED programmes 81
Graduates seek colleagues with similar values but learn from different styles and ideas 81
Unclear impact of teaching collaboration on reflectiveness 82
Unclear influence of teaching collaboration on major changes of thinking and practice 83
Teaching collaboration does not create collaborative relationships for students 83
Discussion 83
Conclusion 85
References 86
Chapter 10. Trusting relationships of ED programme graduates 89
Findings from the trust literature 89
Trust and teaching practice 89
Trust and reflectiveness 90
Trust and innovation of teaching 90
Methods 90
Trust as a potential determinant of programme graduates’ teaching practice 91
Trust and teaching practice 91
Trust and reflectiveness 93
Trust and innovation of teaching 93
Graduates’trustworthiness as perceived by superiors and colleagues 94
Discussion 95
Conclusion 96
References 97
Chapter 11. ED programme graduates serving as educational leaders 99
How the literature conceptualises educational leadership 99
Methods 101
ED programme graduates as educational leaders 102
Educational leadership roles of graduates from ED programmes 102
Programme graduates’reflectiveness and SCL versus their formal educational leadership 103
Recognition of programme graduates’teaching 104
Discussion 105
Conclusion and recommendations 105
References 106
SECTION IV. CONCLUSIONS 109
9
Chapter 12. The implications of this study for educational development, institutional
practice and research 109
Student-centred learning and reflective teaching 110
Contextual factors that shape ED programme graduates’ teaching 111
Teaching collaboration 112
Trustful relationships 112
Educational leadership 112
The role of coaching and mentoring 113
Value attributed to the ED programme 114
Implications from this study for institutions offering educational development 115
Implications for institutional practices 115
Implications for educational development 116
Implications for future research 117
Concluding thoughts 118
References 119
ABSTRACT 121
10
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
APA: American Psychological Association
APA/PCHTLE: Academic Professional Apprenticeship/Postgraduate Certificate in Learning and
Teaching in Higher Education
BELONG: Better Education through Long-term Investment into Inclusiveness and Student and Staff
Wellbeing
CEE: Central and Eastern Europe
CERPEK: The Center for the Development of Pedagogic Competences
CEU: Central European University
ED: educational development
ESG: European Standards and Guidelines
ESU: The European Students’ Union
EUBA: The University of Economics Bratislava
FHEA: Fellow of the Higher Education Academy
HoD: head of department
MUNI: Masaryk University
NGO: non-governmental organisation
NTU: Nottingham Trent University
PASCL: Peer Assessment of Student-Centred Learning
SAS: The Slovak Academy of Sciences
SCL: student-centred learning
TILT: The Trent Institute for Learning and Teaching
UK: United Kingdom
UNESCO: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
11
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter 2.
Table 1. Coding scheme used in this research for assessing student-centred learning
Table 2. Coding scheme used in this research for assessing reflective teaching
Chapter 8.
Table 1. Teaching of programme graduates as judged from the interviews
Table 2. Student-centred aspects mentioned by ED programme graduates as principal for their
teaching
Table 3. Student-centredness of programme graduates as judged from the syllabi
Table 4. Programme graduates’ view of their coach/mentor influencing their thinking-related
teaching
Table 5. Programme graduates’ views comparing the difficulty/easiness to teach in a student-centred
way shortly after the ED programme and now
Table 6. Teaching practice of programme graduates in terms of reflectiveness as judged from the
interviews
Chapter 9.
Table. Teaching collaboration of programme graduates and their level of reflectiveness while
teaching
Chapter 10.
Table. Programme graduates’ perceptions of trust from their head of department, studentcentredness,
reflective practice, and teaching publications
Chapter 11.
Table. Programme graduates’ student-centred learning (SCL) and reflective teaching contrasted with
their formal educational leadership roles
12
SECTION I. EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES AND THE CHANGE THEY ARE HOPED TO
FOSTER
Chapter 1. Student-centred learning and reflective teaching
Over recent decades, educational development (ED) has evolved from a practice limited to a small
number of Anglo-Saxon countries into a global endeavour. Evidence of this shift is found in diverse
contexts represented in articles published by the International Journal for Academic Development, as
well as in the growth of the International Consortium of Educational Development, which in 2024
expanded to include 27 national and regional networks. At many institutions, teachers are now
required to complete foundational programmes in higher education teaching and learning, with an
expectation of ongoing professional development to improve their own teaching practices.
Educational developers have been increasingly tasked with supporting the institutional
transformations needed to address issues like racism, discrimination based on gender identity, and
barriers to accessibility, fostering more inclusive environments and rethinking core values and
practices in teaching and learning (Behari-Leak and Ellis, 2024).
ED programmes promoting student-centred learning have now been established across many regions
worldwide, from Indonesia (Adiningrum, Budiono, and Lappalainen, 2021) to Sweden and Estonia
(Simon et al., 2019), and as far as Chile (Moya, Turra, and Chalmers, 2019). International conferences
focused on higher education teaching, learning, and ED are frequently held, and there are now peerreviewed
journals dedicated exclusively to teaching and learning at the tertiary level. Academic staff
publish studies on a range of topics, from internationalising student learning (Hlavatá and Simon,
2023) to leveraging student diversity to enhance learning (Chovančík, 2024). Notably, there is already
compelling evidence that ED initiatives, including those supporting student-centred learning, yield
desirable changes in teaching practices in the short term (Ilie et al., 2020).
Despite this increased focus on and expertise in higher education teaching and ED, teaching is still
often viewed as “a second cousin” to research in many research-intensive universities (Wu and Chng,
2023). Academics seeking to improve their teaching often lack sufficient institutional support, and
excellence in teaching is usually recognised far less than excellence in research (Behari-Leak and Ellis,
2024). Numerous barriers discourage teachers from implementing and advancing what they have
learned in ED programmes, and there are few incentives to encourage their efforts (Pleschová and
Simon, 2021). As a result, questions remain regarding the long-term sustainability of the impacts of
ED programmes.
While some studies have explored the long-term effects of ED initiatives (See Chapter 8 for a list), the
empirical evidence remains limited. Such research is especially necessary because it takes time for
programme graduates to fully integrate their learning from the programme into their teaching
practice. Teachers returning to a microculture (Roxå and Mårtensson, 2009) that does not support
the key principles introduced in ED programmes may see minimal or no impact from their training.
Efforts to improve teaching and learning are often described as “battles over institutional values,
rewards, and behaviours” (Lazerson, Wagener and Shumantis, 2000), and educational developers
may need to do more than simply run programmes and workshops. However, the most effective
types of support to meet teachers’ needs and shape their institutional environments in ways that
prioritise teaching enhancement remain uncertain. Identifying effective types of support for teachers
is crucial, as universities increasingly strive to remain competitive—a goal that often requires longterm
structural changes, typically evaluated over five years or more.
13
This work aims to investigate the long-term effects of programmes designed to enhance academic
teachers’ practices through student-centred and reflective teaching. It examines how graduates of
ED programmes conceptualise their teaching and what practices they employ five and more years
after completing their ED programme. Moreover, it looks at factors that enable graduates to teach in
alignment with the programmes’ goals for student-centred and reflective teaching, as well as those
that constrain such practices. It also considers whether student-centred learning, often characterised
as an Anglo-American pedagogical approach (Guthrie, 2021: 42), can be sustained in continental
Europe and other regions where subject-centred pedagogy predominates.
The following sections of this introductory chapter explore student-centred learning and reflective
teaching, two concepts that educational development programmes often aim to facilitate
programme participants embrace and enact in their teaching practice, as is the case for the
programmes explored in this study. The chapter then discusses the key aspects of studentcentredness
and reflective teaching that were used in this research to assess teaching-related
perceptions and practice of 19 graduates from educational development programmes.
Student-centred learning
The definition and emergence of SCL as a concept
There is a variety of terms used to denote student-centredness, including learner-centred education,
learning-centred teaching and learning-centred pedagogy/teaching approaches. This work uses the
term student-centred learning (SCL) because it is the most frequently used term in Europe, where
the four programmes are located. This chapter presents the origins of both concepts and their
definitions on the basis of the literature not only on higher education but also on primary and
secondary education, where SCL and reflective teaching are frequently discussed.
Student-centred learning is a broad approach to teaching and learning that emphasises the central
role of students in both teaching practice and curriculum design; it can even represent a particular
perspective or worldview on education (Trinidad, 2020). In classes, that implement SCL, students
learn via active learning methods, such as case-based learning, project-based learning, problembased
learning (Baeten et al., 2010), role play, simulation, academic debate (Ballantyne, Bain and
Packer, 1999), among others. The origins of SCL date back to Western philosophers and
educationalists, including Socrates and, much later, Rousseau, Piaget, Vygotsky and Rogers, based on
whose work the notion of student-centredness was first developed for primary education (Morris,
Bremner and Sakata, 2023; O’Neill and McMahon, 2005).
In the early 1990s, the higher education student body became significantly more diverse than before,
and increased competition for students led to greater concern for student needs and the
effectiveness of teaching at the tertiary level (Lea, Stephenson and Troy, 2003). Classical approaches
rooted in the transmission of information have repeatedly been questioned as optimal ways for
university students to be educated. The concept of student-centred learning was introduced to
higher education through the seminal article by U.S. scholars Barr and Tagg (1995), who argued the
following: “A paradigm shift is taking hold in American higher education. In its briefest form, the
paradigm that has governed our colleges is this: A college is an institution that exists to provide
instruction. Subtly but profoundly, we are shifting to a new paradigm: A college is an institution that
exists to produce learning. This shift changes everything. It is both needed and wanted” (Barr and
Tagg, 1995: 13).
14
SCL, as the authors conceptualised it, implies that teachers are first and foremost the designers of
student learning. Their role is to consider student needs and use the most effective methods that can
produce learning and student success. In such a classroom, students often learn via teamwork with
each other and other staff members, and teachers do not even need to participate in learning
activities (Barr and Tagg, 1995).
Relevance of SCL
The concept of student-centred learning received important endorsement and became more popular
when the American Psychological Association compiled and published a set of 14 learning-centred
principles (APA, 1997; These principles related to education in general). Ten years after Barr and
Tagg’s article, O’Neill and McMahon (2005) described SCL as a widely-used concept in the teaching
and learning literature. At the same time, they noted several fundamentally different interpretations
of SCL: some authors perceived student-centredness as student choice in education, whereas others
stressed the element of students taking a more active role in learning than the teacher, while a third
group embraced both definitions and added the notion of a power shift between the teacher and the
student. This broad and inconsistent understanding continues to be typical for SCL today (Morris,
Bremner and Sakata, 2023).
Despite these varied perspectives, the concept continued to grow in popularity, perhaps in part
because it allows higher education teaching to be characterised using terminology other than the
previously-used normative terms of good and bad teaching. Various donor agencies have established
that curricula and learning materials should be student-centred, and the United Nations have
promoted SCL, for example, through policy documents such as the Millennium Development Goals,
Sustainable Development Goals and The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) Futures of Education (Bremner, Sakata and Cameron, 2022). In Europe, SCL
has entered leading EU funding programmes, including the Erasmus+ scheme, most notably in its call
for proposals to establish European Universities that presumes that universities offer studentcentred
curricula (Klemenčič, Pupinis and Kirdulytė, 2020: 11). Student-centred education has also
started to be employed in the Global South, although with varied success (Tandamrong and Parr,
2022).
Importantly, students themselves campaigned for SCL and demanded that it become the dominant
approach in higher education. The European Students’ Union engaged in a Peer Assessment of
Student-Centred Learning (PASCL) project and other initiatives that explored and advocated for SCL.
Largely because of this student activism, SCL was recognised in 2015 as a standard for high-quality
learning in the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) for Quality Assurance in the European
Higher Education Area.1
The ESG introduced to the European higher education the following
definition of SCL: “Institutions should ensure that the programmes are delivered in a way that
encourages students to take an active role in creating the learning process, and the assessment of
students reflects this approach” (ESG, 2015: Standard 1.3).
SCL, in students’ own words, emphasises student involvement and responsibility for their own
learning, including choosing the subjects they favour. Teachers should hold responsibility for
facilitating the best ways of student learning through specifically formulated learning outcomes,
interactive learning methods, modern teaching aids and developing students’ practical and applied
knowledge (ESU, 2015: 38). The European Students’ Union presented SCL as an approach to learning
1
I am grateful to Mátyás Szabó from Central European University, who partnered on the PASCL project, for
sharing this insight with me.
15
supported by constructivist theories of education that employ innovative teaching methods, which
foster communication with teachers and other learners, engage students as active participants in
their own learning and enhance transferable skills, including problem-solving and critical and
reflective thinking. At the same time, student-centred learning is, for students, “a mindset and a
culture” within an HE institution (ESU, 2010: 5).
Contemporary authors such as Klemenčič, Pupinis and Kirdulytė view SCL as an approach to designing
learning and teaching in higher education that is founded on student agency: students are given
chances to shape their own courses and to decide on their specific learning pathways. SCL refers to
students’ ability to participate in, impact and become responsible for their learning to achieve
learning outcomes. This notion of SCL requires a change in focus from what teachers teach to what
students learn. Moreover, it goes beyond classroom practice by requiring institutions to create
conditions conducive to SCL, such as spaces for active learning, infrastructure for learning
technologies, partnerships within learning communities, policies, regulations and the system of
quality assurance (Klemenčič, Pupinis and Kirdulytė, 2020: 8-10, 33).
Student-centred learning usually leads to better learning outcomes, but it often requires
considerable fine-tuning, and sometimes, teachers cannot help students achieve better outcomes
than they do in traditional teaching-centred classrooms, even if they carefully apply one or more
aspects of SCL in the classroom (Grøndahl Glavind et al., 2023). Although some studies report that
students value SCL approaches (Ballantyne, Bain and Packer, 1999), a significant minority of students
are resistant to or disappointed with SCL (Lea, Stephenson and Troy, 2003). These are likely among
the reasons why the implementation of SCL suffers and remains an exception and not the norm in
European higher education, alongside the rise in teachers’ workload, demands that teachers
prioritise research rather than teaching and a tradition of teacher-centred education (Klemenčič,
Pupinis and Kirdulytė, 2020: 11).
Evaluation of SCL in this research
For this study, we synthesised from the literature six main aspects of student-centred learning. They
are not meant to be the only evidence for SCL, as the literature mentions more: for example, the
American Psychological Association (1997) lists fourteen, Schweisfurth (2013) seven and Bremner
(2021) refers to ten. However, the six aspects are presented here as a valid measure of the
perceptions and practices of graduates from ED programmes, as they align with various sources and
reflect how the educational development programmes evaluated in this work conceptualised SCL.
These aspects of SCL refer to three broader categories: teachers’ assumptions about teaching and
learning (#1-2), teachers’ attitudes towards students (#3) and teaching practices (#4-6), and they
read as follows.
1. Embracing a constructivist view of learning
Most understandings of SCL are grounded in constructivist education theory (APA, 1997; O’Neill and
McMahon, 2005; Bremner, 2021; Klemenčič, Pupinis and Kirdulytė, 2020: 31). Barr and Tagg (1995)
reiterated in their article that knowledge is unique to individuals’ minds and is shaped by their
experience. Specifically, learning complex concepts is assumed to be most effective when students
create meaning from information and experience and establish connections between new and
existing knowledge (APA, 1991). This clearly links to “unequivocal belief in students’ ability”
(Tangney, 2014: 271; see also the second principle of the APA). Teachers who use student-centred
approaches therefore frequently posit that knowledge cannot be passed from one person to another
but rather that each individual constructs their own, unique understanding.
16
2. Understanding the role of teacher as facilitator of student learning
Teachers who perceive learning as the process of constructing knowledge often view their role as a
facilitator of student learning. They pay much attention to the needs of students (Bremner, 2021: 14)
and adapt their teaching to students’ prior knowledge, skills, and experiences as well as their needs
and interests (Morris, Bremner and Sakata, 2023). In other words, how teachers design learning
should be informed by the learning context. For Jones (2007: 6), attention to needs refers to students
both as a group and as individual students and may include teachers guiding and directing student
learning from the position of a class member who participates in the learning process. Facilitating
student learning implies designing meaningful learning outcomes, aligning learning methods with
these outcomes and student needs and creating supportive learning environments (Klemenčič,
Pupinis and Kirdulytė, 2020: 33).
3. Recognising students as colleagues and equals
In SCL, the power of students and teachers is believed to be balanced (Klemenčič, Pupinis and
Kirdulytė, 2020: 34). The teacher repeatedly invites students to become involved in decision-making,
for example, with respect to the learning content, methods and assessment, creating more
democratic relationships and opportunities for choice and presenting knowledge as more fluid rather
than fixed (Morris, Bremner and Sakata, 2023). The teacher shows respect for students, treats them
as adults, and recognises their prior knowledge and experience, admitting that teachers sometimes
learn from their students (Lea, Stephenson and Troy, 2003).
4. Using active learning strategies
Another defining aspect of student-centred learning is the active rather than passive role of the
student in the learning process (Barr and Tagg, 1995; Lea, Stephenson and Troy, 2003). The active
role implies that the teacher organises learning in a way that makes students participate, for
example, through learning by doing (Morris, Bremner and Sakata, 2023). Teachers who use active
learning often assign students to learn in groups and encourage them to think and be creative (Lea,
Stephenson and Troy, 2003). A meta-analysis of 326 journal articles discussing SCL identified active
participation as the most mentioned aspect of the SCL definition (Bremner, 2021). Active learning
was also the most frequently cited aspect for English language teachers to include in the definition of
SCL, although teacher practitioners clearly had a broader and more balanced view of SCL than how
the literature presented it. English language teachers moreover considered practical aspects of SCL
implementation more important than ideological aspects, for example, power sharing (Bremner,
2021 and 2022).
5. Assessing students continuously
When teachers employ a student-centred approach, they usually begin by defining learning
outcomes, and they carefully monitor whether students achieved these outcomes (Ballantyne, Bain
and Packer, 1999). In SCL courses, this does not imply assigning grades at the end of the learning
process but rather using several smaller and varied assessments both during and at the end of
learning (Lea, Stephenson and Troy, 2003; Klemenčič, Pupinis and Kirdulytė, 2020: 34). This is
because learning is seen as a process, not a product, in student-centred learning (Bremner, 2021: 14).
6. Employing authentic assessment or prompting students to demonstrate higher-order skills
Finally, in student-centred courses, students acquire skills relevant for and usable in the real world
(Lea, Stephenson and Troy, 2003). Assessment methods reflect this, and students are assessed
17
through tasks that align with what students will be doing in their future professions. This includes
assignments that encourage students to develop and demonstrate analytical thinking, critical
thinking, creativity and similar skills (Bremner, 2021: 14), i.e., competences associated with higher
levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. Today’s era of artificial intelligence makes this way of assessing student
work even more necessary than ever before.
Helping teachers teach in a student-centred way
Implementing active teaching strategies, challenging the notion that knowledgeable teachers hold
more power than their much younger students, and designing assignments that allow students to
demonstrate analytical and other complex skills clearly suggest that student-centred learning
requires more effort than teacher-centred approaches (Lea, Stephenson and Troy, 2003). To
introduce one or more aspects of SCL to students, teachers need significant planning, effort and skills
(Morris, Bremner and Sakata, 2023). Moreover, teachers’ self-efficacy can decline significantly when
they face challenges in implementing SCL; overcoming this requires support and a collective effort
from teachers (Grøndahl Glavind et al., 2023). Here, educational development programmes play a
major role in equipping teachers with the necessary knowledge, developing their competences and
supporting their confidence.
The literature names other aspects of student-centredness, for example, teachers assisting students
not only learn content but also develop lifelong learning skills (Bremner, Sakata and Cameron, 2022),
caring about students as individuals (Tang and Walker-Gleaves, 2022), fostering trust-building among
students and with teachers (Tangney, 2014), encouraging students to take a deep approach to
learning (Baeten et al., 2010) or to make conceptual change (Ballantyne, Bain and Packer, 1999).
Grøndahl Glavind et al. (2023) noted that the extensive focus that the literature (and teachers) pays
to activating students goes against the goal of SCL, which is that students become agents of their
own learning and autonomous learners.
Given the differences in understanding SCL and the variety of SCL aspects, it can be problematic to
determine which aspects are most important. Do teachers need to enact all or most aspects of SCL
for their classes to be considered student-centred? According to Bremner (2022), adapting to student
needs could be considered an essence of SCL, but more research is needed to substantiate this and
be rooted in teachers’ perceptions. Elsewhere, Bremner has argued for flexibility in defining SCL
when different aspects are used for different students, purposes and situations (Bremner, 2021).
Oftentimes, teachers face important contextual restrictions, such as a centralised curriculum, which
can limit their capacity to invite students to shape their own learning (Morris, Bremner and Sakata,
2023).
The approach chosen in this research is judging teaching in relation to its context and showing what
teachers do when constrained by their environment, for example, when they are assigned to teach
students who are accustomed to a teacher-centred approach, when students struggle to find time to
prepare for the class because they are learning for assessment in other courses or when teachers are
under strong pressure to meet performance targets, especially scholarly publications. Moreover,
with respect to judgement of SCL, the team of researchers from this study strived to integrate the
abovementioned six aspects of SCL to view student-centredness in its complexity.
18
This approach has led to formulating the following definition of SCL used in this research2
to analyse
collected data: The teacher’s focus is on how their students learn rather than on their own
performance in all activities related to teaching from curriculum design (aspects #1, 2), lesson
planning (aspects #1, 2), leading learning sessions (aspects #2, 4), and student assessment (aspects
#5, 6). Students’ choice in their education is facilitated (aspect #3), students are encouraged to do
more than the teacher (aspect #4), a shift in the power relationship between the student and the
teacher can be observed (aspect #3) and the teacher pays attention to who their students are and
how they learn so that high-quality learning can occur (a holistic view).
Reflective teaching
The definition and emergence of reflective teaching as a concept
Reflective teaching refers to deliberate thinking about past teaching with a view to its improvement
(Hatton and Smith, 1995). The notion of reflective teaching was recognised in education in the late
1980s as a response to the very technical and simplistic perception of teaching that dominated that
decade: through reflective practice, preservice teachers were not only able to learn new ideas but
also to sustain professional growth after graduation (Lee, 2005). Because higher education teachers
are also expected to continuously develop their teaching, many educational development programs
aim to support reflective teaching among their participants (see, for example, McLean and Bullard,
2000; Hubbal, Collins and Pratt, 2005; Renc-Roe and Yarkova, 2013).
Specifically, in higher education, understanding of reflection has been shaped by several leading
theorists, including John Dewey, Donald A. Schön, David Boud, Ellen J. Langer and Jack Mezirow
(Rogers, 2001). Synthesising views of reflection from seven foundational works, Rogers (2001)
proposed the following definition of reflection: it is a cognitive and affective process or activity that
1) necessitates teacher’s active engagement; 2) is triggered by a situation or experience that goes
beyond the typical; 3) leads teachers to examine their responses, beliefs and premises; and 4) results
in a new understanding that is integrated into the previous one.
This definition reveals that reflection is different from thinking. Spending time thinking about what
we have done and the effects this has had does not necessarily mean we reflect unless we think
about what to do differently next time (Scales, 2008). Such a different, reflective way of thinking, if
usually triggered by an experience that is surprising, perplexing, problematic, uncomfortable,
complex or very novel and solving this situation, requires a change in thinking (Rogers, 2001). This
new thinking is then deliberate and purposeful (not everyone decides to think differently); moreover,
it is structured and links theory with practice (Scales, 2008). It implies a thoughtful consideration and
questioning of past actions, including what worked and what did not, and the reasons and the
premises that underlie the actions (Hubbal, Collins and Pratt, 2005).
Relevance of reflective teaching and the role of context in impacting reflection
Reflection can lead to a new understanding, specifically a deeper understanding of the concepts
(Simon, 2020), which is a basis for improved performance (Poldner et al., 2014). Through reflection,
individuals achieve new clarity that is rooted in their actions, and because they continue to
encounter new situations, the process repeats (Jay and Johnson, 2002). This suggests that, in
2
The full scheme for coding the interviews and syllabi—both for student-centredness and reflective teaching—
is presented in Chapter 2.
19
reflective teaching, the process itself is important, rather than the outcomes alone (Ward and
McCotter, 2004).
Context appears to fundamentally influence how higher education teachers reflect. The literature has
identified a number of constraints that discourage teachers from reflection, including a lack of time,
insufficient clarity and goals (for example, in reflective assignments or prompts) and a lack of cultural
norms for reflective teaching (Hubbal, Collins and Pratt, 2005). In secondary school education,
reported barriers also include a lack of recognition and reward for teachers’ work (Zeichner and
Liston, 1987), which appears relevant for higher education, too. Conversely, past studies have also
identified enablers of reflection, such as faculty learning communities (Hubbal, Collins and Pratt,
2005). Because of the role of context in influencing reflection, this research aimed to depict the
reflective practices of graduates from educational development programmes in the interplay with
their context to determine how context informed, stimulated or constrained their reflection.
Reflection on teaching encompasses teachers’ emotions, values, and beliefs (Bain et al., 2002), which
contribute to their professional identity. Teachers’ perceptions of their identity, career and the roles
involved—such as teaching, research, community engagement and administration—shape their
reflections on teaching and learning and influence their understanding of student identities (Ashwin
et al., 2020: 4, 7). This development of identity and understanding typically occurs through
interactions with others rather than in isolation (Roxå and Mårtensson, 2009). Consequently, this
work explores teaching collaboration, trusting relationships and educational leadership as potential
factors stimulating reflective practice in higher education.
An important connection to highlight is the link between reflection and student-centred learning.
Education that inspires student reflective thinking is student-centred (Mezirow, 1997; Grøndahl
Glavind et al., 2023; see also APA’s fifth principle). With respect to teachers’ perceptions and
practices, teachers first need to believe in the value of SCL to convert their beliefs into practice, i.e.,
to teach in a student-centred way (Bremner, Sakata and Cameron, 2022). Teachers’ reflection on
their gradual experiments with student-centred class design, including arriving at assumed reasons
for successful and unsuccessful attempts and generating ideas for alternative practices, is therefore
vital for student-centred learning practices. Specifically, in contexts where teachers report a lack of
support from leadership, collegial interest and opportunities for professional development, reflection
helps them enhance their knowledge of SCL and inspires further enhancement of their teaching
practices (Tandamrong and Parr, 2022).
Ways to stimulate and assess reflective teaching
Because reflection is not intuitive and easy, it needs to be intentionally encouraged. This can be
done, for example, through individual and group assignments that involve changing contexts and
exploring multiple perspectives on issues (Rogers, 2001), reflective journals (Pleschová, 2020) or
structured reflection papers with guided prompts and clear assessment rubrics (Ryan and Ryan,
2013). To address learners’ different needs, assignments often vary (Hubbal, Collins and Pratt, 2005).
Coaching and mentoring constitute another way to stimulate reflection. Coaches and mentors do so
through, for example, thinking aloud to model reflection about their pedagogy, assigning teachers to
solve realistic perplexing situations or sharing a reflective journal; in all cases, they ensure that they
provide a good balance of challenge and support (Rogers, 2001).
A variety of models exist to assess reflection, some of which consider reflection on action, i.e., after
teaching is over, while others consider reflection in action, i.e., during the process of teaching
(Rogers, 2001). Many of these models have been developed to assess the reflective assignments of
20
preservice teachers. For example, Sparks-Langer et al. (1990) used a seven-level framework where
the first level was characterised by a lack of descriptive language, and as the scale progressed,
teachers demonstrated that they could describe and explain their teaching events while also
considering the principles or theories underlying their practice, context, and ethical, moral and
political issues.
Lee (2005) assessed the depth of preservice teachers’ reflective thinking via a three-level scheme in
which the recall level (R1) referred to how teachers can describe and interpret their teaching, the
rationalisation level (R2) to the search for relationships between experiences, the presence of
explanations and ideas that generalise these experiences, and finally, the reflectivity level (R3)
corresponded with considering various perspectives, observing the impact of others on student
learning and approaching their teaching experiences with a willingness to improve in the future. As
another example, Davis (2006) distinguished between unproductive and productive reflection.
Whereas unproductive reflection was mainly descriptive and implied listing ideas instead of
connecting them, lacked focus and placed importance on teachers rather than learners, productive
reflection was characterised by the integration and analysis of ideas, questioning of assumptions and
the presence of various perspectives.
In the context of higher education, McAlpine et al. (1999) assessed the immediate (in-action)
reflection of professors who had been awarded for their teaching. The authors examined how these
professors attended to and evaluated verbal, temporal, general, and other cues from students, which
the teachers monitored regardless of whether the class appeared problematic. The study revealed
that teachers needed to have certain expectations of how students would react in their classes;
without these expectations, teachers could sense when something was amiss but could not identify
the specific issue. Hubbal, Collins and Pratt (2005) measured the reflection of participants in an
educational development programme by applying an inventory with five perspectives: transmission,
apprenticeship, developmental, nurturing, and social reform. Each perspective was a blend of
actions, intentions, and beliefs about students and the learning process, content, and context.
Building upon Mezirow’s model, Kreber (2004) identified nine forms of reflection for higher
education teachers: content, process, or premise reflection, each in the three domains of
instructional, pedagogical, or curricular knowledge.
Evaluation of reflection in this research
Ward and Cotter (2004) noted one important feature of frameworks that assess reflection: some of
them are designed to assess the process of reflection, whereas in outcome-based education (such as
in educational development programmes), the intention is to identify the qualities of reflection that
are connected to the enhancement of practice. In line with that, in this research, we did not assess all
possible types of reflection but specifically reflective practices that referred to the expected
programme outcomes (for a similar approach, see Poldner et al., 2014). Because a change in
teachers’ conceptual frameworks other than student-centred learning was not a programme
outcome, we did not look at whether programme graduates were able to challenge and change their
other premises related to teaching and learning.
To assess reflection as high, reflection and critical attitudes had to be demonstrated throughout the
interviews and relate to all three aspects of teaching: planning, implementing and evaluating. Our
overall approach was to evaluate teaching practices rather than to judge the graduate as a person.
Insights from the literature and the above-described approach led the research team to distinguish
four criteria for assessing reflection among the graduates of educational development programmes.
21
1. Exploring student learning
This criterion implies that teachers have considered the results of their own teaching and can provide
evidence for their claims (Davis, 2006; Hubbal, Collins and Pratt, 2005), including the reasons why
good and/or poor-quality learning occurs among their students (Wlodarsky and Walters, 2010).
Moreover, these reasons we to be summarised in a clear and comprehensive way and seemed
realistic.
2. Identifying positive and problematic aspects of teaching
Sparks-Langer et al. (1990) posit that asking “why” questions are crucial for developing reflection. In
line with their research, the second indicator was whether teachers could identify not only positive
but also negative or problematic aspects/outcomes of their own teaching and the assumed reasons
for them.
3. Seeing connections between one’s own research and teaching
Reflective teachers can consider associations between different aspects of teaching, including
learners and subject knowledge (Davis, 2006). Because the ED programme graduates in this research
were at the same time active researchers, examples that indicated that they had made connections
between their own research and teaching were watched for as another sign of reflection.
4. Having a vision of improved teaching and learning in the future
Because reflection refers to systematic re-evaluations of teaching experience to enhance future
teaching (Ashwin et al., 2020: ix), programme graduates were ultimately expected to propose
changes based on newly developed insights into their teaching and the anticipated effects on student
learning.
References
Adiningrum, Tatum S., Budiono, Tri A., Lappalainen, Harri (2021) “Students CAN be the center of their
own learning”: lessons learnt from a transnational collaborative academic development project.
International Journal for Academic Development 28(1): 45-58: 10.1080/1360144X.2021.1963256
Ashwin, Paul, Boud, David, Calkins, Susanna, Coate, Kelly, Hallet, Fiona, Light, Gregory, Mårtensson,
Katarina, McArthur, Jan, McCune, Velda, McLean, Monica, Tooher, Michelle (2020) Reflective
teaching in higher education. 2nd
edition. London: Bloomsbury
Bain, John D., Ballantyne, Ray, Mills, Colleen, and Lester, Nita C. (2002) Reflecting on practice.
Student teachers’ perspectives. Flaxton: Post Pressed
Ballantyne, Ray, Bain, John D., Packer, Jan (1999) Researching university teaching in Australia:
Themes and issues in academics’ reflections. Studies in Higher Education 24(2): 237-257:
10.1080/03075079912331379918
Barr, Robert B., Tagg, John (1995) From teaching to learning - A new paradigm for undergraduate
Education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 27(6): 13-25:
10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672
Baeten, Marlies, Kyndt, Eva, Struyven, Katrien, Dochy, Filip (2010) Using student-centred learning
environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their
effectiveness. Educational Research Review 5: 243-260: 10.1016/j.edurev.2010.06.001
22
Behari-Leak, Kasturi, Ellis, Donna E. (2024) Commemorating 30 years of ICED: embracing academic
development’s rich past, challenging present, and emerging future(s), International Journal for
Academic Development 29(1): 6-20: 10.1080/1360144X.2023.2298541
Bremner, Nicholas (2021) The multiple meanings of ‘student-centred’ or ‘learner-centred’ education,
and the case for a more flexible approach to defining it. Comparative Education 57(2): 159-186:
10.1080/03050068.2020.1805863
Bremner, Nicholas (2022) What is learner-centred education? A qualitative study exploring the
perspectives of English language teachers in Colombia. Teaching English as a Second Language
Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ) 25(4): https://tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej100/a12.pdf
Bremner, Nicholas, Sakata, Nozomi, Cameron, Leanne (2022) The outcomes of learner-centred
pedagogy: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Development 94: 102649:
10.1016/j.ijedudev.2022.102649
Chovančík, Martin (2024) “Draw on your experience”: student diversity-driven internationalisation in
a diverse International Relations course. European Political Science: 10.1057/s41304-024-00474-9
Davis, Elizabeth A. (2006) Characterizing productive reflection among preservice elementary
teachers: Seeing what matters. Teaching and Teacher Education 22: 281-301:
10.1016/j.tate.2005.11.005
European Students’ Union (2010) Student-centred learning. Toolkit for students, staff and higher
education institutions: https://esu-online.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/SCL_toolkit_ESU_EI.compressed.pdf
European Students’ Union (2015) Overview on student - centred learning in higher education in
Europe: Research study: https://esu-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Overview-on-Student-
Centred-Learning-in-Higher-Education-in-Europe.pdf
Grøndahl Glavind, Johanne, Lis Montes De Oca, Philipp Pechmann, Dorthe Brauner Sejersen, Thomas
Iskov (2023) Student-centred learning and teaching: a systematic mapping review of empirical
research. Journal of Further and Higher Education 47(9): 1247-1261:
10.1080/0309877X.2023.2241391
Guthrie, Gerard (2021) Foundations of Classroom Change in Developing Countries. Volume 2:
Synthesis: www.researchgate.net/publication/349679870
Hatton, Neville, Smith, David (1995) Reflection in teacher education: towards definition and
implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education 11(1): 33-49: 10.1016/0742-051X(94)00012-U
Hlavatá, Lucia, Simon, Agnes (26 October 2023) Internationalisation without international students?
Internationalising the curriculum and student experience during the COVID-19 pandemic in Slovakia.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International 10.1080/14703297.2023.2274474
Hubbal, Harry, Collins, John, Pratt, Daniel (2005) Enhancing reflective teaching practices: Implications
for faculty development programs. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education 35(3):
10.47678/cjhe.v35i3.183514
Ilie, Marian D., Maricuțoiu, Laurentiu, Iancu, Daniel E., Smarandache, Izabella G., Mladenovici,
Velibor, Stoia, Dalia C. M., Toth, Silvia A. (2020) Reviewing the research on instructional development
23
programs for academics. Trying to tell a different story: A meta-analysis. Educational Research
Review 30: 100331: 10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100331
Jay, Joelle K., Johnson, Kerri, L. (2002) Capturing complexity: a typology of reflective practice for
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 18: 73-85: 10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00051-8
Jones, Leo (2007) The student-centred classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Kember, David (1999) Determining the level of reflective thinking from students’ written journals
using a coding scheme based on the work of Mezirow. International Journal of Lifelong Education
18(1): 18-30: 10.1080/026013799293928
Klemenčič, Manja, Pupinis, Manta, Kirdulytė, Greta (2020) Mapping and analysis of student-centred
learning and teaching practices: usable knowledge to support more inclusive, high-quality higher
education, NESET report, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union: 10.2766/67668
Kreber, Carolin (2004) An analysis of two models of reflection and their implications for educational
development. International Journal for Academic Development 9(1): 29-49:
10.1080/1360144042000296044
Lazerson, Marvin, Wagener Ursula, Shumanis, Nichole (2000) What makes a revolution? Teaching
and learning in higher education, 1980–2000. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 32(3): 12-19:
10.1080/00091380009601731
Lea, Susan, G., Stephenson, David, Troy, Juliette (2003) Higher education students’ attitudes to
student centred learning: Beyond “educational bulimia.” Studies in Higher Education 28(3): 321-334:
10.1080/03075070309293
Learner-centred psychological principles: A framework for school reform & redesign prepared by the
Learner-centred principles work group of the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Board of
Educational Affairs, November 1997
Lee, Hea-Jin (2005) Understanding and assessing preservice teachers’ reflective thinking. Teaching
and Teacher Education 21(6): 699-715: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.007
McAlpine, Lynn, Weston, Cynthia B., Beauchamp, Jacinthe, Wiseman, Cynthia S., Beauchamp,
Catherine (1999) Building a metacognitive model of reflection. Higher Education 37: 105-131:
10.1023/A:1003548425626
McLean, Monica, Bullard, Joanna E. (2000) Becoming a university teacher: evidence from teaching
portfolios (how academics learn to teach). Teacher Development 4(1): 79-101:
10.1080/13664530000200104
Mezirow, Jack (1997) Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education 74: 5-12: 10.1002/ace.7401
Morris, Howard Thomas, Bremner Nicholas, Sakata, Nozomi (10 Dec 2023) Self-directed learning and
student-centred learning: a conceptual comparison. Pedagogy, Culture & Society:
10.1080/14681366.2023.2282439
Moya, Beatriz, Turra, Héctor, Chalmers Denise (2019) Developing and implementing a robust and
flexible framework for the evaluation and impact of educational development in higher education in
Chile. International Journal for Academic Development 24(2): 163-177:
10.1080/1360144X.2018.1555757
24
O’Neill, Geraldine, McMahon, Tim (2005) Student-centred learning: What does it mean for students
and lecturers? In O’Neill, Geraldine, Moore, Sarah, McMullin, Barry (Eds.) Emerging issues in the
practice of university learning and teaching, Dublin: AISHE, 27-36.
Park, Chris (2003) Engaging students in the learning process: the learning journal. Journal of
Geography in Higher Education 27(2): 183-199: 10.1080/0309826032000107496
Pleschová, Gabriela (2020) Using reflective journals to improve learning through refection
and conceptual change. European Political Science 19: 29-48: 10.1057/s41304-018-0184-5
Pleschová, Gabriela, Simon, Agnes (2021) Doctoral students as early career university teachers: What
hinders and what helps them to embrace the essentials of good teaching? In Lee, Anne, Bongaardt,
Bob (Eds.) The Future of doctoral research. Challenges and opportunities, pp. 182-194:
10.4324/9781003015383-20
Poldner, Eric, Van der Schaaf, Marieke, Simons, P. Robert-Jan, Van Tartwijk, Jan, Wijngaards, Guus
(2014) Assessing student teachers’ reflective writing through quantitative content analysis. European
Journal of Teacher Education 37(3): 1-26: 10.1080/02619768.2014.892479
Renc-Roe, Joanna, Yarkova, Tatiana (2013) Preparing doctoral students for a teaching career: The
case of an international university with a history of a regional engagement. In Simon, Eszter,
Pleschová, Gabriela (Eds.) Teacher development in higher education. Existing programs, program
impact and future trends. New York and Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 19-33
Rogers, Russell R. (2001) Reflection in higher education: A concept analysis. Innovative Higher
Education 26(1): 37-57: 10.1023/A:1010986404527
Roxå, Torgny, Mårtensson, Katarina (2015) Microcultures and informal learning: a heuristic guiding
analysis of conditions for informal learning in local higher education workplaces. International
Journal for Academic Development 20(2): 193-205: 10.1080/1360144X.2015.1029929
Roxå, Torgny, Mårtensson, Katarina (2009) Significant conversations and significant networks –
exploring the backstage of the teaching arena. Studies in Higher Education 34(5): 547-559:
10.1080/03075070802597200
Ryan, Mary, Ryan, Michael (2013) Theorising a model for teaching and assessing reflective learning in
higher education, Higher Education Research & Development, 32(2): 244-257:
10.1080/07294360.2012.661704
Scales, Peter (2008) The Reflective teacher. In Teaching in the lifelong learning sector. Open
University Press, Maidenhead, England: Open University Press, pp. 7-22.
Simon, Agnes (2020) Teaching and learning about foreign policy decision-making via board gaming
and reflections. European Political Science 19(1): 9-28: 10.1057/s41304-018-0185-4
Simon, Agnes, Karm, Mari, Soomere, Triinu, Roxå, Torgny, Löfgreen, Jennifer, Simon, Eszter,
Pleschová, Gabriela (2019) A comparative study of three educational development courses for
doctoral students and teaching and learning initiatives in higher education. A study prepared as part
of the collaborative project Extending and reinforcing good practice in teacher development, 2016-1SK01-KA203-022551:
https://qualityteaching.euba.sk/www_write/files/project-
outcomes/o4_study_with_supplements.pdf
25
Sparks-Langer, Georgea M., Simmons, Joanne M., Pasch, Marvin, Colton, Amy, Starko, Alane (1990)
Reflective pedagogical thinking: How can we promote it and measure it? Journal of Teacher
Education, 41(5): 23-32: 10.1177/002248719004100504
Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). (2015).
Brussels, Belgium: www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf
Tandamrongm Aunyarat, Parr, Graham (2022) Negotiating learner-centred education as a national
mandate: a case study of EFL teachers in Thai universities. Pedagogy, Culture & Society 32(2): 1-17:
10.1080/14681366.2022.2025543
Tang, Anne L. L, Walker‑Gleaves, Caroline (2022) Hong Kong university teachers’ conceptions and
articulation of teacher care: towards building a model of caring pedagogy. Higher Education 83: 503-
526: 10.1007/s10734-020-00675-3
Tangney, Sue (2014) Student-centred learning: a humanist perspective. Teaching in Higher Education,
19(3): 266-275: 10.1080/13562517.2013.860099
Trinidad, Jose Eos (2020) Understanding student-centred learning in higher education: students’ and
teachers’ perceptions, challenges, and cognitive gaps Journal of Further and Higher Education 44(8):
1013-1023: 10.1080/0309877X.2019.1636214
Ward, John R., McCotter, Suzanne (2004) Reflection as a visible outcome for preservice teachers.
Teaching and Teacher Education 20, 243-257: 10.1016/j.tate.2004.02.004
Wlodarsky, Rachel, Walters, Howard (2010) Use of the reflective judgement model as a reference
tool for assessing the reflective capacity of teacher educators in a college setting. Journal on
Educational Psychology 4(1):13-20: 10.26634/jpsy.4.1.1219
Wu, Siew Mei, Chng, Huang Hoon (2023) Our Journeys through the Scholarship of Leading: What
Matters and What Counts? In In Rao, Namrata, Hosein, Anesa and Ian Kinchin (Eds.) Narratives of
Academics’ Personal Journeys in Contested Spaces: Leadership Identity in Learning and Teaching in
Higher Education Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 179-196
Zeichner, Kenneth M., Liston, Daniel P. (1987) Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard
Educational Review 56(1), 23-48: 10.17763/haer.57.1.j18v7162275t1w3w
26
Chapter 2. Design of research on the long-term impact of four educational development
programmes
This work explores the long-term effects of programmes focused on enhancing academic teachers’
teaching through student-centred learning and reflective teaching. Beyond investigating individual
teachers’ thoughts and practices, it captures the influence of contextual factors, such as teaching
load, teaching, research and service responsibilities, student perceptions, colleagues’ attitudes
towards student-centred learning and reflective teaching, and interactions with colleagues over
teaching. Specifically, the work aims to address the following research questions:
1. Understanding of student-centred learning: How do programme graduates understand and
interpret student-centred learning five and more years after completing the educational
development programme?
2. Reflective teaching practices: Do programme graduates continue to reflect on their teaching
five and more years after graduation? If so, how can their reflections be categorised and
described? Do they take action based on these reflections?
3. Contextual influences: What role do graduates’ institutions and the broader national context
play in shaping their ability to implement student-centred and reflective teaching practices?
What are the supportive and constraining factors?
Research sites and collaborators
Data for this research was collected from four educational development programmes in Europe,
specifically at:
• Central European University (previously in Budapest, Hungary, now in Vienna, Austria)
• Masaryk University (Brno, Czech Republic)
• Slovak Academy of Sciences (Bratislava, Slovakia)
• Nottingham Trent University (Nottingham, United Kingdom)
These programmes were selected due to their focus on student-centred learning and reflective
teaching, their similar learning outcomes, methods, and participant numbers. Three of the
programmes also included coaching/mentoring components, which allowed comparisons across the
cases. From 2022 to 2025, the first three institutions partnered in the international collaborative
Erasmus+ project BELONG, which aimed to enhance belonging and mental health among staff and
students. This research was one of the project’s activities, aimed at informing partner institutions
and stakeholders about the long-term effects of educational development programmes, and
identifying ways for participating institutions to better support programme graduates. Project
partner institutions delegated contributors to this research, who were responsible for the research
design, data collection, and data coding. Their names are listed in the Acknowledgements section of
this work.
Collected data
This research collected five data sets:
1. Interviews with programme graduates: Interviews were conducted with five teaching faculty
members (ED programme graduates) from each institution, resulting in a total of 19
interviews: four from Nottingham Trent University and five each from the other institutions.
27
2. Pre-interview questionnaire survey: Before the interview, each programme graduate
completed a short online questionnaire. This survey collected information about the courses
they teach and the programmes these courses are part of (undergraduate, graduate, PhD, or
other). It also asked about their teaching responsibilities, such as whether they serve as a
course leader, teaching assistant, primary grader, lecturer, or seminar leader. Additionally,
the questionnaire enquired about the approximate number of students enrolled in their
courses during the current academic year, whether they were the sole teacher for these
courses, and if they were the lead teacher responsible for course design and assessment for
the course for which they shared the syllabus with the research team. These details provided
essential context for the subsequent interviews, ensuring that the interviewers had a clear
understanding of each participant’s teaching environment and responsibilities. This allowed
the interviewers to tailor the interview questions and interpreting the responses within the
appropriate contexts.
3. Course syllabi or module handbooks: Each programme graduate provided the research team
with a current course syllabus (called module handbook in the United Kingdom), preferably
for an undergraduate course taught within the last year. Again, the interviewer familiarised
themselves with this material before starting the interview.
4. Interviews with colleagues: Interviews were also conducted with academic staff members
recommended by the graduates as being most familiar with their teaching practices. These
colleagues ideally worked in the same department or, if not, within the same faculty (school).
Each graduate was asked to name one such colleague. Most graduates complied, except for a
few cases: one graduate in Slovakia named two colleagues who were unavailable, another
graduate from the Slovak Academy of Sciences who was teaching only one course could not
identify a relevant colleague, and colleagues from two graduate from Central European
University were also unavailable during the period of data collection. In total, 15 interviews
with colleagues were completed.
5. Institutional information: A web search of the four participating institutions was conducted
to gather information about their programmes, policies on teaching and learning,
educational development, and the rewards and recognitions for teaching.
Sampling
Strategic and purposive sampling (Miles, Huberman and Saldaña, 2020: 28) was used to identify
research subjects. At all institutions, approached programme graduates included those having
successfully finished the programme five to twelve years ago. Efforts were made to ensure diversity
among the participants, including a range of disciplines, genders, and, for Central European
University, a variety of current teaching contexts. For Nottingham Trent University and Masaryk
University, all interviewed programme graduates were still teaching at the institution where they
completed their programme. For the Slovak Academy of Sciences, which does not offer bachelor’s or
master’s programmes, participants were teaching at four different institutions across Slovakia. When
interviewed, programme graduates from Central European University were teaching in Central Asia,
Denmark, Hungary, and the Middle East. Therefore, higher education contexts covered by this
research include not only, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom but also other
environments in and outside Europe.
Typically, each interviewed programme graduate teaches a variety of courses. Nine research subjects
teach both at the undergraduate and graduate level; six at the undergraduate level; three at
28
undergraduate, graduate, and PhD levels; and one only at the graduate level. All but one (G5S) are
course (module) leaders, which mostly includes responsibility for grading. Five have more than 90
students enrolled in their courses (modules) in the current academic year; four taught 21-30, 31-40,
or 51-70 students respectively; one taught 41-50 students; and one 71-90 students. Whereas six are
the only teacher on the courses they teach, the other informants co-teach with colleagues (4) or
teach some courses with other colleagues and some alone (9). All but two have responsibility for
course (module) design and assessment for the course (module) for which they shared the syllabus
with the research team.
Convenience sampling allowed the research team to interview those academics who agreed to
participate: occasionally it happened that the approached programme graduate declined
participation because of being too busy with their responsibilities or simply preferring not to talk
about their teaching. Detailed descriptions of the sampling methods for each institution are provided
in Chapters 3 through 6. The comprehensive data collection and sampling methods ensure that the
research captures a wide range of experiences and perspectives.
Approaches to interviewing
For convenience, all interviews with programme graduates and their colleagues were conducted
online using MS Teams. The semi-structured interviews were recorded, and MS Teams’ automatic
transcription feature was utilised. Interviewers subsequently reviewed and corrected the transcripts
for accuracy, ensuring the removal of any potential identifiers. Written consent for participation was
obtained from each informant prior to the interviews.
The interview protocol for programme graduates started with questions to encourage them to talk
about their teaching experience: how they got the current job and whether they enjoyed teaching at
their current institution. The interview then revolved around how they design courses, what they do
to evaluate and improve own teaching, if they recognise any breakpoints in their teaching career,
what institutional and wider factors influence their teaching, whether they feel trusted as teachers
by their superior, and if they take any leadership roles in teaching.
The protocol included questions specifically introduced to address student-centred learning and
reflection. For student-centred learning, programme graduates were invited to share principles that
they found principal for their teaching. They could name and detail as many as they wished. Prompt
questions probed into whether the graduate mainly lectures or uses active learning exercises, what
activities students complete, if they are assessed continuously or based on the final assignment, if
assessments like multiple choice test are used or any other formats of assessment, etc. Other
questions where graduates could reveal whether their practice is student-centred (or not) asked
about whether the syllabus the programme graduate shared with the research team embodies the
principles fundamental for their approach to teaching, how difficult they find to put into practice
what they planned in the syllabus, and whether they enjoy teaching at their current institution.
Another set of questions was specifically designed to address reflectiveness in teaching. Programme
graduates were encouraged to recall an example of a recent class that either went as planned or
contradicted their expectations. They were probed to explain why they think the class was successful
and for classes that did not go as planned also to elaborate on the possible reasons, what they plan
to do differently next time, and why they think so (for a similar approach, see Sparks-Langer et al.,
1990).
29
In the colleague interviews, colleagues were asked to report about programme graduates’ teaching
practice based on a teaching observation or co-teaching, student feedback and exchanges with
students, discussing teaching and learning together, institutional recognition for teaching excellence
and/or influencing others to develop as teachers.
Interview duration
Each interview with programme graduates lasted on average 55 minutes, while the interviews with
colleagues averaged 16 minutes. By using a semi-structured format and a relatively long list of
interview questions, the programme graduate interviews allowed for in-depth exploration of topics
listed above while providing the flexibility to probe further based on participants’ responses. This
approach was used to ensure a comprehensive understanding of how research subjects conceive
their teaching and what they do while planning, conducting, evaluating, enhancing, and innovating
their teaching. Neither the programme graduates nor their colleagues were made aware that this
research related to student-centred learning and reflective teaching.
Research ethics
The proposal for this research received approval from the Research Ethics Committee of Nottingham
Trent University (NTU), ID 1830640. This ensured that the study adhered to ethical standards,
including informed consent, confidentiality, and the right of participants to withdraw from the study
at any time.
For the quotes throughout the work, the interviewed programme graduates provided secondary
consent. Some quotes were lightly redacted to ensure the flow of expression and to meet the English
language standards (for a similar approach see Felten and Lambert, 2020: 9). Quotes from the
interviews with graduates and colleagues from Masaryk University that were undertaken in Czech
language were translated to English by the author, and then checked for accuracy with an academic
proficient in English and Czech/Slovak language.
This work was written solely by Gabriela Pleschová, but different academics contributed to data
collection and analysis. During the writing process, the author utilised AJE Digital Editing service,
software recommended by Palgrave, that is built for academic research and powered by artificial
intelligence and ChatGPT to provide suggestions for edits and improvements. These tools served as
aids in refining the content, but all ideas, arguments, and the final writing are author’s. The use of
artificial intelligence was limited to enhancing the clarity, coherence, and quality of the text.
Data coding and analysis
Despite the inclusion of specific questions targeting student-centredness and reflection in the
interview protocols, this study adopted a holistic approach to data analysis, inspired by some past
studies (Kember, 1999; Davis, 2006). Rather than coding individual text segments, the entire
interview transcript was considered as a whole to capture the broader context and nuances of
teaching perspectives and practice. This holistic approach aligns with the comprehensive nature of
SCL and reflective teaching.
The work’s author initially drafted a codebook for both interview protocols and course syllabi. This
draft was reviewed and revised by the research team members. The coding process was deductive,
using a-priori codes derived from existing literature. The programme graduate codebook included
statements that asked the coders to express their judgement on a four-point Likaert scale: doesn’t
enjoy teaching in current institution, enjoys very little, enjoys quite a lot, and enjoys very much.
Student-centredness was primarily assessed using the six criteria introduced in Chapter 1, namely: 1)
30
embracing constructivist view of learning, 2) understanding the role of teacher as a facilitator of
student learning, 3) recognising students as colleagues and equals, 4) using active learning strategies,
5) assessing students continuously, and 6) employing authentic assessment or prompting students to
demonstrate higher-order skills
Coders were asked to consider if the interview contained information suggesting that the research
subject’s description of their teaching practice met each criterion. Moreover, they were to note if the
programme graduate referred to any other criteria for SCL that we knew from literature (and some
graduates referred to far more than those six). Student-centredness was rated as high, mid, low, or
none based on whether the interview demonstrated these six criteria and aligned with the following
definition of student-centred learning: The teacher’s focus is on how students learn rather than on
their own performance. This encompasses all teaching-related activities, from curriculum design and
lesson planning to leading learning sessions and assessing students. SCL involves facilitating student
choice, encouraging students to take an active role, shifting the power dynamics between students
and teachers, and considering students’ identities and learning styles to promote effective learning.
The coding scheme used to assess SCL is based on previous studies by Pleschová and McAlpine
(2016) and Pleschová and Simon (2021) and presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Coding scheme used in this research for assessing student-centred learning
High-level
manifestation
Student-centredness as defined above is manifested in numerous parts of the
interview, it shows that the programme graduate embraced studentcentredness
in a complex way, and there are not any parts where the graduate
contradicts themselves using statements that demonstrate teacher-centred
approach. The graduate pays a lot of attention to whom their students are and
how they learn, so that good learning can occur.
Mid-level
manifestation
Student-centredness as defined above is manifested in some parts of the
interview, it documents that the graduate has embraced some elements of
student-centredness; there are no parts where the graduate contradicts
themselves using statements that demonstrate teacher-centred approach. The
graduate only pays some attention to whom their students are and how they
learn, so that good learning can occur.
Low-level
manifestation
Some aspects of student-centredness as defined above are manifested in a few
parts of the interview; there are parts where the graduate contradicts
themselves using statements that demonstrate teacher-centred approach. The
graduate pays little attention to whom their students are and how they learn.
No
manifestation
(teacher-
centred
teaching)
no evidence at all
As detailed in Chapter 1, reflectiveness in teaching was assessed based on four criteria developed
from the literature: 1) exploratory approach to student learning (active investigation of results from
31
own teaching and student learning and offering evidence for claims), 2) recognition of both positive
and problematic aspects of teaching (awareness and articulation of both the strengths and
weaknesses in teaching practices), 3) integration of research and teaching (demonstration of
connections between research and teaching, showing how one informs the other), 4) vision for
improved teaching and learning (ways to improve teaching and student learning).
Reflectiveness was rated as high, mid, low, or no based on the extent to which the interview content
met the four criteria summarised in Table 2. The coding scheme was already used in previous studies
by Pleschová and McAlpine (2016) and Pleschová and Simon (2021).
Table 2. Coding scheme used in this research for assessing reflective teaching
High-level
manifestation
Reflection and critical attitude as defined above is demonstrated throughout
the interview and relates to planning, implementing, and evaluating own
teaching.
Mid-level
manifestation
The programme graduate demonstrates that they have thought about the
reasons why good/poor quality learning occurs for students. The graduate
analyses negative aspects/outcomes of own teaching and their reasons in only a
limited way. The graduate can suggest some changes for future teaching but
can not explain their expected effects on student learning well. Reflection and
critical attitude is manifested throughout the interview but only relates to some
of the following: planning, implementing and evaluating own teaching.
Low-level
manifestation
The graduate demonstrates that they have thought about the reasons why
good/poor quality learning occurs for students, but they could not summarise
them in a clear and comprehensive way: they are only outlined and/or do not
seem realistic. The graduate can not identify negative aspects/outcomes of own
teaching and assumed reasons for them: the evaluation of effects of own
teaching is uncritically positive. Based on this, the graduate can not suggest
changes for future teaching and explain their expected effects on student
learning. Reflection and critical attitude is demonstrated in a few parts of the
interview, these are disconnected and related only to some stages of teaching
(planning, implementing and evaluating own teaching).
No
manifestation
no evidence at all
In addition to using one of the four codes, coders were asked to provide examples of statements
from the interviews to illustrate their coding for both student-centred learning and reflectiveness in
teaching.
Some items in the codebook required coders to summarise briefly in their own words, for instance,
how the interviewee demonstrated reflectiveness or what they presented at a teaching and learning
conference. Other items were yes/no questions, such as whether the graduate considered student
feedback helpful for improving their teaching, whether they discussed teaching-related issues with
colleagues, or if they kept a reflective journal. For these types of questions, coders also provided a
one or two-sentence summary of the response. Additionally, there were items for which coders
32
listed all relevant points, such as institutional resources the interviewee identified as helpful in their
teaching.
The codebook for colleague interviews included ten items. For some of them, coders provided a
numerical code, such as the number of years the colleague had known the programme graduate or
the frequency of their discussions about teaching. Coders typically summarised the interviewee’s
response, such as how the colleague characterised the programme graduate as a teacher, what
students said about the graduate, or what the colleague could say about programme graduate’s
teaching based on observing their class.
Coders were also asked to holistically judge each colleague interview transcript using the same
definitions of SCL and reflective teaching as for the programme graduate interviews. Possible codes
for this holistic judgment of colleague interviews included yes, the graduate’s teaching is studentcentred/reflective;
the graduate’s teaching is not student-centred/reflective, the graduate’s teaching
is student-centred/reflective to some extent, and I cannot judge. This simpler coding scheme was
employed because the colleague interviews were significantly shorter and did not permit the same
level of discrimination as the graduate interviews. Coders explained their judgment and selected a
quote that best captured the programme graduate’s teaching based on the colleague’s perspective.
The syllabus codebook listed 17 categories referring to course characteristics (course type, session
length, frequency of classes per week, course for a small/large group of students) and the same six
characteristics of SCL used for the programme graduate interview protocol. Additionally, the
presence of assessment criteria and learning outcomes, for example those formulated using verbs
from Bloom’s taxonomy, was noted.
Each interview transcript and syllabus was independently coded by two researchers, with one
researcher always being from the same institution as the participant to ensure familiarity with the
context. To ensure consistency and accuracy in coding, the coders underwent training to familiarise
themselves with the coding scheme and criteria. This included coding one interview transcript and
one syllabus followed by discussions to align interpretations and resolve ambiguities. The coding
scheme was refined based on feedback from the coders. Completed codebooks for each interview
were always compared and remaining disagreements solved through a discussion. In three cases, the
coders evaluated teaching as between high and mid-level and between mid and low-level.
Data analysis was conducted using Microsoft Excel, with a primary emphasis on addressing the
research questions. Content analysis (Denscombe, 2010: 281-202): was used for identifying and
examining contextual factors that influenced graduates positively and negatively in terms of their
ability to think about and conduct teaching in a student-centred and reflective way. The three data
sets were triangulated to see where findings from each set supported or contrasted with those from
the other data sets.
Perspectives taken by the research team
The research team comprised educational developers with experience in designing, implementing,
and evaluating educational development programmes for higher education teachers. Some team
members have repeatedly led workshops on student-centredness and reflective teaching. Other
team members were higher education teachers with extensive teaching experience, and some had
expertise in both higher education teaching and educational development. One coder was a PhD
student with limited teaching experience, whose recent undergraduate experience provided a
perspective presumably close to that of current students. As proponents of SCL and reflective
33
teaching approaches, these perspectives informed the research team’ approach to conducting the
research.
Limitations of this research
The research team’s commitment to student-centred learning and reflective teaching introduces a
potential bias. Moreover, those involved in delivering the ED programmes have a vested interest in
demonstrating that the programmes achieve their intended outcomes. To mitigate this bias, several
measures were implemented. First, none of the researchers interviewed graduates from the
programmes they were involved in. Second, blind double-coding was employed to ensure that one
researcher’s bias did not unduly influence the final coding. Third, each chapter underwent peer
review by one or more academics not involved in the research or associated with any of the
discussed programmes.
The research would have been more robust if more than one syllabus per program graduate was
reviewed and if data had also been collected from students through class observations or student
feedback. This limitation was somewhat addressed by capturing colleagues’ views, many of whom
were reportedly in frequent contact with students and familiar with their feedback, often gathered
through institutional forms.
Despite these efforts, the work does not capture the views of a representative sample of programme
graduates nor provides a comprehensive picture of any single ED programme and its impact. The aim
of this research is not to present a comprehensive account of the long-term impacts of the selected
programmes but to identify and describe possible trajectories of graduates from ED programmes,
evaluate some key programme outcomes, and identify the enabling and constraining factors that
affect this impact. In doing so, the research illustrates how higher education teachers might benefit
from the ED programmes in the longer term and how institutions can support them in adopting
student-centred and reflective teaching practices.
The limited scope of data collection, focusing on specific contexts, means the findings should be
interpreted with caution when applying them to different environments. The results from this study
are primarily applicable to similar contexts, such as programmes implemented at higher education
institutions in the United Kingdom and Central and Eastern Europe with some relevance for
institutions in Western Europe and those operated by Western providers in the Middle East and
Central Asia. Further research is needed to evidence if the insights provided by this study offer
guidance for understanding the long-term benefits and challenges by ED programmes graduates
from elsewhere.
References
Davis, Elizabeth A. (2006) Characterizing productive reflection among preservice elementary
teachers: Seeing what matters. Teaching and Teacher Education 22: 281-301:
10.1016/j.tate.2005.11.005
Denscombe, Martyn (2010) The good research guide. For small-scale social research projects. 4th
edition. McGraw Hill and Open University Press
Felten, Peter, Lambert, Leo (2020) Relationship-rich education: How human connections drive
success in college. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press
34
Kember, David (1999) Determining the level of reflective thinking from students’ written journals
using a coding scheme based on the work of Mezirow. International Journal of Lifelong Education,
18(1): 18-30: 10.1080/026013799293928
Miles, Matthew B., Huberman, A. Michael, Saldaña, Johny (2020) Qualitative data analysis. A
methods sourcebook. 4th
edition. Sage
Pleschová, Gabriela, McAlpine, Lynn (2016) Helping teachers to focus on learning and reflect on their
teaching: What role does teaching context play? Studies in Educational Evaluation 48: 1–9:
10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.10.002
Pleschová, Gabriela, Simon, Agnes (2021) Doctoral students as early career university teachers: what
hinders and what helps them to embrace the essentials of good teaching? In Lee, Anne, Bongaardt,
Rob (Eds.) The future of doctoral research: challenges and opportunities. New York: Routledge, pp.
182-194: 10.4324/9781003015383-20
Sparks-Langer, Georgea M., Simmons, Joanne M., Pasch, Marvin, Colton, Amy, Starko, Alane (1990)
Reflective pedagogical thinking: How can we promote it and measure it? Journal of Teacher
Education 41(5), 23-32: 10.1177/002248719004100
35
SECTION II. FOUR CASE STUDIES
Chapter 3. A university committed to transforming how students learn in the region: Central
European University
This chapter introduces the first case: Central European University (CEU), which is a front-runner in
Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) in offering educational development opportunities. For more than
three decades, CEU has helped not only its own faculty members develop but also those teaching at
many other institutions in the region, as well as in Central Asia and the Middle East (Renc-Roe, 2008;
Renc-Roe and Yarkova, 2013). Established in 1991, Central European University set out to contribute
to the transformation of CEE societies by providing students with an education stimulating both their
intellectual growth and democratic values. In 2024, CEU had nearly 1,500 students and 500 faculty
members and offered three bachelors, 42 master’s programmes and 16 doctoral degree
programmes. Many of these programmes scored highly in rankings such as the 2024 QS Global
Subject Ranking, in which CEU ranked 32nd
in Politics and International Relations and 37th
in
Philosophy (CEU Demonstrates Excellence in…, 2024). CEU ranked in the top 25 of the 2024 QS World
University Ranking.
CEU’s mission
Central European University stands out among similar higher education institutions in Central and
Eastern Europe for at least four distinctive reasons. First, its mission and work are strongly value
driven, which stems from having been established shortly after the change in the political regime in
the region with the goal of training intellectual elites in transitioning societies. In recent years, CEU
leadership, academics and students have challenged the regime of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor
Orbán, including publishing studies documenting that Hungary can no longer be categorised as a
democracy (Bozóki and Hegedüs, 2018; Krekó and Enyedi, 2018). A government campaign against
CEU ultimately resulted in the university moving nearly all its operations from Budapest to Vienna in
2019 (Walker, 2019).
Second, as detailed in CEU mission, during its more than thirty years of existence, CEU has become a
truly international university, with students coming from over hundred countries and staff members
representing more than fifty countries. This makes CEU perhaps the most diverse university in the
region. Third, after beginning with a small number of master’s programmes in humanities and social
science disciplines, CEU degree programmes have grown in number and scope to encompass a broad
variety of fields. Although university’s academic offerings continue to be anchored in the humanities
and social sciences, learners can now also enrol in programmes such as environmental science,
cognitive science and network science. Finally, as a university accredited both in the United States
and in the European Union, CEU works to merge American and European intellectual traditions (CEU
Mission, 2024). CEU’s varied initiatives focused on learners and citizens from the non-Western world,
for example, through CEU Summer University, which was introduced in 1996; the Open Society
University Network, which Central European University co-established in 2020 with Bard College; and
CIVICA, a consortium of ten leading European higher education institutions.
Institutional goals related to education and support of student-centredness
CEU is committed to promoting the values of an open society (Popper, 1994) and self-reflective
critical thinking (CEU Mission, 2024). These two goals could hardly be achieved without CEU teachers
valuing and practising a student-centred approach to teaching. CEU’s 7:1 student‒faculty ratio allows
for small group learning in a seminar format, where students and teachers get to know each other, in
contrast with frontal lecturing in lecture theatres, which makes an individualised approach difficult.
36
CEU’s teaching development unit, the Yehuda Elkana Center for Teaching, Learning and Higher
Education, supports academic teachers by offering development courses, workshops, consultations,
mentoring, observations and resources (Yehuda Elkana Center, 2024). Over the years, the unit has
undergone several transformations; however, since its very beginning, it has been a strong advocate
and supporter of student-centred learning.
The educational development programme
The Teaching in Higher Education 1 and 2 programme, from which graduates have been recruited for
this research, is a voluntary two-semester-long programme offered mainly to PhD students from
Central European University. Some of them were already serving as teaching assistants while
attending the programme, whereas others undertook it to develop skills they would use later in their
academic career. Because, initially, CEU offered degree programmes only in the social sciences and
humanities, the participants in this programme came from these fields. Between 15 and 30
individuals complete the programme each year.
The programme’s aims are were follows: a) to facilitate PhD students to prepare and revise their
courses and teaching practices by providing them with an intellectual and practical grounding in the
skills associated with major genres of academic teaching; b) to reflect on the link between the
academic content of a discipline and teaching practices; and c) to develop participants’ critical selfawareness
regarding the complex requirements of high-quality university teaching through inquiry
into the intellectual work of teaching in higher education and its links to other aspects of academic
practice.
The programme learning outcomes were formulated independently for the first and second
semesters. Semester 1 learning outcomes included the abilities of the participants to 1) formulate
their own vision of teaching and student learning; 2) select and justify educational design choices for
modules, workshops, training sessions or lectures; 3) clearly express and communicate intended
learning outcomes to students; 4) integrate appropriate information, computer technology and/or
digital tools into multimodal educational design; and 5) reflect on and improve their teaching based
on student evaluations, teaching experience and recent educational insights.
Semester 2 outcomes listed competences such as 1) applying the educational principles of active,
student-centred learning; 2) recognising and managing group dynamics in a professional, supportive
and inclusive way; 3) using constructive alignment; 4) incorporating institutional assessment policy
when planning and assessing student work; 5) creating appropriate assessment and feedback
opportunities to support student learning; 6) using relevant assessment methods that meet the
criteria of validity, reliability and transparency; and 7) considering methods of improving teaching on
the basis of student feedback and evaluations, teaching experience and recent educational insights.
The programme’s major assignments included a teaching philosophy statement, a plan for teaching a
session, a teaching observation (could be a mock session), a design of an assessed task and rubric and
a full course syllabus. The session plan and syllabus were both subject to peer feedback. The
individuals supporting the participants while they worked on the assignments were academic
developers with backgrounds in sociology and education. Their main roles were facilitating biweekly
workshops on various topics related to teaching, learning, assessment and professional development
in higher education; providing individual consultations; observing participant teaching; and providing
feedback on participant assignments. With some modifications, the programme has been offered
continuously since it was introduced in 2004. It has not been internationally accredited.
37
Academic developers from CEU played a key role in the design, facilitation and evaluation of the two
other programmes described in this work. The programme team offered by the Slovak Academy of
Sciences comprised two developers working in CEU educational development unit. A graduate of one
of CEU’s educational development programmes introduced a similar programme for junior teachers
from Masaryk University.
Programme definitions of student-centredness and reflectiveness in teaching
When introduced, the programme initially did not use the term “student-centredness.” It worked
with the notions introduced by Barr and Tagg’s article (1995), which advocated for a new paradigm
for undergraduate education that sees higher education institutions as producers of learning through
the setting of learning outcomes, creating an environment supportive of student learning and
actively engaging learners.
Sampling strategy and sample characteristics
A CEU listing of all programme graduates by year was used for the selection of subjects for this
research. The individual responsible for collecting data for this research convened with the current
programme coordinator and past programme instructors and identified those graduates from various
years who successfully finished the programme five and more years ago and currently had, according
to their knowledge, a teaching assignment. This resulted in a list of seven teachers. Those willing and
available for an interview between February and June 2024 were contacted, and interviews were
performed.
The five teachers interviewed came from law, political science and philosophy and included both
male and female academics. All come from countries other than Austria and teach at institutions
other than Central European University, namely in Central Asia, Denmark, Hungary, and the Middle
East. When they started their ED programme, the participants had varied teaching experience: two
had no prior experience teaching in higher education (G4C, G5C), one had experience solely from
facilitating sessions outside academia (G2C), and one had been teaching at a university for one year
(G1C). The fifth graduate (G3C) had eight years of teaching experience before joining the ED
programme.
References
Barr, Robert B., Tagg, John (1995) From teaching to learning - A new paradigm for undergraduate
Education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 27(6): 13-25:
10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672
Bozóki, András, Hegedüs Dániel (2018) An externally constrained hybrid regime: Hungary in the
European Union. Democratization 25(7): 1173-1189. 10.1080/13510347.2018.1455664
CEU Facts and Figures (2024) www.ceu.edu/about/facts-figures
CEU Mission (2024): www.ceu.edu/about/our-mission
CEU Demonstrates Excellence in 2024 QS World University Rankings: www.ceu.edu/article/2024-04-
10/ceu-demonstrates-excellence-2024-qs-world-university-rankings
Krekó, Péter, Enyedi, Zsolt (2018) Explaining Eastern Europe: Orbán’s laboratory of illiberalism.
Journal of Democracy 29(3): 39-51: 10.1353/jod.2018.0043
Popper, Karl (1994) The Open society and its enemies: New one-volume edition. With a new
introduction by Alan Ryan. Princeton: Princeton University Press: 10.2307/j.ctt24hqxs
38
QS 2024 World University ranking: www.topuniversities.com
Renc-Roe, Joanna (2008). Changing trains: The story of SOTL in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet
Union. International Journal for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 2(2): 1-7. (Art. 3):
10.20429/ijsotl.2008.020203
Renc-Roe, Joanna, Yarkova, Tatiana (2013) Preparing doctoral students for a teaching career: The
case of an international university with a history of a regional engagement. In Simon, Eszter,
Pleschová, Gabriela (Eds.) Teacher development in higher education. Existing programs, program
impact and future trends. New York and Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 19-33
The Yehuda Elkana Center for Teaching, Learning, and Higher Education: https://elkana.ceu.edu
Walker, Shaun (2019) Classes move to Vienna as Hungary makes rare decision to oust university. The
Guardian, 16. November 2019
39
Chapter 4. A fast-growing, ambitious university: Masaryk University
Chapter four portrays an educational development programme at the second largest higher
education institution in Czechia, Masaryk University. While Central European University, described in
the previous chapter, is a relatively young university, Masaryk University (MUNI) was established
more than a hundred years ago, in 1919. It was named after Czechoslovakia’s first president and
champion of democratic thought Tomáš Garigue Masaryk, so a democratic ethos is something it
shares with CEU. The university offers about 150 degree programmes with an enrolment of
approximately 33,000 students, around a quarter of whom (5,400) are international students. The
student-to-faculty ratio has been steadily improving and currently stands at 18:1 (Masaryk University
2022 Annual Report). MUNI is ranked #=400 in the QS World University Rankings 2024.
MUNI’s mission
As expressed in its 2022 Annual Report, MUNI’s mission is to contribute, through its scholarly
activities, to education of students and societal responsibility, to the quality of life of all generations
and to a free, cohesive and secure society. The university prides itself on its broad range of student
support services, which enhance its high retention rate, its 85% rate of graduate employment in their
field, and its growing number of international students (Masaryk University 2022 Annual Report: 6,
21, 156).
Institutional goals related to education and support of student-centredness
MUNI’s vision is to become, by 2028, a university that recognises students as colleagues, supports
interdisciplinary and personalised learning and places high demands on them to ensure their career
success. The notion of student-centred learning (SCL) is not referred to either in the university’s
vision or in its annual report (Masaryk University 2022 Annual Report: 7), but the notions of
collegiality and personalised learning both align with a student-centred approach. By establishing an
educational development unit, the Center for the Development of Pedagogic Competences (CERPEK),
MUNI was reacting to a trend of valuing excellence in teaching similarly to excellence in research and
was therefore willing to support both areas equally. CERPEK’s vision is that all teachers from Masaryk
University provide quality teaching that has a high impact on student achievement and that their
teaching positively influences student well-being and their own well-being (Kročáková, Procházková
and Vařejková, 2022).
The educational development programme
The Foundations of University Teaching programme run by CERPEK was introduced in 2017 as part of
the university’s flagship publicly financed project MUNI 4.0 (Kročáková, Procházková and Vařejková,
2022), which aimed to increase the quality of education in connection with labour market trends,
advanced technologies, student diversity and societal needs. A conceptual background of the
programme has been presented by Šeďová et al. (2016) and Čejková (2017). The programme is open
to all MUNI teachers, regardless of their field of study, tenure, teaching load or teaching experience.
Doctoral students are also eligible. This diversity of participants is believed to contribute to creating a
learning community (Kročáková, Procházková and Vařejková, 2022). Programme graduates are
expected to 1) use a variety of teaching and assessment methods, 2) focus their teaching on
students, 3) build and maintain good, respect-based relationships with students, 4) create conditions
for learning in an inclusive environment, 5) support students in developing their potential and
competences, 6) design courses in light of the principles of education for the 21st
century, 7) reflect
on their teaching through evidence and 8) engage in continued professional development (Diviš et
al., 2022: 12-13).
40
The programme, when it was founded, was composed of four elements: fundamentals of higher
education teaching, video feedback, a pedagogical methods workshop and mentoring. As part of the
first element, the participants attended a series of workshops that introduced them to topics such as
quality teaching, course design, assessment, evaluation and use of information and communication
technologies. In this stage, the participants also set their own developmental goals related to
teaching. During the second part, each teacher video recorded a class session that they taught,
watched this recording and reflected on the teaching and student learning that had taken place. This
reflection exercise was facilitated by a mentor.3
In the third stage, the participants again attended
workshops on topics such as engaging students, lecturing, visualising complex data, presenting
difficult concepts, managing diversity in the classroom and using technology while teaching. In the
last stage of the programme, each participant worked in collaboration with a mentor, like in team
teaching. Moreover, mentors and mentees attended workshops to help them make the most of their
collaboration, for example, by understanding nondirective and constructive feedback (Vanderziel et
al., 2018).
The Foundation of University Teaching was originally designed as a year-long programme and was
later cut to one semester. Enrolment in the programme is voluntary. Major programme assignment is
a reflection on a recording of a class that the participant was teaching. The programme mentors
usually have a degree in psychology or adult learning, and some are certified coaches/mentors or
specialise in supporting students with special needs. Annually, approximately 25 university teachers
from a variety of disciplines complete the programme. The programme has not been formally
accredited.
Programme definitions of student-centredness and reflectiveness in teaching
Student-centred learning is one of four approaches the programme employs to help teachers grow,
alongside participative teaching, productive teaching communication, constructivist learning
principles, and using a range of teaching and assessment methods The programme defines SCL as an
approach where teachers create learning environments that enable students to engage actively in
their learning. Teachers work with students’ preconceptions, experiences, beliefs, and current
knowledge. Learning is not simply the accumulation of new knowledge but involves comparing and
actively processing information to bring about conceptual change. This approach requires the use of
teaching and learning strategies that activate the learning process. Teachers focus on students’
understanding of what is to be learned, situating it within a broader context. In line with this
approach, the teacher’s role is to prepare the learning environment and act as a guide (Diviš et al.,
2022: 12-13).
The programme understands reflectiveness as an effort to structure and analyse teaching experience
in relation to planned goals and achieved outcomes, draw conclusions from them and create
alternative approaches for similar future occasions. Through reflection, teachers can adjust to
emerging situations and develop new strategies (Kročáková, Procházková and Vařejková, 2022).
Sampling strategy and sample characteristics
The subjects for this research were selected from among the 48 graduates of MUNI’s educational
development programme who had completed the programme in 2018, i.e., six years prior. From the
list of graduates provided by the programme coordinator, a colleague responsible for data collection
3
Although the programme uses the term mentor, the terms coach and coaching better align with the roles that
mentors perform. For more, see Pleschová and McAlpine (2015).
41
at MUNI identified five teachers who met the following criteria: had a teaching assignment at MUNI;
taught students of the undergraduate programme; and included both male (1) and female (4)
graduates. Interviews with programme graduates were conducted between January and March 2024.
The interviewees work in education, law, linguistics, social work, and sociology, representing four of
the ten faculties at Masaryk University. None held the rank of associate professor or professor. Three
of the interviewees had relatively extensive teaching experience prior to enrolling in the ED
programme: seven years (G4M), eight years (G3M) and eleven years (G5M), although this primarily
involved teaching one or a few courses per academic year. The other programme graduates had
approximately two to three years of teaching experience.
References
Čejková, Ingrid (2017) Vysokoškolský učitel bez učitelského vzdělání: Problém, nebo výzva? (A higher
education teacher without a teaching qualification. A Problem or Challenge?) Pedagogická orientace
27(1): 160-180: 10.5817/PedOr2017-1-160
Diviš, Michal, Janča, Boris, Kročáková, Zuzana, Procházková, Ingrid, Vařejková, Zuzana (2022) Manuál
pro Dílnu rozvoje pedagogických kompetencí (Guidebook for Workshop for development of
pedagogical competences) 2nd edition
Kročáková, Zuzana, Procházková, Ingrid, Vařejková, Zuzana (2022) Vyučující na filmovém plátně:
Videorelexe výuky jako nástroj rozvoje vysokoškolských vyučujících. (Teachers on a screen. A video
reflection of teaching as a tool of educational development. Pedagogická orientace 32(3): 249-264:
10.5817/PedOr2022-3-249
Masaryk University 2022 Annual Report: www.muni.cz/en/about-us/official-notice-board/annual-
reports#mu
Švaříček, Roman, Vanderziel, Jeffrey, Sucháček, Petr, Šeďová, Klára, Zounek, Jiří, Novotný, Petr,
Čejková, Ingrid, Šmardová, Anna, Sedláčková, Jana (2018) Beginning university teachers and their
approaches to teaching and professional self-perception. Conference presentation. University of
Economics, 28 October 2018, Bratislava.
Vanderziel, Jeffrey A., Švaříček, Roman, Čejková, Ingrid, Sucháček, Petr (2018) Teaching university
teachers to teach better: Program, prospects and challenges: Towards better university teaching.
Prague, November 2018: https://cerpek.muni.cz/media/3112702/teaching-university-teachers-to-
teach-better.pdf
Šeďová, Klára, Švaříček, Roman, Sedláčková, Jana, Čejková, Ingrid, Šmardová, Anna, Novotný, Peter,
Zounek, Jiří (2016) Pojetí výuky a profesní identita začínajících vysokoškolských učitelů. (Conception
of teaching and professional identity of early-career higher education teachers.) Studia paedagogica
21(1): 9-34: 10.5817/SP2016-1-2
Pleschová, Gabriela, McAlpine, Lynn (2015) Enhancing university teaching and learning through
mentoring, International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education 4(2): 107-125:
10.1108/IJMCE-06-2014-0020
42
Chapter 5. An institution that trains both scholars and teachers: The Slovak Academy of Sciences
Chapter five details another programme offered in Central and Eastern Europe. The programme is
distinct in its type of provider, which is predominantly a research institution. Because universities in
Slovakia typically do not offer educational development opportunities to their doctoral students (nor
to regular teaching staff members), a group of academics led by the author of this work secured
funding for the Slovak Academy of Sciences (SAS) to run a programme for early career academics
with teaching responsibilities.
The Slovak Academy of Sciences is the principal public institution in Slovakia devoted primarily to
scholarly research. As of 2024, it comprises 45 institutes that foster research in a wide range of
disciplines, from physical, earth, space and engineering sciences to life sciences, medical chemistry
and environmental sciences, social sciences, humanities, arts and culture. The origins of the SAS date
back to 1942. The institution underwent major development in the period after 1953 and significant
transformation after the change of political regimes in Central and Eastern Europe (SAS: History).
SAS mission
The mission of the SAS includes carrying out top-level basic research, creating the scientific
infrastructure for technically demanding research and conducting long-term strategic and applied
research and development in partnership with external stakeholders (SAS: Mission).
Institutional goals related to education and support of student-centredness
In addition to being a workplace for researchers, the SAS provides training to doctoral students. This
is done in cooperation with eleven higher education institutions in Slovakia that typically serve as
degree-awarding institutions and where PhD students complete some coursework (SAS: PhD
studies). The SAS is responsible for supervising doctoral students during their research and
dissertation writing, integrating them into teams implementing various research projects and, most
recently, fostering their career development, for example, through training in transferable and other
skills (SAS: Doctoral School).
The educational development programme
The design and implementation of the Innovating Teaching and Student Learning programme was
supported by grants from the European Science Foundation and the European Social Fund.
Educational developers working at universities where educational development was already an
established area of practice teamed up, considered various models of educational development that
were in place elsewhere (for an overview of the models considered, see Simon and Pleschová, 2013)
and created the programme structure and requirements by adapting existing practice to local needs.
Two of these five developers were working for Central European University, another institution
whose programme is evaluated in this research. The author of this work served as the programme
coordinator.
The purpose of the programme was to help beginner teachers enhance their teaching practices. This
was to be achieved by the participant teachers to understand and implement the principles of
student-centred education in their teaching; by improving their capacity to critically reflect on
teaching and learning; and by applying educational theory when designing, implementing and
evaluating their own courses. By the end of the programme, the participants were expected to
demonstrate 1) a student-centred approach to teaching; reflective skills related to planning,
conducting and evaluating their teaching and student learning; knowledge of a set of concepts,
theories and principles related to various aspects of teaching and learning in higher education; and 4)
43
ability to design, present and write a study of the results of a teaching/learning innovation
(Innovating Teaching and Student Learning. Programme Description 2012-2013).
The programme began with a 9-day summer school that introduced participants to the issues of
course design and lesson planning, constructive alignment, facilitating small and large student
groups, assessment, tutoring and supervision, supporting student pre-class preparation, dealing with
teaching problems, reflection and scholarly approaches to teaching and other themes. In the latter
part of the summer school, each participant designed and presented a plan for innovating student
learning on the basis of what they had learned (Summer School Schedule 3–11 July 2011).
In the post-summer school phase, summer school graduates with teaching obligations in the
following academic year prepared a design for a teaching innovation, a syllabus, a study into the
results of innovation and a statement of teaching philosophy. During this stage, each participant was
paired with a coach who had been one of the facilitators of the summer school. The coach’s role was
to guide the teacher, provide consultations and feedback and support the participant in achieving the
programme outcomes. The communication between the coach and the participant was mostly
conducted through electronic means because the coaches worked at institutions outside Slovakia.
The programme was offered in English, which was also the language of communication between
coaches and participants (Innovating Teaching and Student Learning. Programme Description 2012-
2013).
The programme was implemented in 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 for two cohorts of participants —
doctoral students and junior teachers—from different higher education institutions across the
country. The summer school part of the programme was attended by 82 individuals, and 27
successfully completed the one-year follow-up coaching phase. The programme was not accredited,
but later, adaptation of the programme resulted in the design of a similar programme for the
University of Economics Bratislava (EUBA), Slovakia, which was accredited locally (by the EUBA) and
internationally (by the United Kingdom Staff and Educational Development Association). The
programme design and short-term effects of Innovating Teaching and Student Learning on the first
cohort of participants have been presented in studies by Pleschová (2012) and Pleschová and
McAlpine (2016).
Programme definitions of student-centredness and reflectiveness in teaching
When offered for the first time, the programme did not explicitly define student-centredness nor
reflection in its programme document. After the pilot year, the revised programme document
defined student- and reflection based on assessing how the graduates of the first cohort (supported
by the coaches/mentors) articulated the concepts in their programme assignments (Pleschová,
2012). Student-centred learning was expressed in the following way: the teacher’s focus is on how
their students learn, rather than on their own performance in all activities related to teaching, from
curriculum design and lesson planning across leading learning sessions to student assessment.
Student choice in their education is facilitated; the student is encouraged to do more than the
teacher does, and/or a shift in the power relationship between the student and the teacher can be
observed. The teacher pays attention to who their students are and how they learn so that highquality
learning can occur.
Reflective teaching, on the other hand, was understood in the ED programme offered by the Slovak
Academy of Sciences as the ability to critically reflect on the context of a teaching situation, on the
positive and problematic aspects and outcomes of the innovation, including identifying their possible
44
reasons and suggesting what could be done when teaching similar courses in the future (Innovating
Teaching and Student Learning. Programme Description 2012-2013).
Sampling strategy and sample characteristics
Nearly twelve and eleven years after the first and second cohorts finished the programme, a sample
of graduates provided data on their development as teachers. Among the 27 programme graduates,
11 were identified by an internet search to be working in academia with a current teaching
assignment. The 11 graduates were invited by email to be interviewed, and interviews were
performed with the five program graduates who responded and made themselves available for an
interview. Interviews with programme graduates were conducted between January and March 2024.
Three male and two female teachers interviewed held senior teaching positions. They worked in
diverse disciplines—biology, education, engineering, linguistics and medicine—at four different
universities across Slovakia. Before enrolling in the ED programme, they had varying levels of
teaching experience in higher education: G2S had taught for eleven years, G3S for four years, G1S for
three years, and G4S and G5S for one to two years.
References
Innovating Teaching and Student Learning. Programme Description 2012-2013. Unpublished
document
Simon, Eszter, Pleschová, Gabriela, Eds. (2013) Teacher development in higher education. Existing
Programs, program impact and future trends. New York and Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge
Pleschová, Gabriela (2012) Coaching in teacher development. Case study of a teacher development
program in Slovakia. Dissertation submitted in part-fulfilment of the requirements for the Master of
Science in Education (Higher Education) degree. Oxford University
Pleschová, Gabriela, McAlpine, Lynn (2016) Helping teachers to focus on learning and reflect on their
teaching: What role does teaching context play? Studies in Educational Evaluation 48: 1-9:
10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.10.002
SAS: History: www.sav.sk/?lang=en&doc=sas-history
SAS: Mission: www.sav.sk/?lang=en&doc=sas-mission
SAS: PhD studies: www.sav.sk/?lang=sk&doc=educ-phdstudy
SAS: Doctoral school: www.sav.sk/?lang=en&doc=educ-school
Summer School Schedule 3 - 11 July 2011. Document circulated with programme participants
45
Chapter 6. A university that holds the Gold for teaching: Nottingham Trent University
This chapter presents the fourth and final institution included in this research: Nottingham Trent
University (NTU). NTU is one of the largest and most popular universities in the United Kingdom.
Although its roots date back to 1843, NTU is a New University, a term that refers to British higher
education institutions that became universities in 1992 or later by transforming from a Polytechnic or
a College of Further Education. Currently, over 33,000 students are enrolled at the university—a
comparable number to Masaryk University, described in an earlier chapter. More than 14% of the
student bodies (4,700) are international students (Unichoices, 2024). According to the 2024 QS
World University ranking, Nottingham Trent University, which offers 214 undergraduate and 181
graduate programmes, ranks 595th
.
NTU’s mission
Nottingham Trent University’s strategy seeks to pursue personalisation of the student experience so
that students develop knowledge, skills and resilience to create meaning in their lives. This is
achieved by innovating teaching methods, offering both face-to-face and online provisions of courses
to allow students to choose routes that fit their needs, encouraging lifelong learning habits and
providing strong professional support services. Moreover, the university expresses a commitment to
social mobility. Other elements of NTU strategy include valuing ideas, contributing to society,
promoting sustainability, internationalising education and empowering people (University,
Reimagined, 2024).
Institutional goals related to education and support of student-centredness
NTU places considerable stress on providing high-quality learning experiences to its students. The
university has been the recipient of various awards recognising its teaching, such as first place in the
Whatuni Student Choice 2023 Awards, five ‘University of the Year’ titles in six years and a gold rating
in the 2023 Teaching Excellence Framework (NTU: Our achievements and successes, 2024). NTU also
supports—including financially—the establishment and work of specialised groups within the
university that can connect individuals interested in the advancement of teaching and learning.
Currently, NTU has one such active group: Decolonising and internationalising the curriculum—a TILT
Practice and Scholarship group. The group, launched in 2019, offers opportunities for colleagues to
share ideas and approaches related to decolonisation and internationalisation. It has been endorsed
by the Trent Institute for Learning and Teaching (TILT) and has 70 members from different schools in
NTU (Decolonising and internationalising the curriculum…, n.d.).
The educational development programme
NTU’s Academic Professional Apprenticeship and Postgraduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching
in Higher Education (APA/PCHTLE) has been in place since 2008. It helps teachers share in and
contribute to the university’s learning and teaching community of practice and to develop leadership
approaches in education to disseminate innovative and sound practices within their schools, the
wider institution and the external environment. The programme seeks to combine learning from best
practices within the university, across the higher education sector and from the literature
(APA/PCHTLE Course handbook for participants, September 2023). It has been accredited by Advance
Higher Education, one of two United Kingdom (UK) institutions that accredit educational
development programs offered in the UK as well as other countries. Programme graduates are
recognised as Fellows of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA).
46
The programme aims to enable academics new to teaching to support learners by becoming
informed, confident and critically reflective practitioners in higher education. Successful programme
graduates are expected to 1) demonstrate a critical understanding of how current scholarship and
theories (both pedagogic and subject-based) influence the way they are developing student learning;
2) demonstrate how systematic reflection upon developing knowledge of teaching and learning has
influenced their practice, with specific reference to curriculum design, actual teaching and
educational research; 3) critically employ an appropriate range of resources and technologies,
including relevant professional frameworks, policies, processes, ethics and strategies; 4)
communicate effectively and appropriately with diverse audiences (students, colleagues and
stakeholders) using suitable media for the purposes of learning and dissemination of knowledge; and
5) demonstrate a commitment to ongoing personal professional development in relation to
delivering informed and innovative learning, teaching, assessment and educational research
(APA/PCHTLE Course handbook for participants, September 2023).
Approximately 30 junior academics and/or senior staff members across the fields of social sciences,
arts and humanities, science, medicine and technology, and fashion and design enrol in the
programme every year. In the programme, each participant works closely with two mentors: 1) a
workplace mentor—normally an experienced member of the school team with relevant training to
support staff—and 2) an academic mentor—a member of the course team with a background of
higher education teaching and learning. Workplace mentors conduct teaching observations and
provide feedback, whereas academic mentors focus on the academic aspects of coursework.
During the programme, the participants complete three major assignments. In Module 1,
participants compile a portfolio demonstrating their ability to critically reflect on their own practice.
The module assignment is a 4,000-word reflective report, and in Module 3, a 4,000-word research
project focused on specific aspects of academic practice. Typically, programme completion takes one
year and three months. All teachers new to NTU are required to complete this programme until a
certain time, unless they have achieved an equivalent teaching qualification, as a condition of their
continued employment at NTU.
Programme definitions of student-centredness and reflectiveness in teaching
For student-centredness, the role of teachers extends beyond instruction to encompass thorough
planning, engaging students in classroom activities and careful assessment of student progress with a
focus on personalisation, critical thinking, and active and collaborative learning. Students should be
given a greater role in their learning journey on the basis of the recognition of each student’s
individuality.
In terms of reflection, the emphasis of the programme offered by Nottingham Trent University is on
developing academic professionals who reflect routinely upon their own professional practice, whose
conception of teaching is facilitating learning and who strive to increase the quality of their teaching,
research and student learning (APA/PCHTLE Course handbook for participants, September 2023).
Sampling strategy and sample characteristics
The sampling strategy included selecting individuals who teach a variety of subjects in social science
disciplines, including both male and female, home and international colleagues. A convenience
sample has been used, selecting those who were willing and available to undergo an interview
between January and May 2024.
47
The teachers recruited for this research had graduated from the teaching development programme
approximately five to six years prior. All were drawn from the School of Social Sciences, one of NTU’s
six schools. They include three male teachers and one female lecturer, all of whom are now senior
lecturers. Prior to enrolling in the programme, the participants had a maximum of two to three years
of teaching experience, except for one interviewee (G2N) who had been teaching for up to five years.
Three programme graduates were originally from the United Kingdom, whereas the fourth was an
international academic.
References
Academic Professional Apprenticeship (APA)/Postgraduate Certificate in Learning & Teaching in
Higher Education (PGCLTHE). Course Handbook for Participants. September 2023. Unpublished
document
Decolonising and internationalising the curriculum — a TILT Practice and Scholarship group. NTU
internal document
NTU: Our achievements and successes: www.ntu.ac.uk/about-us/achievements
Nottingham Trent University Course Handbook for Participants, September 2023
Unichoices, 2024: https://unichoices.co.uk/universities/the-nottingham-trent-university
University, Reimagined (2024): www.ntu.ac.uk/about-us/strategy/university-reimagined
2024 QS World University Rankings: www.topuniversities.com/universities/nottingham-trent-
university
48
SECTION III. DIVERSE PATHS OF GRADUATES FROM ED PROGRAMMES
Chapter 7. Four paths of higher education teachers
This chapter explores how individuals who graduated five and more years ago from educational
development (ED) programmes were influenced in their teaching practice by both institutional
constraints and affordances, as well as their personal beliefs. The study draws on interviews with 19
graduates of the four ED programmes examined in this work, interviews with their colleagues, and
the graduates’ course syllabi. Two coders evaluated the principles guiding the graduate’s approach to
teaching, how the provided syllabi reflected these principles and the practical challenges they
encountered in implementing their planned syllabi. Moreover, the coders examined what the
graduates said about a specific class they considered memorable—whether due to successful student
learning outcomes or challenges—and the strategies they planned for future classes in order to
assess the graduates’ reflective approach to teaching.
Additionally, the coders considered how feedback from students and colleagues influenced the
graduate’s course planning and whether the graduate employed tools such as reflective journals,
conversations with colleagues, participation in conferences, and academic paper writing to enhance
their teaching in a systematic and evidence-based way. Finally, the coders judged the contextual
barriers and supportive factors that influenced the graduates’ teaching practices, including whether
they felt valued and recognised as a teacher, trusted by their superiors in their teaching approach,
and supported by former coaches/mentors.
The codes related to these aspects of teaching were revisited and synthesized by the author to
identify the range of distinct paths taken by graduates of these ED programmes and the factors
influencing individuals to follow each path. This analysis revealed four distinct paths, which have
been named:
1. Pragmatic Teacher Path
2. Enthusiastic Student-Centred Innovator Path
3. Dedicated Teacher Frustrated with Their Institution Path
4. Converted Teacher-Centred Scholar Path
These paths were distributed unevenly: one in six ED programme graduates followed the first path,
two-thirds followed the second path, one in ten followed the third path, and only one graduate
embodied the last path. For each path, a single cameo was selected to illustrate the lived experience
of a graduate, allowing the reader to engage with their own words and reflecting the depth of the
coding analysis. To maintain confidentiality, the cameos do not disclose graduate’s gender or
institutional affiliation. Each cameo is based solely on data from a single programme graduate rather
than a composite of multiple graduates’ experiences. The following sections explore each path in
detail, providing insights into the challenges and successes encountered by graduates during their
journeys.
The pragmatic teacher path
Path summary
Programme graduates on the Pragmatic Teacher path exhibit a strong commitment to teaching,
which they genuinely enjoy. Their teaching practices are notably student-centred, ranging from high
to mid-level, and their reflective practice is mid-level. Their syllabi highlight the core aspects they
49
think are essential to their teaching, and they report minimal difficulty in implementing these,
although they adapt flexibly to meet student needs. They actively consider student feedback,
reflecting on it and making adjustments to their classes accordingly. While their teaching is regularly
observed, they may or may not incorporate the feedback they receive into future teaching. They feel
a sense of trust from their superiors but acknowledge contextual limitations, such as heavy
workloads, administrative burdens, and limited funding for professional development. They see little
institutional support to overcome these constraints and aid their teaching. They feel constant time
pressure from a heavy workload, which prevents them from maintaining a reflective journal, and
they do not engage in presenting or publishing on teaching and student learning.
Alex
Characteristics and teaching approach
The first path, the Pragmatic Teacher path, is exemplified by Alex, a lecturer and seminar leader who
teaches in an undergraduate programme with a total of over 90 students enrolled in their courses
during the past academic year. Alex handles both solo and co-taught courses with other colleagues.
Their full-time, permanent senior position was obtained following a standard job application process.
Alex enjoys teaching due to the diverse backgrounds of the students in their classes, the opportunity
to co-teach with colleagues, and being part of an excellent department. Key principles from their
teaching approach include a strong focus on student engagement, incorporating a range of audio and
visual sources and technologies to enhance the learning experience, assigning enough material to
stimulate learning without overwhelming students, ensuring that as many student voices as possible
are heard during class discussions and providing opportunities for both kinaesthetic and passive
learning to cater to different learning styles.
Student-centredness
The analysis of the interview with Alex indicates a high level of student-centredness, as evidenced by
their teaching principles, approach, and overall interview content. They mention four of the six key
aspects of SCL as important for their teaching (for the list of these aspects, see Chapter 2), alongside
additional aspects aligned with SCL. These include adapting the room to facilitate learning,
encouraging contributions from many students, and assigning readings that stimulate student
interest. Alex views themselves as inherently student-centred, a quality that has been consistent
throughout their career, both as a junior and now: “That’s always been one of my strengths.”
Alex is responsible for the curriculum design and assessment for the course from which they shared
their syllabus with the research team. The syllabus includes learning outcomes formulated using
verbs that align with various levels from Bloom’s taxonomy. It outlines active learning exercises,
indicating that Alex understands their role as a facilitator of student learning, and provides formative
assessment throughout the course. However, the syllabus does not specify whether continuous
assessment is planned or whether the assessment is authentic and requires students to demonstrate
higher-order skills. There are no signs in the syllabus that Alex views students as colleagues of similar
power, holds a constructivist view of learning, or considers students as individuals with diverse
interests and needs. Additionally, assessment criteria are not listed in the syllabus.
Nevertheless, Alex argues that the syllabus embodies the principles fundamental for their teaching
approach; this is especially true regarding the diversity of assessment methods and the freedom
given to students to influence their learning within an overall framework. Alex believes that the
syllabus covers a variety of content and adopts a non-colonising approach, which is important for
their discipline: international relations.
50
Alex does not find it particularly difficult to implement the plans outlined in their syllabus, owing to
their extensive teaching experience, including trying out a variety of ways of teaching the course. The
syllabus intentionally tells little about teaching and learning methods, as its primary purpose is to
stimulate interest in the course. As Alex explains, the syllabus is there “to promote module and its
overall broad aims and the more information it gives, the more restrictive it is and the less adaptable
it is to changing cohorts or situations or environments or latest news.”
The classes are centred on helping students achieve the planned outcomes, with Alex noting, “I
always end a session by saying, here are the learning outcomes. Have you learned? Do you do well?
We’ve achieved these as far as I’m concerned. Do you feel that way? And then I end with how do you
[feel?]; are you leaving the room knowing something you didn’t know before you entered? And they
say ‘yes’ and that’s a successful session.”
A colleague who has known Alex for fifteen years and has co-taught several courses with them
believes that Alex fosters student interaction and is approachable, confident, passionate and
genuinely interested in student contributions: Alex is “very good in reacting to what students say,
which results in conversations with students when they exchange lots of great ideas and reflect.” The
colleague further characterised Alex as someone who “know[s] when to really invest a lot of time
into something and when to be a bit more pragmatic. Because [Alex is] like a number of us, so busy
that [they] got that experience and confidence to know that enough will do for a particular class if
[they do not have] time to kind of make it perfect.”
Reflective teaching
Alex’s level of reflectiveness was categorised as mid-level. This was mainly because Alex chose to
describe a class that went well, did not provide examples of instances where students might not have
learned optimally, relied on their own observations rather than other evidence, and did not mention
any potential areas for improvement. However, it is possible that the class was highly successful and
did not offer many ways for enhancement.
Alex does not engage in the nonteaching activities espoused in the programme (reflective journal
and dissemination), noting “We’re overworked,” and “I don’t do anything revolutionary. I just do my
job well, there’s no paper for that.” This may explain why Alex reported no significant specific
teaching events that stand out in their academic career, given “It’s not about a big event.”
The interview with a colleague indicated that this graduate is reflective. When the two colleagues
discuss teaching, they reportedly reflect on past classes and plan future classes. Additionally, the
graduate encourages students to reflect. The colleague believes the graduate to be a reflective
practitioner, citing their ability to think and adapt during class discussions.
Use of student and colleague feedback
With respect to student feedback, Alex prefers receiving ongoing feedback rather than waiting until
the end of the semester to see student evaluations. Alex thus encourages students to share, for
example, via a class representative, if there is anything that students do not like or if they have
suggestions about what works well or not so well. Furthermore, if students feel confident, they voice
their feedback in class. Alex then reflects, responds, and adapts the class accordingly. According to
the colleague, students find Alex easy to talk to and are very happy to have discussions with them.
Alex also discusses teaching with colleagues. They talk about what went truly well and things that
came as a surprise. If there are any particular issues, Alex seeks colleagues’ advice, listens to their
51
opinions, and considers them, even if not always taking advice on board. Both a colleague and their
superior have observed the Alex’s classes. In their own words, discussions with observers prompted
Alex to reflect and try to incorporate their suggestions into future sessions.
Influence from context
When comparing their teaching to that of other colleagues, Alex says succinctly: “I work with over
twenty. Of course, I teach differently to some and similarly to others.” Alex finds institutional
resources for teaching development unhelpful and requiring extra work without a clear benefit.
Instead, they value more focused options such as peer observation, feedback from superiors, and
institutional student feedback forms: “Everything else that’s offered feels like an activity for the sake
of an activity that requires more work with no real benefit,” this graduate claims.
Alex identified several factors that constrain their teaching, including administrative duties,
unnecessary bureaucracy, and an inappropriate institutional focus on certain issues. They also
mentioned a limited ability to act within their teaching role while being required to maintain
academic integrity and judgment. Additionally, colleagues in administrative roles frequently refer
students to teachers instead of addressing issues themselves as part of their job, leading to
overworked teachers. Alex does not believe that the wider national context influences their teaching.
Alex feels trusted by their head of department to teach in a student-centred way and to innovate
teaching because their superior has expressed trust in them. They also take on a leadership role
within the institution and are involved in timetabling, the review of new degree programmes, and
overall quality assurance. When asked about their coaching/mentoring experience during the ED
programme, Alex said that they did not have a coach or mentor to work with.
Alex has not been recognised for their teaching, and their colleague admitted that the graduate
would probably be embarrassed by such an award, as they do not seek recognition. “You know, it’s
just a genuine desire to do things in a particular way,” the colleague explained. The colleague feels
influenced by Alex’s approach and mentioned that, during departmental meetings and other
collaborative occasions, colleagues often adopt suggestions from Alex.
Overall characteristics
Alex focuses intensely on their responsibilities, ensuring that their teaching remains meaningful,
student-centred and reflective, while also managing numerous other duties. At the same time, Alex
appears very busy and conscious of time constraints, as reflected in the brevity of their interview,
which lasted just 18 minutes compared to the average graduate interview length of 56 minutes. In
their institutional context, completing an ED programme is mandatory, and continuous professional
development is supported. Perhaps it is the mandatory nature of the programme that contributes to
the Alex’s sceptical view of the effectiveness of these opportunities, questioning whether they
genuinely benefit their teaching practice or merely serve as a facade of institutional support.
The enthusiastic student-centred innovator path
Path summary
Graduates on the Enthusiastic Student-Centred Innovator path are deeply passionate about teaching.
They embrace principles aligned with student-centred learning, and they believe that their syllabi
largely reflect these foundational aspects of their approach. However, they sometimes encounter
challenges in translating their syllabus into practice, primarily due to the diversity of their students
and the need to collaborate with other teachers who have a variety of teaching styles. Their student-
52
centredness typically falls within the middle to high range, with reflectiveness also rated at middle to
high levels. These graduates highly value discussions with colleagues regarding teaching practices.
While their classes have been observed at least once, they do not always find feedback from
observers to be beneficial. They may or may not maintain a reflective journal but often have
experience in presenting or publishing on teaching-related topics.
Typically, graduates on this path experiment with new teaching methods. They teach differently than
their colleagues do, although they may be unsure about their colleagues’ practices due to a lack of
familiarity with them. They appreciate several forms of institutional support for their teaching, yet
they also identify one or two significant institutional constraints and recognise limitations imposed
by the national educational environment. While they generally feel trusted by their department
heads regarding their teaching methods, they sometimes experience ambivalence due to a perceived
lack of interest from their superiors. Moreover, these graduates often assume a leadership role in
teaching. The colleagues interviewed in this research hold these graduates in high regard,
acknowledging their positive influence on others’ teaching practices and noting that students
appreciate their innovative approaches to education.
Bailey
Characteristics and teaching approach
The second path—that of the Enthusiastic Student-Centred Innovator—is embodied by Bailey. Bailey
holds course leader responsibilities and teaches in undergraduate and graduate programmes. Their
classes range from 21-30 students in the current academic year, and they teach both alone and
together with colleagues. Bailey was initially engaged by their current institution through an external
programme designed to facilitate teaching across multiple institutions. Their enthusiasm for teaching
is driven largely by the diversity of students they encounter, which are drawn from various European
backgrounds. Bailey finds great satisfaction in the learning opportunities that arise from interacting
with students.
Student-centredness
The level of SCL was categorised as high for Bailey. During the interview, Bailey spontaneously
referenced five of the six aspects of SCL presented in Chapter 2. Additionally, they mentioned two
other principles: allowing students to consult materials in class and encouraging discussions on
different views of problems. Bailey believes that their approach to SCL has remained consistent from
their early career as a junior academic to their current role.
Bailey indicated that the syllabus submitted for this research largely embodies their teaching
principles, although they find it somewhat challenging to implement in class because some students
are shy to contribute. The syllabus is appropriately detailed and structured, featuring learning
outcomes formulated using verbs that align with Bloom’s taxonomy. It incorporates active learning
exercises and continuous assessment, outlines assessment criteria, and includes authentic
assessments that require students to demonstrate higher-order skills. The syllabus reflects a
constructivist view of learning and underscores Bailey’s role as a facilitator of learning. However, it
does not specify whether students receive feedback on their assignments or indicate that Bailey
views students as colleagues of similar power or as individuals with diverse interests and needs.
A colleague who has known Bailey for six years, and with whom they designed and taught a course
for two years, holds a high opinion of Bailey’s ability to stimulate engagement among students: “Even
in a Bachelor’s class and since it was a first year mandatory course, all the 28 or 30 students, which
53
for [this institution] is considered to be a large group of students, ... whenever there was a kind of
silence or student not being aware how to initiate or start an exchange or a discussion, [Bailey] just
reflected on their own experiences a couple of years ago when [Bailey] was on the other side of the
classroom and that was a kind of icebreaker.” Overall, an interview with the colleague indicated that
Bailey is student-centred.
From discussions with students, the colleague discerns high levels of satisfaction with Bailey’s
performance and the course overall. As an innovative practice, the colleague highlighted the
implementation of gamification in student learning. They explained, “Because the tutorial is the third
hour, students become ever more tired. To make these more dynamic elements, taking them out of
the main course, [Bailey] introduced a kind of group game into the tutorial. Twice I attended the
tutorial as well, and indeed this kind of making it a more relaxed, entertaining, refreshing experience
also worked very, very well.”
Reflective teaching
The level of reflectiveness for Bailey was categorised as high. When prompted to recall a class that
went well, Bailey described a session where the majority of students actively contributed and
engaged in debates among themselves. Conversely, Bailey also described an instance of a class that
did not go well, noting that no students volunteered to answer questions on the assigned readings.
Reflecting on this, Bailey mentioned planning subquestions to encourage student participation in
future similar situations, albeit acknowledging that this approach may not always succeed, especially
during exam preparation periods when student capacity is limited. In such cases, Bailey considers
allocating class time for group discussions and reevaluating the length and difficulty of assigned
readings, which are actions that they have already implemented.
Bailey maintains a reflective journal to document participation levels, student contributions in class,
copies of emails sent to students, and detailed class overviews. Bailey not only records these notes
but also regularly refers to them for insights and improvements. The factors Bailey identified as
influencing their practice include class size, student background, and experiences within the
classroom. Although Bailey has not yet presented at conferences focused on teaching and learning,
they should do so soon at Oxford University, where they have been invited to conduct a teaching
workshop. Bailey hopes that their work will be published as a paper.
The colleague’s perspective on Bailey’s reflectiveness categorised as “to some extent,” primarily
because Bailey reflects more on their experiences as a student rather than on aspects directly related
to their teaching and their current students’ learning. The colleague recognised that self-reflection on
their own student experience is something they learned from Bailey. The colleague also noted that
Bailey shared their reflections with the teacher who would later be teaching the same course.
Use of student and colleague feedback
Bailey employs a systematic approach to gather feedback. They collect written feedback from
students after each class in the form of a class overview, which serves as an assessment component.
Bailey takes student critiques and suggestions for course improvement seriously, implementing
changes in their teaching accordingly.
Additionally, Bailey engages in discussions with colleagues about various aspects of teaching. These
conversations cover topics such as student issues, specific teaching scenarios, innovative teaching
methods, and mutual review of syllabi. Bailey also uses these discussions to share uncertainties and
54
confidential matters related to teaching. Although Bailey has not yet been formally observed while
teaching, this should happen in the next two weeks.
Influence from context
According to Bailey, their journey towards becoming a higher education teacher was influenced
significantly by encounters with two professors who embodied the type of educator they aspired to
become. Bailey’s previous career in the non-governmental organisation (NGO) sector, where they
served as a workshop facilitator and very much enjoyed that role, also played a crucial role in shaping
their desire to engage in teaching. These experiences not only supported Bailey’s inclination towards
SCL but also encouraged them to reflect on their role as an educator.
At their current institution, the prevailing teaching approach among colleagues involves lectures,
with assessments typically conducted at the end of courses. However, Bailey’s knowledge of this
teaching style is based solely on student reports, as they have not directly observed any colleagues
teaching or engaged in discussions about teaching practices within their current institution. Instead,
they rely on talking to colleagues from their previous institution.
Bailey identified three institutional resources as particularly helpful for their teaching practice:
learning platforms, plagiarism software, and a supportive departmental coordinator. However, they
view mandatory assessment components as a constraint on their teaching. Given their role in
teaching legal courses, Bailey also feels restricted by the national context, where readings often
relate to sensitive local issues, necessitating student engagement with this context in their
contributions.
In contrast to feeling trusted by the head of department at their previous institution, Bailey
expresses ambivalence about being similarly trusted by the current departmental head. They do not
currently hold any leadership roles in teaching, nor have they received recognition for their teaching
efforts. Nonetheless, according to a colleague, their teaching methods have positively influenced
others, including in the handover of a course to a subsequent teacher.
During their ED programme, Bailey did not have the opportunity to work with a coach/mentor.
Despite this, they attributed significant value to the programme they had completed. They
passionately endorse such programmes, suggesting that their educational foundation greatly
contributed to their current capabilities as a teacher. They spontaneously say, “I think failure of
young scholars in academia is sometimes because of lack of knowledge, and for us that was never a
problem because we had access to this certificate programme for free.”
Overall characteristics
Bailey exemplifies a programme graduate who is passionate about teaching, strongly committed to
student-centred and reflective teaching practices, and who is constantly seeking opportunities to
improve and innovate their classes. Bailey diligently monitors their teaching environments, drawing
comparisons with other experiences to inform their approach. Even in less supportive educational
settings, Bailey adeptly aligns their teaching with student-centred principles by maintaining
connections with like-minded colleagues from other institutions and actively participating in teaching
conferences. These efforts sustain Bailey’s intrinsic motivation and foster ongoing development as an
inspiring, student-centred educator. Reflecting on the significant positive impact of their ED
programme experience, Bailey advocates for broader accessibility of such programmes for all HE
teachers.
55
The dedicated teacher frustrated with their institution path
Path summary
ED programme graduates on this path genuinely enjoy teaching and adhere to many of the key
student-centred aspects (five to six). However, they find it somehow difficult to put their syllabi into
practice—either owing to perceived institutional constraints or the need to remain flexible in their
approach. Their teaching is highly student-centred, with a mid-level of reflectiveness, as confirmed
by their colleagues. These graduates use student feedback to understand which topics and learning
methods resonate with students and to respond to their diverse needs. Although they lack the
capacity to regularly keep a reflective journal, they may occasionally jot down notes, particularly to
express their emotions after certain classes.
These graduates are intrinsically motivated to innovate in their teaching. They actively present and
publish their work on teaching. Despite having only one or two colleagues with whom they share
their teaching-related views, they seek out conversations with others and attend teaching workshops
and lectures by invited speakers to inspire further change in their practice. While colleagues
recognise these individuals as excellent teachers, they note a lack of departmental recognition.
Additionally, colleagues have rarely observed them teaching—or the observations have been very
limited—and have never spoken to their students, suggesting an environment where teachers work
in isolation.
Programme graduates following this path can identify some institutional resources that support their
teaching, but they also cite significant institutional constraints, including numerous nonteaching
duties, a rigid course structure, prescribed assessment methods, and the institution’s narrow view of
academic outputs. They also believe that the wider national context imposes limits on their teaching.
Furthermore, they are unsure if their head of department trusts them regarding their teaching. They
attribute a foundational role to their programme coach or mentor in shaping their thinking about
teaching, but they are no longer in contact.
Cameron
Characteristics and teaching approach
The third path is represented by Cameron, who is dedicated to their role but harbors frustration with
their current institution. They primarily teach in the undergraduate programme, recently handling up
to 40 students. Having earned all their degrees from the same institution, Cameron has a strong
academic background rooted there. Cameron’s journey through various academic programmes has
been driven by their enjoyment of studying and the pursuit of advancing to higher levels of
education.
Despite their affinity for teaching, Cameron is concerned with the teaching workload, which they
sometimes feel hinders their ability to engage in research pursuits. Cameron makes efforts to employ
diverse teaching methods, recognising the various backgrounds and learning styles within the
student body. While Cameron acknowledges that not all students’ needs can be fully met through
these methods, they aim to satisfy at least some of the diverse learning needs present in their
classes.
Student-centredness
Cameron exemplifies a highly student-centred approach to teaching. They articulated a
comprehensive set of principles guiding their teaching, encompassing all six key student-centred
56
principles outlined in Chapter 2, along with additional principles such as regularly updating course
content and fostering courageous and authentic class discussions. Cameron perceives that their
support of students and student-centred instruction is comparable now to when they were more
junior in their teaching career.
Cameron believes the syllabus they shared with the research team very much embodies these
principles, enhancing student enjoyment of the learning process. Despite Cameron’s commitment to
student-centred learning, they find implementing the syllabus somewhat challenging, owing to the
need for constant adaptation to student needs. Their syllabus is meticulously detailed, featuring
learning outcomes framed within Bloom’s taxonomy. Active learning tasks are integrated into the
syllabus, which explicitly outlines how Cameron provides ongoing feedback on assignments.
Assessment is characterised by its continuous nature, authenticity and requirement for students to
engage with higher cognitive levels. The syllabus also reflects Cameron’s constructivist view of
learning, their role as a facilitator of learning, and their approach to students as individuals with
diverse interests and needs, as well as colleagues of similar power. Notably, it includes practical
details such as the graduate’s contact information and office hours, distinguishing it from many other
syllabi reviewed in the research. Overall, while the syllabus meets the criteria for a student-centred
approach in most respects, it does not explicitly list assessment criteria, which is a minor deviation
from ideal student-centred syllabus.
According to a colleague who has known Cameron for more than ten years, this graduate enjoys
collaborating with students and encourages them to produce independent work. Cameron often
engages students in team projects that involve working together both inside and outside of class. In
the classroom, Cameron ensures that students are active participants, setting specific and
challenging learning outcomes for each session. Cameron varies their teaching methods regularly and
is known to experiment with new approaches.
When assessing student work, such as theses, Cameron maintains high standards and provides
rigorous feedback. However, during defence sessions, they are supportive of students. Cameron’s
colleague perceives them as fair, consistently offering constructive feedback that focuses on solving
problems rather than just identifying them and encouraging students to take responsibility for their
work. While the colleague has not interacted directly with Cameron’s students, they recall that
Cameron’s student evaluations are consistently positive. On the basis of this colleague’s perspective,
Cameron’s approach to teaching is indeed student-centred.
Reflective teaching
When asked about a teaching situation that either met or fell short of their expectations, Cameron
chose to describe an entire course for part-time students. In this course, only a very small number of
students demonstrated the ways of thinking about the subject that Cameron aimed for. Despite their
disappointment in the students’ learning outcomes, which was possibly also a reflection on their own
teaching skills, Cameron provided detailed feedback to the underachieving students in the hope that
they would learn from it. Cameron attributed this shortfall to the students not reading the assigned
preclass material and planned to find ways to motivate them to complete their readings, as they
consider this foundational for effective learning in class. This example was categorised as a mid-level
reflection because, although Cameron could identify potential reasons for the students’ suboptimal
learning, they were unable to specify strategies to encourage students to complete their preparation.
Cameron keeps a reflective journal, although not consistently after each class. In the journal, they
note issues that made them angry, resulting in a collection of intuitive, emotional notes that are not
57
well organised and are scattered across multiple diaries. Cameron tends to review these notes as
reminders of earlier ideas, many of which are yet to be fully processed. Cameron’s primary sources of
inspiration for changing their teaching methods include their own internal drive, conversations with
others, and staying up to date with daily news. Cameron has already published a paper about their
teaching, specifically focusing on student conceptual thinking. Although they have not yet presented
at a teaching conference, they are scheduled to do so soon at a prestigious international conference
outside Europe.
According to the colleague, Cameron is very careful in planning their teaching. Their willingness to
experiment and improve student learning involves thoughtful deliberation of what to retain and
what to change, indicating a reflective teaching practice. The colleague noted, “I see there some selfconfidence.
I feel like they know what they’re doing and believe in it. Therefore, they then have no
problem talking about what didn’t go well and what they did not succeed at.”
Use of student and colleague feedback
Cameron says that they try to learn from both critique and praise in their course evaluations.
However, they also consider whether student feedback might be influenced by the ideology to which
the students subscribe, which may not always provide constructive guidance for improving teaching.
Sometimes, students surprise Cameron with their appreciation for the time spent together. They
described one final exam when everyone had left except for one group of students who remained in
the classroom. “I was in a hurry to get to the car and catch my train, and so I asked them: 'What’s up?
Why are you sitting here?' They said, ‘We do not want to leave. It is so nice here.’”
Cameron discusses teaching with colleagues and believes these discussions are important, although
they do not engage in these conversations with departmental colleagues. Cameron noted that
departmental colleagues are generally not interested in discussing teaching, not even during
departmental meetings. Instead, Cameron prefers talking about teaching methods with colleagues
from other units who share similar views on teaching. The graduate has been observed only once, by
a colleague from a different university. This observation was not a memorable experience, and no
additional observations followed, as there is no standardised practice for teaching observations at
their institution.
Influence from context
Cameron identified a formative moment in their teaching career when they became a course leader
and gained the freedom to design their own courses. Since then, Cameron has been both the lead
teacher and the sole teacher for all their courses. They believe that this leadership role granted them
full autonomy to (re)design courses and align their teaching with what they perceive as graduates’
needs. Cameron asserts that their teaching approach differs significantly from that of their
colleagues, as Cameron’s focus is on making students learn rather than just teaching. This philosophy
includes avoiding traditional testing, redesigning classes each year to maximise their usefulness for
students, and adhering to a constructivist approach to education. Cameron mentioned only two
colleagues who share a similar teaching philosophy, both of whom have completed the ED
programme. However, they are not in frequent contact, partly because one of these colleagues is
currently on leave.
Cameron does not feel supported at all by their department or faculty, valuing only what the
university’s teaching and learning centre does. They feel significantly constrained by the institution’s
understanding of academics’ roles, where one is either categorised as a researcher with teaching
58
obligations or a teacher with research obligations, both of which are burdened with excessive
administrative duties. With respect to teaching social work, the national context dictates much of the
content, leading to occasional struggles against it. Cameron, responsible for internationalisation in
their unit, faces a lack of interest and support from colleagues in this area. This graduate does not
feel trusted by their manager and characterises the work environment as possibly the worst ever,
with the head of the department being more interested in discussing student issues and complaints
than addressing teachers’ situations.
The ED programme has played a foundational role in Cameron’s teaching. It exposed them to diverse
views, inspired their pedagogical thinking, and provided positive feedback on their teaching, which
they find lacking elsewhere. The programme included a coaching/mentoring element, and Cameron
used to communicate regularly with their coach/mentor. However, they are no longer in touch.
The colleague characterised Cameron as someone who stands out for doing things in the way they
believe to be right, regardless of whether it is supported or not. Cameron reinforces the colleague’s
belief in active learning and the importance of taking responsibility for their work. However,
departmental members rarely discuss what is important in teaching. The colleague said, “We are
such a diverse group of colleagues that I truly don’t have the feeling that some kind of organisational
culture—or departmental culture—is being created, which would cultivate a specific vision of how to
teach or what to do. And I miss that. So, I personally think that makes us inadequate to the task; it
limits how much we could inspire each other. And that brings me to the conclusion that how we
teach just isn’t an important topic of discussion for us.”
Although Cameron had been praised once at a departmental meeting for positive student
evaluations, the colleague observes that there is weak recognition of teaching in the department and
states: “Cameron strives to teach in the best way they believe possible, regardless of how much
effort it costs and that no one truly recognises it. However, maybe I am wrong, and someone does
appreciate it.”
Overall characteristics
Cameron puts significant effort into preparing, conducting, and adjusting classes. Their own
experience as a student and a teacher, along with the ED programme from which they graduated,
has equipped them with a strong sense of responsibility for student learning. They aim to meet
students’ needs and prepare them well for their future profession. Cameron’s teaching is studentcentred,
and they regularly trial new teaching methods, reflecting to some extent on what goes well
and what goes wrong. Students seem to value learning in Cameron’s courses. Nevertheless,
Cameron’s work and dedication are not institutionally recognised, and they rarely find allies in their
department to support them in their mission. Cameron is very critical of the institution for not
prioritising the teachers, teaching, and student learning.
The converted teacher-centred scholar path
Path summary
The last path described in this work—that of a Converted Teacher-Centred Scholar—is embodied by
only one programme graduate. The path and cameo summaries are therefore the same.
59
Dylan
Characteristic and teaching approach
Dylan, who earned their PhD from the same institution where they currently teach, works part-time
as an academic teacher while primarily serving as a researcher in another country. Dylan teaches just
one course, academic writing, which is intended to prepare students for their bachelor’s theses,
albeit to a large group of three to four hundred undergraduates. Their responsibilities include both
lecturing and facilitating seminars, as well as grading, although another individual leads the course
overall. Dylan finds little enjoyment in teaching. While their level of reflection is moderate, their
teaching approach remains largely teacher-centred. Dylan places little value on pedagogical
conversations with colleagues and does not recall feedback from a teaching observer. They do not
engage in presenting or publishing about teaching. Despite feeling trusted by the head of their
department, Dylan lacks colleagues who share their approach to teaching and believes that there are
no institutional resources available to support their teaching.
Teacher-centredness
Dylan’s teaching approach was categorised as lacking manifestation of student-centredness,
although they referred to three of the six main principles of SCL during their interview. These
principles included making efforts to explain things in an accessible way (#1), helping students
understand (#2), and using discussions or Socratic teaching as a method (#4). Shortly after
undertaking the ED programme, they found it easier to teach in a student-centred manner than they
do now. Previously, they had implemented SCL methods that they no longer use. “Teaching or
learning something is not possible without students’ internal motivation. If it’s not there, I think it’s a
lost battle,” Dylan says. Dylan believes that they have become a better teacher because they now
understand what they teach in a way that they did not before.
The syllabus shared by Dylan reflects very few of the principles they consider important for teaching,
and they struggle to implement it effectively, particularly because some students seem disengaged
and Dylan does not see it as their role to motivate them. The syllabus is extremely brief and lacks
essential information. It includes learning outcomes formulated using verbs that address some levels
from Bloom’s taxonomy. Active learning is planned, although it appears that this might be for
sessions taught by other teachers. The syllabus mentions that students receive some feedback on
their work. Assessment occurs only at the end of the course and does not include authentic
assignments or the expectation for students to demonstrate higher-order skills. There are no
indications that teachers view students as colleagues of similar power, recognise their diverse
interests and needs, adopt a constructivist view of learning, or view their role as facilitating student
learning. Furthermore, the syllabus does not list assessment criteria.
Dylan could not identify any colleague familiar with their teaching; thus, the information presented
here is solely based on the survey, interview with Dylan and their syllabus. Dylan’s teacher-centred
approach contrasts significantly with the materials they submitted as part of their ED programme, as
evaluated in a previous study (Pleschová, 2012). Almost twelve years ago, Dylan’s final report on
innovating student learning was categorised as highly student centred. Similarly, their draft report
before receiving comments from their coach/mentor reflected a high-level student-centred
approach. Their revised statement of teaching philosophy was judged to be mid-level SCL, as was the
teaching philosophy they submitted as part of their application for the programme. Notably, that
time, Dylan was selected by their coach/mentor as an example of one of the highest-achieving
programme participants.
60
Reflective teaching
Dylan highlighted two memorable moments of their teaching: when students asked insightful
questions and when they refrained from asking any questions at all. From these interactions, Dylan
concludes that their lecture successfully stimulated interest and deep thinking. If the absence of
questions or the nature of the questions indicates misunderstanding, Dylan infers that students likely
lacked some foundational knowledge. In such cases, Dylan adjusts their teaching to ensure that
foundational knowledge is covered in the following sessions. Additionally, Dylan experiments with
explanatory methods, including the use of slides to pose questions to the students.
Dylan’s reflections primarily concern content and methods of conveying information, focusing on
what students know before starting the class session and what they are supposed to learn, without
addressing teaching methods other than lectures or student learning strategies. This reflection was
categorised as mid-level. When Dylan’s current level of reflection is compared with their reflections
at the end of the ED programme, the depth of their reflection has diminished. In their final and draft
reports on innovating student learning, reflection was categorised as high, though this was not the
case of another programme assignment, teaching philosophy, which was assessed as mid-level for
reflection (Pleschová, 2012).
Use of student and colleague feedback
Dylan acknowledges student feedback in a minimalistic way. They rely on summaries rather than
reading full student feedback forms. Dylan feels somewhat surprised that students had given positive
feedback on their course last year—Dylan thought they had not accomplished the desired outcomes.
Dylan felt disinterested in the course and believed that students must have sensed it. “Somehow,
they thought it was fine, but I just don’t know why. Maybe it’s because some other classes are
worse,” Dylan posits. Previously, Dylan collected informal feedback during class sessions but
discontinued this because of time constraints. Instead, they now gauge student engagement by
monitoring questions asked during class.
Dylan engages in discussions about teaching with colleagues who co-teach their course. They focus
primarily on assessing student knowledge levels, strategies to address learning outcome failures that
are evident from student bachelor’s exam performance, and ways to enhance student outcomes.
They voice the concern that their difficulty to engage the current cohort of students could negatively
affect the programme’s ability to attract future students and that they may have no students to
teach in the future. Despite these discussions, Dylan does not assign significant importance to them.
A number of years ago, Dylan was observed by a colleague, but they do not recall the specifics of that
observation.
A significant event that profoundly influenced Dylan’s approach to teaching was watching online
lectures by esteemed science educators such as Paul Meehl and Richard Feynman. These experiences
led them to appreciate the intellectual rigor required in teaching. Dylan reported that even a
traditional lecture format can be engaging if the knowledge presented academically stimulates the
audience. This perspective shifted their teaching focus away from being student-centred. Active
learning methods, such as those that invite students to move around the classroom, cannot achieve
that aim, as Dylan had previously experienced as a student. Watching these lectures clearly made
this graduate less student-centred, but at the same time they inspired some reflection on the
effectiveness of various teaching methods.
61
Influence from context
Dylan admits teaching differently from colleagues who employ active learning methods. Dylan does
not list any institutional resources that aid their teaching, and they identify large student numbers as
a significant constraint. Although Dylan envisions taking another approach while teaching these
students, such as dividing them into smaller groups, lack of time prevents them from doing so. Dylan
perceives the wider national context as having minimal impact on their teaching. Furthermore, Dylan
does not hold any leadership roles in teaching within their institution.
Dylan feels trusted by their superior, as they find the head of department to be supportive and
appreciative of their efforts in teaching. During their ED programme, they worked closely with a
coach/mentor who significantly influenced their pedagogical approach. Dylan still values and
remembers the suggestions and principles imparted during their collaboration. However, they no
longer maintain contact.
Overall characteristics
Dylan’s path describes a converted teacher-centred scholar whose context does not allow them to
implement the principles learned in the ED programme and now mostly rejects them in their
teaching philosophy. Dylan identifies primarily as a scholar and aims to instil scholarly thinking in
their students. Influenced by famous lecturers, Dylan strives to create similarly stimulating lectures,
and frontal lecturing remains their primary teaching method. This approach is directly influenced by
their institution’s requirement to handle large student numbers without sufficient resources, support
or encouragement to adopt alternative teaching methods.
Evaluation of the four paths
Among the four paths (Pragmatic Teacher, Enthusiastic Student-Centred Innovator, Dedicated
Teacher Frustrated with Their Institution, and Converted Teacher-Centred Scholar), the Enthusiastic
Student-Centred Innovator aligns most closely with the goals of ED programmes. Individuals in this
group actively practice SCL, engage in reflection and trial new teaching methods, as seen in Bailey’s
example. They are able to maintain these practices even in environments where student-centred
learning is not prevalent because of ongoing contact with colleagues, sometimes from previous
universities where they either completed the ED programme and/or had found good teaching
practices to be reinforced.
The Enthusiastic Student-Centred Innovator path is represented by two-thirds of graduates, with the
remaining graduates falling into one of the other categories. For example, we see pragmatism
reflected in Alex’s cameo, whose classes align with SCL and who engages in reflective teaching but
who feels pressured by work and sceptical of the institution’s investment in teaching. If teachers
constantly perceive their time to be scarce, they can hardly devote it to more complex forms of
reflection such as journal writing, teaching innovation and dissemination.
Similarly, the Dedicated Teacher Frustrated with Their Institution path characterises constant
struggle against challenges within their context: colleagues show disinterest in discussing teaching
matters, the departmental head is unsupportive, their former coach/mentor is unavailable, and there
is a very low recognition for teaching efforts. These factors collectively threaten to erode the ability
to maintain a student-centred approach, engage in reflective practices regarding student learning or
innovate classes.
Finally, the graduate on the Converted Teacher-Centred Scholar path, while citing inspiration from
the online lectures of prominent scholars for their teaching methods, ultimately shifts away from
62
student-centred approaches due to contextual constraints and a lack of institutional support.
Teaching large classes of three to four hundred students without institutional backing makes it
exceedingly difficult to implement active learning and other student-centred practices. Although
their ED programme included a workshop on teaching large classes, it did not adequately prepare
them for the extreme challenges they faced in their current teaching environment.
When designing this research, the expectation was to uncover specific archetypes of ED programme
graduates. However, data analysis has shown that it is more appropriate to discuss paths or practices
rather than rigid graduate types. Notably, we found that the paths followed by graduates are not
determined by their gender; the institution where they completed the programme; their discipline
(whether they work in natural sciences, engineering, medicine, or humanities and social sciences); or
the compulsory or voluntary nature of their educational development programme. Like the concepts
of deep and surface approaches to teaching (Marton and Säljö, 1976a, b), the context in which
graduates teach significantly shapes how teaching is conceptualised and enacted. Graduates and
their teaching practices do not seem static but evolving depending on how they perceive and interact
with their context.
These four paths are similar to the trajectories reported by Nevgi (2013) in a longitudinal study of
three teachers from the University of Helsinki. The Converted Teacher-Centred Scholar path parallels
that of a traditional teacher who focuses on transmitting information and believes that university
teachers are primarily subject-matter experts, leaving it up to students to learn. In Nevgi’s study, the
ED programme provided only some teaching tips, and the teacher’s practice soon reverted to being
teacher-centred. In contrast, the Converted Teacher-Centred Scholar in this research was initially
highly student-centred after completing the programme but became teacher-centred over time. The
Enthusiastic Student-Centred Innovator path also shares similarities with the trajectory of a teacher
motivated to develop as a student-centred practitioner. However, unlike the study from Helsinki, this
research did not reveal a graduate who shifted from being teacher-centred to being student-centred
and remained so (Nevgi, 2013).
References
Marton, Ference and Säljö, Roger (1976a) On qualitative differences in learning — 1: Outcome and
process. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46: 4-11: 10.1111/J.2044-8279.1976.TB02980.X
Marton, Ference and Säljö, Roger (1976b) On qualitative differences in learning — 2: Outcome as a
function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46: 115-
127: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02304.x
Nevgi, Anne (2013) The influence of the research philosophy and pedagogical management decisions
of the University of Helsinki on university teaching. A longitudinal study. In Simon, Eszter, Pleschová,
Gabriela (Eds.) Teacher development in higher education. Existing programs, program impact and
future trends. New York and Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 170-190
Pleschová, Gabriela (2012) Coaching in teacher development. Case study of a teacher development
program in Slovakia. Dissertation submitted in part-fulfilment of the requirements for the Master of
Science in Education (Higher Education) degree. Oxford University
63
Chapter 8. Student-centred and reflective teaching of ED programme graduates five and more
years on
Studies investigating the teaching practices of graduates from educational development (ED)
programmes years after completing the programme are relatively scarce. The limited research
available makes it challenging to understand how graduates perceive teaching and what they do in
relation to their participation in the ED programme. This difficulty largely arises because many
studies report that the primary outcomes of their ED programmes include fostering more studentcentred
and reflective teaching practices, however, when the effects are evaluated, these specific
outcomes often do not form the central focus of the study (Stes, Clement and van Petegem, 2007;
Gale, 2011; Stewart, 2014). For research that has such a focus, the designs and methods used to
research programme outcomes are so diverse that meaningful cross-case comparisons and
generalisations are rare. Another challenge lies in defining what constitutes long-term impact. While
some studies consider two years to represent a long-term effect (Stes, Clement and van Petegem,
2007), others argue that the long-term programme impact can only be assessed after five years or
more (Cannon and Hore, 1997; Gale, 2011; Nevgi, 2012).
Some studies report long-term outcomes, but their samples often include a mix of graduates who
completed the programme less than a year ago and those who finished between one and five years
prior (Charlier and Lambert, 2019), or between two and six years after the programme (Giertz, 1996).
Another challenge stems from comparing results between programmes of varying lengths, such as a
three-week programme (Giertz, 1996) and a twenty-day programme (Cannon and Hore, 1997), with
those of more standardised certificate programmes (Gale, 2011). Additionally, while valuable, some
research presents case studies focused on a very small number of graduates (three), rather than
providing results that reflect the overall programme impact (Nevgi, 2012). Most existing studies also
rely heavily on self-reported outcomes (Stes, Clement and van Petegem, 2007; Gale, 2011; Stewart,
2014; Nevgi, 2012; Charlier and Lambert, 2019). Even when data are collected from other sources,
such as directors of study, it is often unclear what these individuals based their judgments on (Giertz,
1996).
To address these gaps, the research team designed a study to investigate the long-term outcomes of
programmes for higher education teachers offered by four different institutions. This study
specifically focuses on programme graduates’ conceptions and behaviours related to studentcentredness
and reflective teaching, which are shared aims across these ED programmes. It seeks to
answer three key research questions:
1. Understanding of student-centred learning: How do programme graduates understand and
interpret student-centred learning five and more years after completing the educational
development programme?
2. Reflective teaching practices: Do programme graduates continue to reflect on their teaching
five and more years after graduation? If so, how can their reflections be categorised and
described? Do they take action based on these reflections?
3. Contextual influences: What role do graduates’ institutions and the broader national context
play in shaping their ability to implement student-centred and reflective teaching practices?
What are the supportive and constraining factors?
This chapter begins by summarising existing literature on the effects of ED programmes, particularly
in relation to student-centredness, reflective teaching, and the impact of institutional contexts on
teaching practices. It then presents the findings from this research, integrating these with previous
64
studies where relevant, i.e., on the topic of contextual influences. The chapter concludes by offering
recommendations to higher education institutions on how to maximise positive learning and
teaching outcomes from ED programmes.
What literature reveals about long-term results from ED
Literature shows that teaching is extremely important for academic teachers, especially for the early
career academics. For example, what early career academics report as critical incidents for their
career path over the first five years overwhelmingly relates to students, teaching, and the
management of teaching. These teachers moreover say that ED programme they had undergone had
a significant and positive influence on them (Gale, 2011), a finding that resonates also in other
studies (Stes, Clement, and Van Petegem, 2007). Deeper understanding of teaching and learning and
new teaching skills are listed as major long-term programme outcomes (Giertz, 1996), together with
enhanced self-confidence (Giertz, 1996, Stewart, 2014), as well as facilitating contact with colleagues
from other departments and willingness to further develop as teachers (Stewart, 2014). Aside from
these, literature also mentions increased student-centredness and high levels of reflectivity among
notable long-term programme results (Stewart, 2014, Charlier and Lambert, 2019), although for
research conducted by Stewart reflectivity mostly concerned reflecting back on the value of the
programme.
However, some studies also highlight a lack of sustained outcomes over the longer term. Stewart
(2014) reports that for four of the thirteen programme graduates, the programme eventually faded
in significance and became less relevant to their current teaching practices. One graduate expressed
regret over the limited opportunities to discuss teaching, while another voiced concerns about the
risk of reverting to ineffective teaching methods. Similarly, Cannon and Hore (1997) were
disappointed that twelve years after their programme, it had not achieved its desired impact—
namely, the continued professional development of its graduates. It is worth noting that, like one of
the programmes explored in the present study (specifically the one offered by the Slovak Academy of
Sciences), this was a one-off programme delivered by a team of international educational developers
in a context new to educational development.
Reflection allows teachers to draw upon and deepen their existing knowledge, thereby broadening
their understanding and enhancing their teaching practice (McAlpine et al., 2004). With more
teaching experience and consistent reflection, teachers are expected to improve their reflective
skills. Stes, Clement, and Van Petegem (2007) found that increased reflective practice leads to
significant changes in higher education teaching. However, productive reflection requires both time
and the mental space to engage with the process. While teaching environments fifteen years ago
may have been more conducive to reflection, contemporary pressures—such as higher student
enrolment, the demand for publishing in prestigious journals, the expectation to teach both online
and in person, and the need to juggle various other roles—can make it much harder for programme
graduates to find the capacity to reflect. In such circumstances, coaches and mentors can play a
crucial role in encouraging and sustaining reflective practice (Rogers, 2001).
Long-term outcomes are shaped not only by the educational development programme itself but also
by external factors, particularly the graduates’ working environment (Stes, Clement, and Van
Petegem, 2007). A review of thirteen studies on contextual barriers that hinder the application of
knowledge gained from ED programmes to teaching practice highlighted workload pressures and
institutional demands prioritising research, administration, and service activities over teaching as the
most commonly reported challenges (Pleschová and Simon, 2021; see also Giertz, 1996). These
65
findings suggest that when examining long-term outcomes of educational development, it is essential
to consider how the context interferes with graduates’ teaching. The influence of institutional and
external factors determines whether the knowledge and skills gained from ED programmes can be
effectively applied in practice.
Student-centred and reflective teaching of programme graduates from this research five and more
years on
This chapter reports on the findings for each research question based on the analysis of data from
survey, interviews and syllabi collected from 19 graduates of ED programmes at Central European
University (CEU), Masaryk University, Slovak Academy of Sciences, and Nottingham Trent University.
Additionally, insights were gathered from 15 colleagues of these graduates. As previously described,
the graduates and their colleagues represented a diverse array of disciplines, including biology,
education, engineering, linguistics, law, medicine, philosophy, political science, sociology, and social
work, and encompassed both male and female academics. More details about research methods are
presented in Chapter 2.
Understanding of student-centred learning
To repeat from Chapter 2, this study defined teaching as student-centred when programme
graduate’s focus was on how their students learn rather than on their own performance in all
activities related to teaching including course and class design, class facilitation and student
assessment (the later manifested, for example, through the employment of continuous assessment,
authentic assessment or assessment that allows manifesting cognitively complex learning outcomes),
moreover when students’ choice in their education was facilitated, they were encouraged to do
more than the teacher, students and the graduate were seen as equals in terms of power and the
graduate paid attention to who their students are and how they learn.
The findings from the data analysis indicate that the graduates of ED programmes approach teaching
in a student-centred way. As visualised in Table 1, the level of student-centred learning (SCL) among
graduates, as coded from their interview transcripts, was high for 14 individuals (74%), mid-level for
four individuals (21%), and no for one graduate (G5S, 5%). None of the graduates were judged to
have a low level of student-centredness. Based on what colleagues said about the programme
graduates, teaching of nine graduates (60%) was assessed as student-centred, while teaching of six
graduates (40%) student-centred to some extent. None’s practice was judged to be teacher-centred
based on the colleague interviews. This may be because the graduate deemed teacher-centred from
the interview did not have a colleague who would be knowledgeable about their teaching.4
Table 1. Teaching of programme graduates as judged from the interviews
Interviews with graduates Interviews with colleagues
Code # of interviews % Code # of interviews %
High-level SCL 14 74% Student-centred 9 60%
Mid-level SCL 4
21%
Student-centred to
some extent 6 40%
4
In case of other three teachers from this sample where the interview with their colleague did not take place
(G2S, G1C, G5C), this was because the colleague was not available to talk, rather than that the graduate could
not name anyone insightful into their teaching (For more details see Chapter 2).
66
Low-level SCL 0 0%
Teaching-
centred
1
5% Not student-centred 0 0%
Total 19 100% Total 15 100%
Typically, colleagues provided several reasons why they believed the programme graduates’
perceptions and practices aligned with SCL principles. They mentioned that graduates had
implemented active learning in their courses, attended to individual student needs, cared about
students, provided individual consultations, put considerable effort into preparing classes, viewed
students as colleagues, and embraced the constructivist concept. These examples were frequently
cited across various interviews. Colleagues learned about these practices through co-teaching,
discussions with graduates about teaching, talking to the graduates’ students, reading student
evaluations, or observing the graduates’ teaching. Additionally, nine colleagues explicitly mentioned
that students commend the graduates’ teaching.
Interestingly, colleagues from Masaryk University and Central European University consistently held
very high opinions of the programme graduates, with the coding of their interviews consistently
resulting in a “graduate is student-centred” classification. In contrast, colleagues from Nottingham
Trent University (NTU) described the programme graduates in a manner that was coded as “studentcentred
to some extent.” For the graduates from the Slovak Academy of Sciences, two colleagues
indicated that graduates were student-centred to some extent, while one colleague had a clear
positive view of the graduate’s student-centredness.
When asked about the principles central to their teaching, six graduates spontaneously mentioned all
six aspects presented above (see Table 2.). Seven graduates described five aspects, three discussed
four aspects, and two mentioned three aspects. The participant categorised as demonstrating no SCL
at least implicitly referred to two aspects. The graduates were not primed that the research focused
on SCL or reflectiveness in teaching.
Table 2. Student-centred aspects mentioned by ED programme graduates as principal for their
teaching
Number of SCL aspects Number of graduates referring to these aspects
6 aspects 6
5 aspects 7
4 aspects 3
3 aspects 2
2 aspects 1
Total number of graduates 19
In addition to these six aspects of student-centred learning, graduates listed a number of other SCLaligned
principles they follow in their teaching. These included creating a classroom climate that
67
encourages student contribution, supporting student interaction, teaching in a way that students
enjoy learning, innovating teaching methods to fit student needs, and showing care for students. The
average number of aspects mentioned—almost six without being prompted—indicates that the
graduates have embraced SCL in its full complexity. Furthermore, the graduates expressed high levels
of satisfaction with their teaching roles at their current institutions: 14 said they enjoyed teaching
very much, four enjoyed teaching quite a lot, and only one (G5S) enjoyed teaching very little. This
suggests a possible connection between student-centred teaching practices and teachers’
satisfaction with their teaching roles.
Programme graduates’ syllabi largely confirmed the findings related to student-centred learning,
although the evidence of such practices was somewhat less clear from the syllabi alone (see Table
3.). Of the six key aspects previously identified, active learning methods were reflected in the
majority of graduates’ syllabi, with 16 out of 19 indicating this approach. Twelve syllabi incorporated
authentic assessments or assessments that required students to demonstrate higher-order thinking
skills. Eleven syllabi showed the use of continuous assessment, while ten suggested that the graduate
viewed their role as facilitating student learning rather than delivering content. However, fewer
syllabi aligned with other student-centred aspects. Seven reflected a constructivist view of learning,
and just four indicated that the graduate regarded students as colleagues with comparable levels of
influence.
The syllabi were also reviewed for adherence to other SCL criteria. Most were several pages long (13)
and included learning outcomes (17), with 15 using Bloom’s taxonomy to formulate those outcomes.
On the other hand, only four syllabi demonstrated that students would receive feedback on their
assignments. Similarly, only two reflected an awareness of students as individuals with diverse
interests or needs, and no more than two included clear assessment criteria.
Notably, two syllabi (from G1S and G4M) did not appear to be student-centred, as they
corresponded with none of the six key aspects of SCL and included only one and three additional
aspects, respectively. In seven cases, coders identified at least four out of the six key SCL aspects, but
this was observed in only one case when considering the additional criteria. This analysis highlights
that while many programme graduates embrace SCL, there are gaps in how these practices are
formalised in their syllabi.
Table 3. Student-centredness of programme graduates as judged from the syllabi
# of syllabi # of syllabi
Six key aspects of SCL Yes No Additional aspects of SCL Yes No
Active learning exercises are
planned for students in this course 16 3
The syllabus contains learning
outcomes 17 2
Assessment is authentic or the one
that asks students to demonstrate
higher-order skills 12 7
Learning outcomes are
formulated using the verbs from
the Bloom’s taxonomy 15 4
Assessment is to be continuous 11 8
The syllabus is extremely short
and some essential information is
missing 6 13
68
Syllabus suggests that teacher
understands their role as a
facilitator of student learning 10 9
The syllabus describes that
students receive feedback on
their assignments 4 15
Syllabus suggests that teacher has
constructivist view of learning 7 12
Syllabus suggests that teacher
sees students as individuals with
diverse interests and/or needs 2 17
Syllabus indicates that teacher
takes students as colleagues of
similar power 4 15 Assessment criteria are listed 2 17
This discrepancy may be explained by institutional mandates dictating how much and what to include
in the syllabus. Programme graduates repeatedly mentioned that institutional requirements
constrained them when writing their syllabi. In many cases, the coders initially marked criteria as
“unclear,” but later agreed that if a criterion was not demonstrated in the syllabus, it should be
coded as “no presence.” (For more on coding, see Chapter 2.) The influence of institutional
expectations was especially evident when coding the additional criteria, as the codes were highly
similar for syllabi from the same institution.
These findings on student-centredness were crosschecked with what graduates from ED programmes
that included a coaching/mentoring component said. As displayed in Table 4., this group of graduates
typically attributed significant value to the programme for impacting their teaching-related
perceptions. Eight programme graduates recognised the formative role of the coach/mentor in
shaping their thinking about teaching (67%), while three did not remember who their coach/mentor
was (25%), and one admitted that the coach/mentor had some influence, but a departmental
colleague had a bigger role (8%).
Table 4. Programme graduates’ view of their coach/mentor influencing their thinking-related
teaching
Response # of responses %
Coach/mentor shaping graduate’s thinking about teaching 8 67%
Had some role but departmental colleague had a bigger role 1 8%
Does not remember who the coach/mentor was 3 25%
No coaching/mentoring element (CEU) 5
Did not have a coach/mentor (G3N) 1
Did not comment on the coach role in shaping thinking 1
Those with coaching/mentoring experience and describing it 12 100%
Total number of programme graduates 19
Programme graduates were also asked whether it was harder or easier for them to teach in a SCL
way shortly after the programme or now. Graduates’ views are presented in Table 5. Seven
69
individuals (37%) found it harder initially, as they had been taught using a teacher-centred approach
and needed to develop competence and confidence in a completely different teaching method. Six
graduates (36%) thought it was about the same, noting that they have simply gained more teaching
experience over time. Three graduates (15%) found it easier earlier in their careers: one felt
connected to the student generation and understood how they learn; another attributed their view
to the rapid progress in teaching development due to initially small skills; the third used some SCL
methods initially but no longer uses them (G5S). One graduate believed it was now easier in some
aspects and harder in others. Initially, this graduate lacked the power and opportunities to effect
change but had more capacity and enthusiasm to drive it. Now, they have the authority to change
teaching in their courses but no longer feel enthusiastic about it. The views of two informants were
difficult to discern.
Table 5. Programme graduates’ views comparing the difficulty/easiness to teach in a student-centred
way shortly after the ED programme and now
Response
# of
responses %
It was harder to teach in a student-centred way just after taking the
programme 7 37%
It was about the same then as now 6 32%
It was easier to teach in a student-centred way just after taking the
programme 3 16%
It is easier to teach in a student-centred way in some aspects now and
harder in others 1 5%
Unclear 2 11%
Total 19 100%
Reflective teaching practices
As detailed in Chapter 2, reflective teaching has been understood in this research as a practice when
ED programme graduate considers the results of their own teaching and can provide evidence for
their claims, moreover they can identify positive and problematic aspects of own teaching, see
connections between their research and teaching and has a vision of how they can improve teaching
in the future.
As evident from the Table 6., five and more years since completing the ED programme, graduates are
reflective about their teaching and student learning. Based on the graduate interviews, the level of
reflectiveness about teaching was coded as high for 8 graduates, mid for 8 graduates, mid-low for
one graduate, and low for 2 individuals. Findings from the interviews with colleagues supported what
the programme graduates said. Colleagues’ descriptions of graduates’ teaching practices indicated
that 8 graduates (53%) were reflective and 7 individuals (47%) were reflective to some extent.
70
Table 6. Teaching practice of programme graduates in terms of reflectiveness as judged from the
interviews
Interviews with graduates Interviews with colleagues
Response # of interviews % Response # of interviews %
High-level 8 42% Reflective 8 53%
Mid-level 8
42%
Reflective to
some extent 7 47%
Mid-low level 1 5%
Low-level 2 0%
No 0 0% Is not reflective 0 0%
Total number of
graduates
19
100%
Total number of
colleagues 15 100%
Graduates demonstrated reflectiveness through various means, such as identifying reasons why
students struggled in their learning, suggesting changes to the design of assignments, thinking of
different ways to facilitate student learning, and attempting to foster more connections between
what students learn in class and what they experience in their lives. Only one graduate referred to
making a change in student assessment.
Some examples of how colleagues described graduates’ reflective practices, without being primed
that the research was about reflective practice, included the following: “We often tell each other,
‘What do you think about this particular group of students and which exercise will work better for
them?’” said one colleague (C1N). Another (C4C) characterised the graduate as “an incredibly
thoughtful and reflective teacher" who spends almost all of their time thinking about teaching.” A
different colleague (C4M) commented: “[They] try to really think these things through, how it could
work, how it could be done...they really are just so careful.”
Similarly to student-centredness, colleagues from Masaryk University tended to judge the
programme graduates most highly for reflectiveness: all five colleagues indicated in their interviews
that graduates were reflective. Colleagues from the other three institutions were more reserved:
only one colleague from each institution viewed the graduate as reflective, while three and two
respectively suggested the graduates were reflective to some extent. These results therefore need to
be interpreted with some caution because of a potential bias from MUNI colleagues in perceiving
their graduates’ teaching-related thinking and practice compared to colleagues from other
institutions included in this research.
Literature recognises coaches and mentors as important for helping higher education teachers to
reflect (Rogers, 2001). This research found a positive association between the programme graduates’
level of reflection and the role attributed to the coach/mentor in shaping their thinking about
teaching. In nine cases, either high levels of reflection corresponded with an influential role of the
coach, or low reflection was linked to a lack of coaching or the graduate not remembering their
coach. These nine cases also included the graduate who valued their coach/mentor but felt their
colleague had a greater impact on their teaching. A mid-level of reflectiveness was associated three
71
times with the coach’s/mentor’s role in changing thinking about teaching and four times with no
coaching/mentoring.
These results for mid-level reflection, however, may have been influenced by the fact that some
graduates only chose examples of successful classes where it was difficult to manifest a high level of
reflectiveness.5
In two cases, graduates were coded high for reflection but reported having no coach/
mentor during the programme, indicating that some graduates might be strong in their reflective
practice even without a coach/mentor.
The present study also set out to explore if programme graduates take any action based on the
results of their reflection. Most graduates (12) had plans for future similar situations. For example,
they mentioned gently encouraging students to talk to peers they do not usually converse with to
foster interaction between international and home students during class or including more examples
to make the class assignment less abstract for students. One out of these twelve teachers, however,
did not primarily think about student needs but rather considered redesigning the class session
based on her own interest and another one wanted to motivate students to do pre-class reading but
could not name any way how they want to do that.
In some cases, however, reflection tended to slide into generalities and abstract thoughts without
offering concrete examples. The graduate who described no fewer than four measures they had
already undertaken to improve student learning in the next edition of the course was quite an
exceptional case. These measures included making lectures interactive, introducing authentic
assessment tasks, and asking students to write three shorter assignments connected to session
topics instead of one extensive paper.
Contextual influences
Influence from the graduates’ context stood out strongly in this study. Overload from numerous
responsibilities outside of teaching was reported as the major constraining factor from the
institution, and was mentioned by seven graduates. One graduate explicitly linked overwork to a lack
of time for reflecting on and changing their teaching. Other frequently mentioned determinants
included inappropriate classroom architecture including seating arrangements and classroom
equipment (4 mentions), and institutionally determined ways of assessment (3 mentions). Additional
pressures were felt due to stress from potentially poor student evaluations, limited funding for
professional development, the need to secure external grants for course enhancement, and small
institutional recognition of good teaching. Further perceived constraints included some colleagues
not performing their duties properly, programmes failing to help students become proficient in
English, institutions not adapting mandatory course selections to the changing job market, and high
student numbers. Each of these factors was mentioned by only one graduate. Notably, three
graduates did not name any constraining factors.
Almost all graduates (17) could identify institutional resources that assist them in teaching. The most
frequently mentioned resource was the opportunities for further development as teachers offered
by the ED unit, with topics such as using technology in teaching or preventing burnout (10 mentions).
5
For example, one programme graduate (G4C) mentioned a class on conspiracy theories where students were
to guess a rule for composing a sequence of words. The graduate described that it took students a long time to
come up with the correct rule, though it was a simple one. This activity was judged as very effective in helping
students learn that people often believe in conspiracy theories not because they have pathological thinking but
due to cognitive bias. However, after describing the activity, the graduate did not reflect on how to further
improve it in the future.
72
Graduates also referred to the availability of information technologies—both hardware and
software—for use in teaching (6 mentions), provision of grants to develop teaching (3 mentions),
funding for student field trips and trips that can be used to learn about teaching, supportive
departmental heads, opportunities to have classes observed, and options to book classrooms with
specific type of seating (2 mentions each). One respondent (G1M) was particularly enthusiastic about
the institution providing grants for course development, considering it a great incentive to design
new courses. Two graduates (see Chapter 7 for their profiles) could not identify any positive factors
at the institutional level. The third one appreciated the opportunity to be observed while teaching
and the circulation of student feedback forms but dismissed everything else as “useless.”
Aside from their institution, twelve graduates felt that the wider national context also impacted their
teaching, citing examples such as contemporary political situation framing in-class discussions,
country-wide discourse about the graduates’ skills influencing course learning outcomes, and
governmental policies stipulating the number of theory-based and practice-based courses or student
numbers in classes. In contrast, seven graduates denied that the wider national context had any role
in their teaching.
Discussion
Student-centred learning
This study found that higher education teachers who graduated from an ED programme refer to
active learning more frequently than to any other aspect of student-centred learning. This result is in
line with findings from studies that examined English-language teachers’ perceptions of SCL
(Bremner, 2022), definitions of SCL in literature (Bremner, 2021) and views of SCL among students
and teachers from a university in the Philippines (Trinidad, 2020). Unlike previous studies, this
research demonstrates that, in the long term, ED programme graduates possess a relatively nuanced
understanding of SCL, showing potential for a more thorough application of the concept in their
course syllabi.
Reflective teaching
According to McAlpine et al. (2004), reflection enables teachers to access and build upon their prior
knowledge, thereby expanding their understanding and improving their teaching practice. This
implies that with increased teaching experience and regular reflection, teachers should develop
greater skill in reflective practice. Findings from Stes, Clement, and Van Petegem (2007) suggest a
feedback loop where greater teaching experience facilitates more effective reflection, and improved
reflection, in turn, enhances teaching practice. This study shows that while all programme graduates
demonstrate reflectiveness also over time, the reflective ability has not been uniform across all
individuals.
Past research indicates that immediately after completing an ED programme, graduates tend to find
it more challenging to demonstrate reflective practice compared to student-centredness (Pleschová
and McAlpine, 2016). This study finds that five and more years after the programme, this pattern
persists, as signalled by the balance of high and moderate ratings for student-centredness and
reflective teaching. Therefore, continued support in these areas could be crucial for sustained growth
in these teaching capacities.
Contextual factors
Existing literature underscores workload as a prime contextual factor that limits academic teachers
from investing into enhancement of their teaching (Pleschová and Simon, 2021; see also Giertz,
73
1996; Cannon and Hore, 2007). This theme also featured in current research. Graduates consistently
reported feeling not only pressured by research demands but also burdened by administrative and
other responsibilities. Interestingly, programme graduates from this research mostly do not equal
workload with having too many students enrolling their courses nor their complained about student
resistance to student-centred approaches, though these stand out from literature review (Pleschová
and Simon, 2021). In this research, only one graduate cited high student numbers as a constraint
(GS5), and another mentioned students’ passive attitudes (G3M). This seems to suggest that the ED
programmes examined here provided graduates with strategies to effectively manage large class
sizes and address initial student passivity.
Additionally, while the literature review identified negative attitudes from departmental colleagues
and institutional leaders among major institutional barriers (Pleschová and Simon, 2021), this issue
was raised by only one informant in this study (G3M). It seems that, with increased teaching
experience, programme graduates are better equipped to navigate relationships with colleagues and
mitigate the impact of unsupportive peers and superiors. Conversely, this study observed notable
dissatisfaction with teaching spaces, an issue not prominently discussed in other research (e.g.,
Pleschová and Simon, 2021). Given the substantial investments in university campuses over the past
fifteen years across all four institutions included in this study, it is surprising to see disappointment
with the teaching spaces. This finding indicates that the investments might not have adequately met
the requirements for environments conducive to student-centred teaching practices, such as
classrooms designed for active learning and group work, which promote trustful and non-hierarchical
relationships.
While a previous study into doctoral students’ perceptions of an ED programme identified
institutional teaching traditions as a major barrier to implementing student-centred learning
(Pleschová and Simon, 2021), in this research programme graduates did not cite this factor. Possibly,
because the graduates in the current study were in senior roles with decision-making authority over
their courses, they had accumulated sufficient teaching experience to confidently diverge from
traditional teaching methods.
In contrast to a different study (Stes, Clement and Van Petegem, 2007) that highlighted enthusiastic
reactions from colleagues and students, collaboration with fellow graduates, and supportive
institutional policies as key positive factors, this research did not confirm these. Instead, graduates
predominantly spoke about positive influence of educational development centres. This may be
because the current study was conducted nearly two decades later, when educational development
centres had become more active and their role in influencing the ways of teaching was more
prominent than before.
Conclusion
Changes in teaching resulting from educational development programmes often occur gradually, and
the benefits may take time to become fully apparent (Stewart, 2014), providing a strong rationale for
exploring the long-term impact of such programmes. This study uncovered that nearly all ED
programme graduates adopted a student-centred approach both in their conception of teaching and
in their practical teaching methods. However, there were notable variations in the depth of their
student-centredness, as evidenced by interviews with the graduates, their colleagues, and their
course materials. Similarly, while all graduates exhibited a capacity for reflective teaching, the level
of reflectiveness varied across individuals. These results suggest that providing ongoing support for
74
programme graduates, such as through workshops and coaching/ mentoring, could further enhance
programme graduates’ student-centredness and reflective abilities.
Because finding related to reflectiveness may have been influenced by the research method (some
programme graduates chose to reflect on a class that went well, others on a problematic session), for
future research it is recommended to ask programme graduates to reflect on both a successful class
and one that did not go as expected, or to focus specifically on a problematic session to encourage
deeper reflection.
It also appears that some programme graduates developed strategies to cope better with contextual
constraints or were more effective at utilising contextual enablers than others. However, institutions
should not leave their teachers to manage these challenges alone. Two recommendations for higher
education institutions emerge from this study. First, if institutions want the outcomes of ED
programmes to be sustained over the long term, they should avoid setting unrealistic research
publication targets for programme graduates or overburdening them with administrative and other
duties. Second, institutions should pay careful attention to teaching spaces, ensuring that they
support student-centred learning. Any investment in reconstructing premises or building new
learning spaces should align with the principles of student-centred learning.
The following chapters of this work will delve further into specific contextual factors that affect
academic teachers’ teaching, particularly teaching collaboration, perception of trust in teaching
approaches, and educational leadership.
References
Bremner, Nicholas (2021) The multiple meanings of ‘student-centred’ or ‘learner-centred’ education,
and the case for a more flexible approach to defining it. Comparative Education 57(2): 159-186:
10.1080/03050068.2020.1805863
Bremner, Nicholas (2022) What is learner-centred education? A qualitative study exploring the
perspectives of English language teachers in Colombia. Teaching English as a Second Language
Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ) 25(4): https://tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej100/a12.pdf
Giertz, Birgitta (1996) Long‐term effects of a programme for teacher training. International Journal
for Academic Development 1(2): 62-72: 10.1080/1360144960010209
Cannon, Robert, Hore, Terry (1997) The long‐term effects of ‘one‐shot’ professional development
courses: An Indonesian case study. International Journal for Academic Development 2(1): 35-42:
10.1080/1360144970020104
Gale, Helen (2011) The reluctant academic: early-career academics in a teaching-orientated
university, International Journal for Academic Development 16(3): 215-227:
10.1080/1360144X.2011.596705
McAlpine, Lynn, Weston, Cynthia, Berthiaume, Denis, Fairbank-Roch, Gail, Owen, Michelle (2004)
Reflection on teaching: Types and goals of reflection. Educational Research and Evaluation 10(4-6):
337-363: 10.1080/13803610512331383489
Nevgi, Anne (2013) The influence of the research philosophy and pedagogical management decisions
of the University of Helsinki on university teaching. A longitudinal study. In Simon, Eszter, Pleschová,
Gabriela (Eds.) Teacher development in higher education. Existing programs, Program Impact and
Future Trends. New York and Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 170-190.
75
Stes, Ann, Clement, Mieke, Van Petegem, Peter (2007) The effectiveness of a faculty training
programme: Long-term and institutional impact. International Journal for Academic Development
12(2): 99-109: 10.1080/13601440701604898
Pleschová, Gabriela, McAlpine, Lynn (2016) Helping teachers to focus on learning and reflect on their
teaching: What role does teaching context play? Studies in Educational Evaluation 48: 1-9:
10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.10.002
Pleschová, Gabriela, Simon, Agnes (2021) Doctoral students as early career university teachers: What
hinders and what helps them to embrace the essentials of good teaching? In Lee, Anne, Bongaardt,
Bob (Eds.) The Future of doctoral research. Challenges and opportunities, pp. 182-194:
10.4324/9781003015383-20
Rogers, Russell R. (2001) Reflection in higher education: A concept analysis. Innovative Higher
Education 26(1): 37–57: 10.1023/A:1010986404527
Stewart, Martyn (2014) Making sense of a teaching programme for university academics: Exploring
the longer-term effects. Teaching and Teacher Education 38: 89-98: 10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.006
Trinidad, Jose Eos (2020) Understanding student-centred learning in higher education: students’ and
teachers’ perceptions, challenges, and cognitive gaps Journal of Further and Higher Education 44(8):
1013-1023: 10.1080/0309877X.2019.1636214
76
Chapter 9. Teaching collaboration
Collaboration with others has the potential to improve teaching, thereby sustaining and advancing
what teachers learn from educational development (ED) programmes. Quinlan (1998) argues that
higher education teachers learn best about teaching by working together and sharing experiences
and insights with their colleagues. For Ashwin et al. (2020, p. x), teaching should be more of a
collective endeavour than an individual one. Abegglen, Burns, and Sinfield (2023, p. 33) assert that
“only through experiencing and enacting true collaboration” teachers can model and foster
collaboration among their students. Felten and Lambert (2020) demonstrate that such collaborative
relationships have ample benefits for students’ learning, careers and lives. Steyne et al. (2023)
observe that a high level of collegiality among co-teachers in a course encourages greater student
participation.
These benefits of teaching collaboration are supported by the presence of academic teachers’
networks, as reported in other literature. Interactions within these networks were found to
significantly impact members’ teaching (Roxå and Mårtensson, 2009), including how teachers
understand teaching, what teaching methods they employ, and how teachers improve their practice
(Byrne, Brown and Challen, 2010). According to McAlpine and Ashgar (2010), collegial interaction not
only influences thinking and practice but also shapes identity through how others perceive academics
as members of a community and who they aspire to become. Yet not all academic teachers engage in
teaching collaboration, often simply due to lack of awareness of its importance (Åkerlind and
Quinlan, 2001).
Building on these insights from the literature, this chapter explores the nature of teaching
collaboration among graduates of the four educational development (ED) programmes examined in
this study. The chapter begins by summarising what the literature says about teaching collaboration
among higher education teachers, including how it relates to their development as teachers. It then
presents findings from the current research, synthesised from interviews with programme graduates
and their colleagues. The chapter concludes with recommendations for higher education institutions
on how to foster teaching collaboration.
What counts as teaching collaboration and what the literature reports on it
This study uses the term “teaching collaboration” to denote the joint work of a teacher with one or
more individuals to enhance higher education teaching and learning, extending beyond merely
discussing teaching and learning. Often, such activities are mutual and reciprocal, where “problems
are identified and solutions are developed collectively, and where contributions are equally valued
and respected” (Abegglen, Burns and Sinfield, 2023: 33). In a teaching collaboration, teachers work
as a team, building upon each other’s strengths, compensating for individual weaknesses, and
assisting one another, thereby fostering a belief in collective self-efficacy (Steyne et al., 2023).
Teaching collaboration, as understood in this study, therefore implies more than an exchange of
ideas about what and how others teach, or the occasional seeking of advice on student issues,
although it may include these aspects. In this sense, the difference between teaching collaboration
and a regular teaching conversation is analogous to how Lewis and Ross (2012) differentiate between
Collaboration and collaboration in research. While Collaboration involves researchers designing
and/or undertaking a research project together and publishing the results jointly, collaboration
encompasses the discussion of research and ideas, as well as the sharing of feedback on research
work.
77
Roxå and Mårtensson argue that collaborating teachers create a “microculture”—a culturally formed
organisational entity—within which everyday interactions shape the development of teaching habits,
norms, traditions, and a shared identity among its members. Typically, a microculture is formed
within a department, a part of one, a workgroup, or a disciplinary community. These microcultures
tend to influence teachers towards certain behaviours, determining how teachers interact and which
teaching ideas are implemented or discarded. In this way, microcultures act as gatekeepers for
development and change (Roxå and Mårtensson, 2015).
The literature identifies various forms of teaching collaboration in higher education. Examples
include collaborative course design (Harp, Ziegenfuss and Lawler, 2008; Byrne, Brown and Challen,
2010), observation of teaching practice— live or video-recorded —followed by discussion or
feedback (Quinlan and Åkerlind, 2000; Byrne, Brown and Challen, 2010), informal or formal
mentoring, syllabus review, joint design of a new evaluation form for specific courses (Quinlan,
1998), submitting an entire course for peer review (Iqbal and Vigna, 2021), and participation in a
professional learning community (Cherrington et al., 2017).
Teaching collaboration can occur between two or more teachers, but it can also extend to
partnerships with academic developers, staff members such as librarians, practitioners in the field,
and even students—particularly when students are engaged as teaching consultants (for the latter,
see, for example, Cook-Sather et al., 2011). This chapter focuses on collaboration among higher
education teachers, as this is the type most frequently discussed in academic literature and was also
the predominant form of collaboration reported by the ED programme graduates from this research.
Teachers may collaborate on teaching with colleagues within their own department or discipline
(see, for example, Quinlan and Åkerlind, 2000) as well as with those outside their discipline (O’Keeffe
et al., 2021). A more advanced form of teaching collaboration is the professional learning community
(PLC), which centres on developing teaching in a specific area or aspect, such as the integration of
technology in teaching. This type of collaboration is typically structured and facilitated by educational
developers, and it can involve a variety of activities, including sharing teaching practices through
observations, joint reflection on teaching, collaborative research into teaching practices, attending
teaching conferences, and exchanging ideas and experiences during a regular seminar series
(Cherrington et al., 2017).
Self-reported gains from teaching collaboration include not only receiving praise but also valuable
critiques of teaching practices, enhancing knowledge and skills relevant to teaching, gaining a deeper
understanding of peers’ teaching philosophies and methods, improving time management, boosting
confidence in specific areas, and perceived benefits for students (Byrne, Brown and Challen, 2010).
Teaching collaboration has also been found to bridge divisions within departments, helping to unify
differing perspectives on teaching the discipline and fostering greater respect among colleagues
(Quinlan and Åkerlind, 2000). Being part of a teaching team can alleviate stress by providing
opportunities to collaboratively address challenges and develop solutions (Abegglen, Burns and
Sinfield, 2023).
Higher education teachers value the opportunity that collaboration presents to connect with
colleagues who are passionate about teaching (Cherrington et al., 2017) and to cultivate a sense of
belonging within a learning community (Byrne, Brown and Challen, 2010). Participation in
communities of practice, especially among new teachers engaged in an ED programme, has been
shown to compensate for a lack of departmental support (Warhurst, 2006). Collaborations with
colleagues from outside the institution can also introduce innovative teaching methods into the
78
home institution (Pleschová and Simon, 2024). The collegial nature of collaboration is evidenced in
the fact that teachers often find it difficult to distinguish between benefits gained as individuals and
those gained as part of a group (Byrne, Brown and Challen, 2010).
Some teachers acknowledge that hearing about others’ experiences has inspired them to engage in
greater reflection on their own teaching practices (Cherrington et al., 2017). This aligns with
theoretical assumptions about the role of collaboration in fostering reflective practice. According to
Schön’s concept of the reflective practitioner, teachers are believed to learn most effectively when
they can collaboratively construct knowledge with colleagues about problems that are directly
relevant to their experiences (Quinlan and Åkerlind, 2000). The only disadvantage of teaching
collaboration noted in the literature is the increased time demands; however, teachers involved in
such collaborations generally believe that the lessons learnt outweigh the costs (Byrne, Brown and
Challen, 2010).
The reported benefits of teaching collaboration indicate that it has the potential to encourage
changes in teaching perceptions and practices, aligning with the objectives of ED programmes.
However, evidence of such changes is limited. For example, a six-month teaching collaboration cited
in Quinlan and Åkerlind (2000) resulted in suggestions for teaching practice, but the rationales
behind different approaches were not explored. In a similar case, a teacher was merely inspired to
consider adopting a more integrated model of team teaching from colleagues, without any
substantial shift in teaching philosophy. Overall, researchers found little evidence that new practices
were linked to changes in teaching philosophies, though these appeared needed. Moreover, only in a
few instances were teachers prompted to rethink their core beliefs (Quinlan and Åkerlind, 2000).
In another example, a teaching collaboration encouraged departmental staff to frequently consult
the director of studies and initiate informal discussions about teaching, yet no shared understanding
of how to enhance teaching and learning within the department emerged (Bolander Laksov, Mann
and Dahlgren, 2008). These gaps in our understanding of teaching collaboration have led Cherrington
et al. (2017) to call for a more comprehensive exploration of its outcomes.
The lack of evidence showing teaching collaboration to consistently inspire change in thinking and
practice may be due to the fact that impactful collaboration requires sustained engagement with
specific aspects of teaching over time. This allows particular issues to be thoroughly explored,
debated, and reflected upon (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). Such a long-term commitment may be difficult
to maintain without institutional support. This support can include the institution actively
propagating collaboration as beneficial for academic teachers’ development, legitimising the
additional time required, monitoring the collaboration system, and encouraging the sharing of
insights gained through collaborative efforts (Byrne, Brown and Challen, 2010). Teaching
collaboration should also be recognised and rewarded in formal evaluations, creating incentives
especially for early-career teachers who are facing imminent promotion decisions (Quinlan, 1998).
The financial costs of fostering teaching collaboration are generally minimal, and in some cases, no
monetary investment is required—perhaps only covering refreshments during meetings (Quinlan and
Åkerlind, 2000). There are several funding schemes available for international exchanges, such as the
Erasmus+ programme in the European Union, which is already quite popular. However, institutional
backing for teaching collaboration does not imply that such collaboration should be mandated.
Teachers need to maintain personal autonomy within the process, and imposing rigid structures or
guidelines or making collaboration compulsory would likely be counterproductive (Byrne, Brown and
Challen, 2010; Mårtensson and Roxå, 2016).
79
Existing knowledge about teaching collaboration in higher education, as well as gaps in
understanding, inspired the formulation of research questions for this study, which addresses the
following six aspects of teaching collaboration:
1. How frequently do ED programme graduates engage in teaching collaboration?
2. With whom do graduates collaborate on teaching, and what benefits do they perceive from
this collaboration? What types of teaching collaboration have they developed?
3. What role does collaboration with former coaches/mentors from the ED programme play in
enhancing graduates’ practice?
4. How does teaching collaboration influence graduates in terms of their reflectiveness and
student-centred learning (SCL)?
5. Does teaching collaboration encourage changes in teaching perceptions and practice, and if
so, which types of collaboration, and in what ways?
6. Are graduates possibly creating and fostering similar webs of collaborative relationships for
their students?
Method
This section discusses the teaching collaboration of 19 graduates from four educational development
programmes, based on interviews conducted as part of this research. The graduates were not asked
directly about their teaching collaboration. Instead, they were prompted to reflect on whether their
teaching practices align with those of their departmental colleagues, whether they have colleagues
with whom they share a teaching approach, and what drives them to make changes in their teaching.
These prompts invited graduates to consider whom they collaborate with in their teaching. The
interviewers then delved deeper into the nature and perceived value of these collaborations.
Additionally, evidence of teaching collaboration was sought from those interview segments where
graduates discussed their conversations with colleagues about teaching. Aside from general
enquiries about their teaching practices, graduates from programmes with a coaching/mentoring
component were asked whether they maintained contact with their coach/mentor and were
encouraged to elaborate on their experiences with teaching collaboration.
Content analysis (Denscombe, 2010: 281-202) was performed to analyse collected data. The
interviews were moreover analysed holistically; for example, it was also considered that some
graduates described their teaching as a solitary endeavour, while others spoke of co-teaching and
the impact of working with others on their teaching practices. The understanding of graduates’
teaching collaboration was further enriched by interviews with their colleagues, including cases
where the colleagues were asked to characterise the graduate as a teacher. In instances where it was
unclear from the graduate’s interview whether they had engaged in teaching collaboration (such as
with graduates G4C, G3N, and G1M), the colleague interviews provided additional insights.
Teaching collaboration of graduates from ED programmes
Findings about graduates’ teaching collaborations are clustered according to six research questions,
from the frequency of teaching collaboration to whether it generates major conceptual changes or
shifts in practice.
80
More than half of graduates engage in teaching collaboration
In this study, slightly more than half of the programme graduates (10 out of 19) had taken part in at
least one form of teaching collaboration. Teaching collaboration was notably infrequent among
graduates from the Slovak Academy of Sciences, where only one graduate reported engaging in such
activities. In contrast, it was more prevalent among graduates from other institutions: three of the
five graduates from both Central European University (CEU) and Masaryk University (MUNI) and
three of the four graduates from Nottingham Trent University (NTU) reported participating in
teaching collaborations.
Graduates collaborate with different individuals and in a variety of ways
Most of the programme graduates involved in teaching collaborations (seven) work with colleagues
in their own departments. Two graduates partner with colleagues in the same discipline but outside
their institutions (G1S, G2C), one served as a mentor for a new participant in a development
programme from another department (G1M), and one continues to collaborate with their former
coach/mentor from the ED programme (G2M). Some graduates referred to multiple teaching
collaborations. The most common form of collaboration was co-teaching, reported by five graduates.
Other forms included jointly designing class sessions and courses (C3N), advising colleagues who are
developing new courses (G4N), offering guidance on teaching challenges (C2C, C4C), mentoring in an
ED programme (G1M) and observing the classes of junior teachers to provide feedback (G5C).
The fact that programme graduates and their colleagues frequently mentioned offering ideas, advice,
and feedback suggests that these graduates are valued by their peers for their teaching expertise. For
example, one of the graduates’ colleagues (C5M) referred to the extensive planning they did
together with the graduate—discussing what to teach, why, and how—and noted the absence of
similar planning when co-teaching with other colleagues. One graduate (C2C) was commended by a
colleague for their proactive approach in meeting with their successor to share teaching experiences
and materials for the same course—a practice that appears to be uncommon within their institution.
Another graduate (G1S) leads an international project that provides an opportunity to meet annually
with disciplinary colleagues from other countries to exchange experiences with various teaching
methods. Notably, students also participate in these meetings, contributing to the exchange. The
graduate finds these meetings a valuable source of inspiration for teaching and subsequently tests
some of presented methods in their own courses. Interestingly, only one graduate (G3N) mentioned
collaboration in the context of assessing student learning, specifically through moderating each
other’s assessments. Additionally, despite Nottingham Trent University having a professional learning
community dedicated to advancing practice and scholarship around decolonising and
internationalising the curriculum, none of the NTU graduates involved in this study appear to be part
of it.
Collaboration presumes a certain level of insight into each other’s teaching practices. Graduates who
were not engaged in any teaching collaboration often cited a lack of awareness of how their
colleagues teach. This was particularly evident in institutions where there was no system of peer
observation or where such observations were treated as mere formalities. For example, a colleague
of one graduate (C4S) mentioned that, although they were good friends, the last time they had
observed the graduate’s teaching was ten years ago, and they had no knowledge of what students
thought about the graduate’s teaching. Unsurprisingly, this graduate did not participate in any
teaching collaboration.
81
In contrast, another colleague (C4M) reported having a comprehensive understanding of what the
graduate was doing, owing to co-teaching two courses, engaging in conversations with their
students, and reviewing student feedback forms. One graduate (G2M) spoke positively about the
institution’s well-functioning peer observation system and was actively involved in various types of
teaching collaboration.
Sporadic collaboration with coaches/mentors from ED programmes
Teaching collaboration with former coaches/mentors from educational development programmes
appears to be rare. Although three of the four programmes included a coaching/mentoring
component, only one graduate from Masaryk University (G2M) reported continuing to discuss
teaching with their coach/mentor and attend their teaching development workshops. One graduate
(G3M) highly valued cooperation with their coach/mentor during the programme in part because this
person recognised their strengths in teaching, which normally does not happen in their department.
Because the coach/mentor is now on parental leave, they do not maintain ongoing contact. Another
graduate (G5M) remained connected with their coach/mentor through social media, but despite
their intentions, they had not managed to meet for the past two years. Some graduates reported no
ongoing exchange due to the passing of their former coach/mentor.
Programme graduates from Masaryk University and Nottingham Trent University did acknowledge
that working together on class or course design and co-facilitating classes was a common practice,
indicating that these institutions likely endorse teaching collaboration. For example, Masaryk
University has an established system of funding that can be used to support team teaching. Different
from that, none of the interviewed graduates or their colleagues mentioned specific institutional
support for continued collaboration with a coach/mentor. This lack of institutional backing may
explain why such collaborations are infrequent.
Graduates seek colleagues with similar values but learn from different styles and ideas
Some graduates openly spoke about teaching differently than departmental colleagues and criticised
their teaching styles as teacher-centred and resistant to innovation. The views and behaviours of
those departmental colleagues appear to discourage the graduates from collaborating on teaching.
For example, one graduate (G5M) remarked that their departmental colleagues had not changed
their teaching methods in over twenty years, using effectively the same approaches as when the
graduate was a student. This lack of innovation in their colleagues’ teaching styles made
collaboration less appealing. Another graduate (G2M) attempted to introduce a list of recommended
readings for a course they were co-teaching, inspired by practices observed at another institution.
However, their departmental colleagues rejected the proposal, arguing that the course was at the
higher education level, where students were expected to be autonomous learners. This resistance to
new ideas from colleagues made it challenging for the graduate to collaborate effectively within their
department.
Programme graduates seem to value different aspects of teaching collaboration. For example, one
graduate (G2N) highlighted the learning experience gained from observing how organised their coteacher
was. They also hoped that their colleague had similarly benefited from the collaboration and
noted that a comparable dynamic existed with two other colleagues. Another graduate (G4N)
recognised the opportunity to exchange ideas with colleagues, particularly during the process of
designing new courses. A different graduate (G2M) emphasised the importance of co-teaching
whenever possible, as they can learn from others’ teaching methods and engage in reflective
discussions about their shared experiences. This same graduate also mentioned engaging a teaching
82
assistant who was open to experimenting, which allowed them to trial the innovation. According to
the graduate, new approach was well-received by students, as reflected in their course feedback
forms. Another graduate (G5M) noted that they enjoy co-teaching a class with a colleague, and
students praise the experience, too.
Finding a colleague who teaches in the same way is not necessarily a prerequisite for entering into a
teaching collaboration. For instance, one graduate (G2N) collaborates with colleagues who have
different teaching styles and comfort levels with various methods, yet they maintain mutual respect
for each other’s approaches. Another graduate (G3M) seeks out colleagues who are motivated to
teach and share similar values related to teaching, which fosters productive collaboration. However,
when two colleagues co-teaching a course cannot find any common ground in their ways of teaching,
they may opt to work independently. In such cases, according to the graduate (G1S), each teacher
conducts their classes using their own approach and then informs the other of what they have
covered with the students. Although teaching collaboration is lacking in this setup, continuity is at
least maintained for the following session.
Unclear impact of teaching collaboration on reflectiveness
The existing literature suggests that teachers who engage in teaching collaboration might develop
more advanced reflective practices compared to those who do not work with others in their teaching
(Quinlan and Åkerlind, 2000; Cherrington et al., 2017). However, the data from this research show no
consistent link between teaching collaboration and the level of reflective practice among graduates.
As illustrated in the table below, while five programme graduates involved in teaching collaboration
were rated highly for their reflective practices, four received mid-level ratings, and one was rated
low. Conversely, two graduates who did not engage in any teaching collaboration were nonetheless
assessed as demonstrating a high level of reflectiveness. Similarly, there was no clear association
between teaching collaboration and the degree of student-centredness exhibited by the programme
graduates.
Additional data may be needed to explain the missing link between teaching collaborations and
reflectiveness. Developing high reflectiveness may require ED programme graduates to sustain
teaching collaboration over a longer period. Also, teaching collaborations which result in research
publications or that strive to develop student reflective skills may be much more effective than other
formats of teaching collaboration. Nevertheless, it is possible that teaching collaboration enhanced
reflection in certain programme graduates in a situation when other supportive factors were lacking.
This appears to be the case for graduates who expressed that their teaching contexts do not provide
sufficient support, prompting them to seek collaboration with colleagues outside their department or
institution (G1S, G2C, G3M).
83
Table. Teaching collaboration of programme graduates and their level of reflectiveness while
teaching
Slovak Academy of
Sciences
Central European
University
Nottingham Trent
University
Masaryk University
Graduate’s
code
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G1 G2 G3 G4 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
Teaching
collaboration
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Reflectiveness high low mid high mid
hig
h
high
low-
mid
mid mid mid mid mid high low high mid high high
Collaborators E E E D D D D D, I D, I D
D = departmental colleagues, I = institutional colleagues (other than from the same department), E =
colleagues external to the institution.
Unclear influence of teaching collaboration on major changes of thinking and practice
This research does not provide strong evidence that teaching collaboration prompts significant
changes in teaching perceptions or practices. Instead, teaching collaboration seems to enhance or
complement existing practices rather than fundamentally challenge or alter them. One notable
exception comes from a colleague (C5M) who praised a graduate for consistently introducing new
ideas into their teaching, innovating course content, and testing its effectiveness. This graduate was
reportedly inspired by observing and interacting with experts in the field. However, this example
pertains more to changes in teaching content rather than to the adoption of new teaching methods.
Teaching collaboration does not create collaborative relationships for students
This research did not find much evidence that programme graduates use their experiences from
teaching collaboration to foster collaborative relationships among their students. In one instance, the
graduate (G5M) spoke about role modelling cooperation during the class, which students
appreciated in course evaluations. Another graduate (G1S) mentioned involving students in
collaborative meetings with teachers from other institutions. However, neither the interviews with
other graduates nor with their colleagues suggested that the graduates actively engage in, or even
consider, this aspect of teaching. This could be due to a lack of an environment that encourages or
supports the creation of student collaboration initiatives. It is important to note that the research
subjects were not specifically asked about how they (might) translate their collaborative teaching
experiences into facilitating student collaborations.
Discussion
Although there are some studies that delve into the social relations of ED programmes participants
(Rienties and Hossein, 2015), the literature does not clearly address whether teaching collaboration
is common or rare among graduates of ED programmes. In this research, it was found that a small
majority of the graduates had indeed developed some form of teaching collaboration. The existence
and extent of such collaborations appear to be influenced by institutional culture. Graduates at
institutions with a well-functioning system of teaching observations and regular discussions about
teaching tend to have more opportunities to gain insights into their colleagues’ teaching-related
84
values, ideas, strengths, and weaknesses. This knowledge creates a foundation for developing
teaching collaborations within the department or across the institution.
In contrast, at institutions lacking this culture, graduates are often left with no option but to seek
teaching collaboration outside their institution. The fact that only three of those programme
graduates who did not engage in teaching collaboration with departmental colleagues pursued
external teaching collaboration suggests that cross-institutional collaboration is not sufficiently
supported. This aligns with what Roxå and Mårtensson (2009) find in their study: when teachers
perceive their departmental environment as supportive of conversations about teaching, they have
about twice as many conversational partners as those who consider their department indifferent or
even resistant to such conversations. This indicates that while teaching collaboration is possible and
can be beneficial, its prevalence is largely determined by the institutional environment and available
support structures.
ED programme graduates from this study were predominantly found to collaborate on teaching with
peer teachers, rather than with other individuals mentioned in the literature, such as academic
developers, coaches/mentors, or students. Most teaching collaborations involved working with
departmental colleagues. Consistent with previous studies (Byrne, Brown and Challen, 2010;
Cherrington et al., 2017), the graduates reported several positive outcomes from these
collaborations. These included learning from the diverse teaching methods employed by their
colleagues, improving course design through the exchange of ideas, finding allies with a similar
teaching philosophy to drive innovation, and in one case role-modelling cooperation for students
during the class.
Although the literature (Quinlan and Åkerlind, 2000; Cherrington et al., 2017) suggests that teaching
collaboration can enhance reflection, this research did not find strong evidence to support that
claim. The results align with previous studies indicating that achieving transformative change in
teaching perceptions and practices through collaboration is challenging (Quinlan and Åkerlind, 2000;
Bolander Laksov, Mann and Dahlgren, 2008), potentially requiring sustained engagement over time
(Feiman-Nemser, 2001). This research did not specifically investigate the duration or evolution of
teaching collaborations, limiting its ability to explain the relationship between collaboration and
change.
The literature finds that effective teaching collaboration involves jointly identifying problems and
solutions, with contributions being equally valued (Abegglen, Burns and Sinfield, 2023). This notion
appears consistent with the experiences of the programme graduates in this research. The graduates
often collaborated on class or course design, working together to address teaching challenges. While
the graduates themselves did not explicitly discuss the mutual valuation of contributions, their
colleagues acknowledged that other teachers greatly appreciate the graduates’ contributions in
these collaborative efforts.
Overall, microculture (Roxå and Mårtensson, 2015) within department seem to shape the teaching
collaborations of graduates from ED programmes. When graduates return to their departments,
which serve as their primary microcultures, they are likely to seek out colleagues who share similar
teaching values and a commitment to innovation. If such alignment is found, graduates are inclined
to engage in teaching collaborations within their departments. However, when departmental values
and teaching approaches diverge from what the graduates learned in their ED programmes, these
graduates tend to distance themselves from the departmental microculture. In such cases, to
maintain their student-centred approach and continue innovating, they choose to collaborate with
85
individuals outside their department—such as disciplinary colleagues from other institutions, former
colleagues, or fellow ED programme graduates—or teach independently.
In some context, like in the United Kingdom (UK), academic teachers are already expected to engage
in teaching collaborations; for example, the 2023 edition of the UK Professional Standards
Framework for Teaching asks HE teachers to demonstrate they collaborate with others to enhance
teaching practice. However, to foster long-term teaching innovation and student-centred
approaches, institutions should not expect ED programme graduates to start collaborating from their
own initiative—they should encourage and support teaching collaboration. Institutions can achieve
this, for example, by enhancing existing systems of peer observations and facilitating regular
discussions about teaching practices. Such initiatives can include cross-disciplinary observation and
cross-institutional exchange, enabling teachers to easily connect with collaborators who share similar
teaching philosophies and values consistent with those promoted by the ED programmes.
Conclusion
This research found that teaching collaboration is moderately common among graduates of
educational development programmes. Most graduates collaborate with colleagues within their own
departments, but some also extend their collaboration to academics from other disciplines,
institutions, and practitioners in their fields. Collaboration with former coaches/mentors from their
ED programmes is only occasional. The nature of teaching collaboration includes co-designing classes
and courses, team teaching, providing advice on teaching challenges, and sharing teaching
experiences to enhance effectiveness. When seeking out collaboration, graduates typically look for
colleagues who share similar teaching-related values, but when working with those colleagues they
find that engaging with diverse perspectives and ideas enriches their teaching practice.
Thanks to collaboration, graduates from ED programmes are able to experiment with new teaching
methods and introduce innovative elements. Teaching collaboration also empowers graduates to
resist departmental traditions, particularly when those traditions involve a teacher-centred approach
or adherence to established practices. This resistance to compliance allows programme graduates to
uphold and implement more progressive, student-centred approaches to teaching. Additionally, the
research suggests that graduates are highly regarded by their peers for their expertise in teaching.
It is unclear if teaching collaboration enhances graduates’ reflective capacities: this research did not
find sufficient evidence to suggest that teachers involved in collaborations possess stronger reflective
competences than those who do not engage in any teaching collaboration. However, collaboration
might support better reflection on teaching for programme graduates, particularly when other
incentives for reflection are lacking.
Similarly, this research did not find robust evidence that teaching collaboration has a transformative
impact on graduates’ teaching practices or their teaching-related thinking. Rather, teaching
collaboration appears to contribute incrementally to graduates’ teaching practices, leading to
modifications in teaching methods or the introduction of new elements, such as a reading list.
Furthermore, teaching collaboration does not inherently motivate teachers to encourage or foster
collaborative relationships among their students.
Finally, teaching collaboration is more prevalent when institutions incentivise or support it. For
example, only one graduate from the Slovak Academy of Sciences engaged in teaching collaboration,
which was driven by their own initiative and funded through an outside grant. In contrast, graduates
from other institutions frequently described teaching collaboration as a common practice in their
86
workplaces. These favourable conditions for collaboration were not the result of a specific scheme
but emerged from a well-functioning system of teaching observation and ample opportunities for
teachers to discuss their teaching practices. Such an environment allowed programme graduates to
gain insight into colleagues’ teaching styles and philosophies, facilitating the identification of suitable
collaborators.
For programme graduates whose departments do not foster a microculture supportive of studentcentred
learning and innovation, seeking teaching collaboration outside their department or
institution can be a practical solution. Without such external partnership, their teaching-related
values and practices may be influenced by the prevailing departmental habits and traditions,
potentially diverging from the student-centred approaches promoted in the ED programme.
Institutions play a crucial role in promoting and recognising teaching collaboration more broadly,
which can help maintain and reinforce the innovative teaching practices that ED programmes aim to
encourage. For future research it is recommended to explore how can experience from teaching
collaboration influence the creation of collaborative environments for students.
References
Åkerlind, Gerlese S., Quinlan, Kathleen M. (2001) Strengthening collegiality to enhance teaching,
research, and scholarly practice: An untapped resource for faculty development. To Improve the
Academy: A Journal of Educational Development: 10.1002/j.2334-4822.2001.tb00538.x
Ashwin, Paul, Boud, David, Calkins, Susanna, Coate, Kelly, Hallet, Fiona, Light, Gregory, Mårtensson,
Katarina, McArthur, Jan, McCune, Velda, McLean, Monica, Tooher, Michelle (2020) Reflective
teaching in higher education. 2nd
edition. London: Bloomsbury
Bolander Laksov, Klara, Mann, Sarah, Dahlgren, Lars Owe (2008) Developing a community of practice
around teaching: a case study. Higher Education Research and Development 27(2): 121-132:
10.1080/07294360701805259
Byrne, Jenny, Brown, Hazel, Challen, Doreen (2010) Peer development as an alternative to peer
observation: a tool to enhance professional development. International Journal for Academic
Development 15(3): 215-228: 10.1080/1360144X.2010.497685
Cherrington, Sue Anne, Macaskill, Rhian Salmon, Boniface, Suzanne, Shep, Sydney, Flutey, Jonny
(2017) Developing a pan-university professional learning community. International Journal for
Academic Development 23(4): 298-311: 10.1080/1360144X.2017.1399271
Cook-Sather, Alison, Hong, Emily, Moss, Tamarah, Williamson, Adam (2011) Developing new faculty
voice and agency through trustful, overlapping, faculty-faculty and student-faculty conversations.
International Journal for Academic Development 26(3): 347-359: 10.1080/1360144X.2021.1947296
Denscombe, Martyn (2010) The good research guide. For small-scale social research projects. 4th
edition. McGraw Hill and Open University Press.
Feiman-Nemser, Sharon (2001) From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen
and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record 103(6): 1013-1055 10.1111/0161-4681.00141
Felten, Peter, Lambert, Leo (2020) Relationship-rich education: How human connections drive
success in college. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Iqbal, Isabeau, Vigna, John (2021) Care in collaborations: opening up conversations about teaching,
International Journal for Academic Development 26(3): 383-387: 10.1080/1360144X.2021.1937183
87
Lewis, Jenny M, Ross, Sandy (2012) The how and why of academic collaboration: Disciplinary
differences and policy implications. Higher Education 64(5): 693-708: 10.1007/s10734-012-9521-8
Mårtensson, Katarina, Roxå, Torgnz (2016) Peer engagement for teaching and learning: competence,
autonomy and social solidarity in academic microcultures. Uniped 39(2): 131-143:
10.18261/issn.1893-8981-2016-02-04
McAlpine, Lynn, Asghar, Anila (2010) Enhancing academic climate: doctoral students as their own
developers. International Journal for Academic Development 15(2): 167-178:
10.1080/13601441003738392
O’Keeffe, Muireann, Crehan, Martina, Munro, Morag, Logan, Anna, Farrell, Ann Marie, Clarke, Eric,
Flood, Michelle, Ward, Monica, Andreeva, Tatiana, Van Egeraat, Chris, Heaney, Frances, Curran,
Declan, Clinton, Eric (2021) Exploring the role of peer observation of teaching in facilitating crossinstitutional
professional conversations about teaching and learning. International Journal for
Academic Development 26(3): 266–278: 10.1080/1360144X.2021.1954524
Pleschová, Gabriela, Simon, Agnes (2024) Internationalising student learning at the meso level: the
impact of grassroots leadership in a university in Central Europe. European Political Science 1-19:
10.1057/s41304-024-00475-8
Quinlan, Kathleen M. (1998) Promoting faculty learning about collaborative teaching. College
Teaching 46(2): 43-47: 10.1080/87567559809596233
Quinlan, Kathleen M, Åkerlind, Gerlese S. (2000) Factors affecting departmental peer collaboration
for faculty development: Two cases in context. Higher Education 40(1): 23-52:
10.1023/A:1004096306094
Rienties, Bart, Hosein, Anesa (2015) Unpacking (in)formal learning in an academic development
programme: a mixed-method social network perspective. International Journal for Academic
Development 20(2): 163-177: 10.1080/1360144X.2015.1029928
Roxå, Torgny, Mårtensson, Katarina (2009) Significant conversations and significant networks:
Exploring the backstage of the teaching arena. Studies in Higher Education 34(5): 547-559:
10.1080/03075070802597200
Roxå, Torgny, Mårtensson, Katarina (2015) Microcultures and informal learning: a heuristic guiding
analysis of conditions for informal learning in local higher education workplaces. International
Journal for Academic Development 20(2): 193-205: 10.1080/1360144X.2015.1029929
Steyne, Lynn, Simon, Agnes, Kam, Angeniet, Timár, Eszter, Beneš, Jan (2023) Team up: Lessons from
moving an academic writing course for university teachers in Slovakia and Czechia online. In Fenton,
James, Gimenez, Julio, Mansfield, Katherine, Percy, Martin, Spinillo, Mariangela (Eds.) International
perspectives on teaching and learning academic English in turbulent times. London: Routledge, pp.
155-167
UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education
(2023) Advance Higher Education: www.advance-he.ac.uk/teaching-and-learning/psf
Warhurst, Russell P. (2006) “We really felt part of something”: Participatory learning among peers
within a university teaching‐development community of practice. International Journal for Academic
Development 11(2): 111-122: doi.org/10.1080/13601440600924462
88
Ziegenfuss, Donna Harp, Lawler, Patricia A. (2008) Collaborative course design: changing the process,
acknowledging the context, and implications for academic development. International Journal for
Academic Development 13(3): 151-160: 10.1080/13601440802242309
89
Chapter 10. Trusting relationships of ED programme graduates
The perception of being trusted by others, including students, is crucial for teachers in higher
education to teach in a particular way (Roxå and Mårtensson, 2015; Simper, Maynard and
Mårtensson, 2022; Hamshire and Forsyth, 2024). Trust also plays a vital role in fostering a culture
where teachers feel comfortable in openly sharing the challenges they encounter (Stock and Trevitt,
2016). This openness enables teachers to reflect on problematic situations through conversations
with others (Pleschová et al., 2021). Moreover, trust encourages higher education teachers to be
receptive to new ideas (Iqbal and Vigna, 2021), especially in interactions with colleagues who hold
differing perspectives (Simper, Maynard and Mårtensson, 2022).
Given the significance of trust as discussed in academic literature, as well as in the everyday
interactions experienced by educational developers at the four institutions explored in this work, this
chapter investigates the role of trust in influencing the teaching practice of graduates of educational
development (ED) programmes. The chapter begins with an overview of findings from the trust
literature, including studies that have explored trust in the context of educational development and
higher education. It then details the methods and results of the current research. The chapter
concludes with recommendations for heads of department on how they can better support
programme graduates by expressing trust in them and fostering trustful relationships within the
department.
Findings from the trust literature
The results of past research are relevant to this study as they help to explain how perceptions of
being trusted influence programme graduates’ teaching practice, reflectiveness, and capacity to
innovate in their teaching. Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) define trust as a psychological state
in which an actor (the trustor) holds positive expectations about the intentions and behaviour of
another actor (the trustee). This state results in the trustor’s willingness to accept vulnerability and
take risks with the trustee. De Vries (2005) builds on this, adding that the trustor also expects the
trustee to consider the trustor’s interests in their actions.
Willis and Strivens (2015) distinguish between cognition-based trust that is rooted in beliefs about
another person’s reliability and dependability and affect-based trust grounded in reciprocal
interpersonal care and concern. Glessmer, Persson, and Forsyth (in press) uncover that higher
education teachers’ trustworthiness, as perceived by students, is shaped by three main factors:
cognition (demonstrating knowledge, skills, and competence), affect (showing interpersonal care and
concern), and values (signalling a commitment to principles). Similarly, Kharouf, Sekhon and Kumar
Roy (2015) report that students trust their higher education when it holds strong values that align
with those of the students and if teachers show they value students, along with the institution
manifesting ability, benevolence, integrity, reliability and openness.
Trust and teaching practice
Existing studies suggest that trust enables individuals within a group to engage in practice with a
certain flexibility. In other words, when individuals feel trusted by their peers, they have the freedom
to make decisions based on their specific experiences of situations, without the need to constantly
renegotiate rules with other colleagues (Roxå and Mårtensson, 2015). Trust becomes particularly
empowering when it is grounded in reciprocity and peer-based relationships (de Lange and Wittek,
2022).
90
Care plays a crucial role in fostering trust. When teachers show care for their students’ experiences,
for improving their own teaching practice, and for their colleagues, it helps build a foundation of
trust (Timmermans et al., 2018; Iqbal and Vigna, 2021). Care is also closely linked to student-centred
learning, as teachers’ care for who students are as individuals and how and what they learn from
each class has been identified as an important feature of student-centred practice (Tang and WalkerGleaves,
2022).
Trust and reflectiveness
Trust fosters an environment conducive to reflection (Stocks and Trevitt, 2016). In situations where
trust between teachers is lacking, discussions about teaching tend to be limited in both scope and
frequency, addressing only the most essential topics (Simon and Pleschová, 2021). Trust not only
facilitates these pedagogical conversations but also helps to generate or reinforce trust among
participants (Stacey and Chan, 2021). This is particularly true when such dialogues occur between
colleagues from different disciplines (Cook-Sather, Hong and Moss, 2021). Trusting colleagues with
diverse viewpoints enables the exploration of assumptions, beliefs, and feelings about teaching,
including uncertainties and challenges. This can lead to meaningful shifts in long-held perceptions of
teaching (Iqbal and Vigna, 2021; Timmermans et al., 2018).
Trust and innovation of teaching
Trust fosters interactions between individuals with differing perspectives, allowing for the
consideration and adoption of new ideas and concepts (Simper, Maynard and Mårtensson, 2022).
This openness to innovation, which stems from trust, serves as a catalyst for risk-taking and
professional growth (West et al., 2017: 24). In specific areas like assessment, trust-based
relationships have been identified as drivers of quality-focused changes, particularly when teachers
feel trusted by their superiors (Simper, Maynard and Mårtensson, 2022). Trust, therefore, seems to
encourage teachers to experiment with new teaching practices and refine them to enhance student
learning outcomes.
Based on what the literature posits on trust in higher education and educational development, the
study chose to address the following research questions:
1. Is the ED programme graduates’ perception of being trusted by a superior (head of
department) associated with student-centred teaching practice?
2. Is this perception of being trusted by a superior related to reflective teaching?
3. Does the perception of being trusted lead to teaching innovation?
4. Is there a difference between how the superiors and colleagues trust programme graduates?
Methods
This chapter draws upon data collected from interviews with the 19 educational development
programme graduates from four higher education institutions featured in this study, along with their
colleagues. As a first step, the level of perceived trust in the programme graduates by their superiors
was established. One set of interview questions centred on the graduates’ perceptions of trust. They
were asked whether they felt trusted by their superior to teach in a student-centred way and to
innovate their teaching. Because all programme graduates had five and more years of teaching
experience, this trust was based on their actual teaching practice. The head of department (HoD) was
selected to represent the superior as HoDs usually have major decision-making powers over teaching
91
in the department. Graduates who indicated that they felt trusted were prompted to explain what
led them to this perception. Those who signalled only some trust were asked to provide further
detail on what made them think so.
As with other streams of this research, two coders independently reviewed the interview transcripts
and assigned codes based on the responses. The coding framework included four potential
categories: 1) the graduate feels trusted, 2) the graduate does not feel trusted, 3) the graduate feels
ambivalent, i.e., perceives reasons both to feel trusted and not trusted, and 4) there is insufficient
information to determine. The first round of coding was generally straightforward, as most graduates
began their responses by explicitly stating whether or not they had sense of trust, followed by
further explanation. In the few cases where the coders initially disagreed on the assigned code, they
discussed their differences until they reached a consensus. For some codes, the coders noted that
the graduates’ perceptions of being trusted were linked to a lack of care and disinterest, prompting a
review of the codes. This review revealed that some statements coded as “the graduate feels
trusted” and “the graduate feels ambivalent” contained similar expressions indicating a lack of care
or attention from the superior. Therefore, a new category was created: 5) the graduate feels
indifference.
To address the first two research questions, each graduate’s perception of trust was compared with
their student-centeredness and reflective teaching, which had been coded based on the entire
interview and the course syllabus submitted for this research (see Chapter 2 for details on the coding
process). To answer the third question, information gathered from the trust-specific questions was
cross-checked with what graduates said in other parts of the interview. Particular attention was
given to responses where graduates were asked if they had presented at a teaching and learning
conference or had published a paper on teaching and learning, because these typically aim to
disseminate outcomes of teaching innovations or at least express interest in learning more about
teaching and innovating it.
Further evidence of innovative teaching was sought from the interviews with the graduates’
colleagues, particularly from the part where they were asked to characterise the graduate.
Colleagues were left to define what innovative teaching meant to them, allowing innovation to be
understood as context-bound, i.e., defined by how it was perceived within the institution. As for the
fourth research question, the trust-related statements from the graduates and their colleagues were
coded using deductive coding (Denscombe, 2010: 282) if they corresponded with cognition, affect or
values. Resulting codes were then compared and contrasted.
Trust as a potential determinant of programme graduates’ teaching practice
The results of the current study are organised around four key research questions: the implications
of feeling trusted by a superior for graduates’ 1) teaching practice, 2) reflectiveness, 3) innovation in
teaching, and 4) a presentation of how superiors and colleagues voiced their trust in the graduate.
Trust and teaching practice
As summarised in the accompanying Table, slightly more than half of the programme graduates (10
out of 19) reported feeling trusted by their head of department to teach in a student-centred way
and to innovate in their teaching. Six graduates expressed indifference, one was ambivalent about
whether they were trusted by their HoD, and none reported feeling distrusted. In two cases (G2S,
G3C), there was not enough information to make a definitive judgment about their perception of
trust. These graduates had focused a considerable amount of time discussing their previous HoD, by
92
whom they did not feel trusted, and their responses did not clearly indicate whether they felt trusted
by their current HoD.
For those graduates who perceived themselves as being trusted, this was because of shared
teaching-related principles. For example, one graduate (G2N) remarked, “Yes, I feel trusted. I feel like
the head of department shares my philosophy around some of the things that I teach.” Another
graduate (G2C) stated, “I think that’s just the same vision that we share at the departmental level,
and the department head always encourages our participation in workshops that are held. There is
also the head of the centre for teaching, she also conducts training courses herself where she
continuously talks about the importance of student-centred teaching. So that’s why I see that there’s
complete trust when it comes to the way we teach.”
Another group of graduates (G1S, G3S, G1N, G1M, G3M, G5M) reported feeling trusted, but at the
same time, they linked this perception to the considerable freedom they experienced in their
teaching, a lack of care from their superior, or their superior’s indifference regarding their teaching
practices. One graduate noted, “We have a kind of freedom. ...I would say that people [superiors]
don’t care. If there is no specific problem, they do not pay too much attention to the quality of
teaching. They would speak about the quality of teaching if there was some problem, let’s say there
will be some negative feedback that teaching is bad.” Another graduate remarked, “They give us the
freedom. The most important are the results. The way you teach doesn’t interest anybody.” A third
graduate commented, “[The HoD] believes we are doing our work responsibly. ... it’s as if he doesn’t
address the quality [of what we do] at all.” A different graduate shared, “I feel trusted. I don’t know
why. They just let me get on with it, I suppose. I don’t cause any problems.” Another one expressed
something similar, saying, “[I feel] completely trusted, completely. [But] I don’t know if it is trust or
disinterest.”
Ambivalence was demonstrated through statements indicating both a perception of trust and
distrust. That graduate (G4C) said, “I do feel like they respect me, but does they trust me concerning
that? They don’t really give me a lot of space to be creative. When it comes to actually doing things,
they are imposed on me. But at the same time, I’m being told that what I’m doing is very interesting.
So, trust is a weird thing, right? It’s tied to respect, which I think is there, but there might be other
reasons why a person might not give you the opportunity to spread your wings. It’s not necessarily a
lack of trust in your skills; it could be a lack of trust in you as a person.”
When examining the relationship between the perception of being trusted and student-centred
learning, nine of the ten graduates who felt trusted by their HoD were assessed as highly studentcentred
in their teaching. An exception was a graduate (G5S) who felt trusted but demonstrated a
teacher-centred practice. This graduate appeared to interpret trust as permission to teach in a way
they personally deemed appropriate. Graduates who expressed ambivalence or indifference were
sometimes assessed high (3) and other times as mid or mid-high (3) for student-centredness.
Perceptions of being trusted to teach in a student-centred way and innovate teaching differed across
the four institutions. Whereas at Nottingham Trent University, three of the four interviewed
graduates felt trusted and one felt indifferent and at Central European University, three of the five
graduates felt trusted and one was ambivalent, only two of the five graduates from both the Slovak
Academy of Sciences and Masaryk University reported a trustful relationship with their superior.
Although none of the graduates indicated feelings of distrust, the frequency of perceived
indifference toward teaching is alarming.
93
Table. Programme graduates’ perceptions of trust from their head of department, studentcentredness,
reflective practice, and teaching publications
Slovakia CEU Nottingham Masaryk University
Graduate’s
code
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G1 G2 G3 G4 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
Perception of
being trusted
by HoD
I ? I ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ? A ✓ I ✓ ✓ ✓ I ✓ I ✓ I
Student-
centeredness
high mid high high no high high mid
mid-
high
high mid high high high mid high high high high
Reflectiveness
high low mid high mid high high
low-
mid
mid mid mid mid mid high low high mid high high
Paper
presented
* * * * * * * * *
Paper
published
* * * *
✓ = the graduate feels trusted, I = the graduate feels indifference, A = ambivalence, i.e. the graduate
sees the reasons both to feel trusted and not, ? = there is insufficient information to determine, * =
the graduate presented/published a paper about teaching and learning
Trust and reflectiveness
This research revealed a notable link between graduates’ perception of being trusted to teach in a
student-centred way and their reflective practice. While some graduates who felt trusted by their
HoD were assessed as highly reflective and others demonstrated reflectiveness at a mid-level, when
graduates sensed indifference or ambivalence from their superior, five out of seven (G3S, G4C, G1N,
G1M, G3M) showed suboptimal levels of reflectiveness. Since trust was not always associated with
reflectiveness, it is possible that trust from various sources—beyond just the HoD—may influence
reflective practice. Colleagues, peers, or even students who express trust in the programme
graduate, and in whom the graduate places trust when discussing teaching, are likely to contribute to
fostering reflective practice. As noted in the previous chapter, the fact that some graduates chose to
reflect on a class that went well rather than poorly may also have played some role here.
Trust and innovation of teaching
Of the 19 graduates interviewed, about a third (7) had presented a paper on teaching and learning,
and four had published a teaching-related paper. One graduate, for example, presented at a
departmental seminar on using freehand drawings as a way to express ideas that cannot easily be
communicated orally. Further examples included presenting papers on techniques for engaging
students in online settings and on the design of their own course, including syllabus development. As
for publications, one graduate had a paper under review on the use of the Padlet app in teaching
international relations. Another graduate had published two papers—one on developing student
skills and another on their institution’s approach to supporting diverse students. A final graduate had
authored a paper on student conceptual thinking.
94
The data did not reveal any clear connection relating the presentation at pedagogical events or
contributions to journals with the perception of feeling trusted by the head of department. Some
graduates who felt trusted by their HoD actively presented at academic gatherings and/or published
papers (G1C, G5C, G4M), while others had not done so (G4S, G5S, G2C, G2N, G3N, G4N). Similarly, in
one case where it was difficult to determine if there was a perception of trust, the graduate was an
active presenter and journal contributor (G2S). Graduates who expressed indifference also varied in
their teaching events and journal contributions. This suggests that trust from the HoD may not be a
significant factor in motivating presentations or publications about teaching. One graduate (G4C)
explicitly linked their teaching conference presentation to encouragement from a colleague, stating
that [colleague name] “was kind of prompting me to apply, and I was really happy about that
because I wasn’t really thinking about it before because I never really thought about myself as a, you
know, education expert.”
Other factors, such as intrinsic motivation, appear to play a more significant role in prompting
graduates to engage in and share teaching-related innovations at pedagogical events and in journals.
Another possible explanation for this finding is that some graduates present and publish on a range
of issues related to teaching and learning—for example, institutional approaches to diverse
students—rather than exclusively focusing on their own teaching innovations.
When evidence about graduates’ innovative practice was sought through colleague interviews,
several challenges emerged due to varying perceptions of innovative teaching across different
institutions. For example, none of the four colleagues interviewed from Nottingham Trent University
described the graduate as innovative—even if interviews with the graduates suggested they were
using novel approaches. In contrast, with one exception (C3C), colleagues from other institutions
generally spoke about the graduates as being innovative, praising them for using the latest
technology in teaching, teaching via simulations or engaging practitioners as guest teachers.
Overall, the data collected indicate that a relatively small number of programme graduates present
at teaching-related events or publish in journals. Many graduates attribute this to a lack of capacity
due to competing academic duties. One graduate (G5M) explained, “I really enjoy it. There are
always things to improve, but I can't manage it all within the context of other responsibilities as an
academic.”
Graduates’ trustworthiness as perceived by superiors and colleagues
Data analysis revealed an important distinction between how programme graduates perceived trust
from their head of department and how their colleagues described trusting them as teachers. While
graduates’ perceptions of trust from their HoD suggested a one-dimensional, cognition-based form
of trust, the trust their colleagues placed in them appeared more complex, involving a combination
of cognition-, affect-, and value-based trust.
Programme graduates often described the trust they felt from their HoD as being rooted in shared
ideas, purposes, or visions about teaching, as well as in a mutual respect for skills and a confidence
that their work would be completed to a high standard. This trust seemed to originate from
knowledge, skills, and competences. For example, one graduate (G4N) explained, “I have been given
quite a lot of freedom in terms of designing a number of courses, so the [course name] that I told you
about—that’s just been my idea, and I have got a lot of support with that.” Another graduate (G2M)
described how they and their superior inspire each other to use new materials or methods in their
teaching.
95
In contrast, the trust expressed by colleagues was more nuanced, reflecting a blend of cognitionbased
trust (respect for skills and knowledge), affect-based trust (interpersonal care and concern),
and value-based trust (shared principles or ethics). When colleagues were asked to characterise the
graduates and report what students said about them, they frequently described the graduates as
highly competent and organised, excelling in areas such as class structure, theory, real-world
applications, and course design. The graduates were portrayed as effective in engaging students and
focusing on what students need to learn. They were acknowledged for their skill in structuring
materials and for being very professional in designing new courses.
At the same time, colleagues characterised ED programme graduates as empathetic and attentive to
students’ individual needs, and such descriptions featured even more prominently than respect for
their skills and knowledge. Colleagues pointed to the graduates’ ability to establish a close
connection with students, showing kindness and care beyond the classroom. Care was repeatedly
raised as something that increased the graduates’ trustworthiness in the eyes of their colleagues.
This care extended to supporting students personally and building relationships that went beyond
traditional academic boundaries. One colleague mentioned how a programme graduate was not in a
hurry to leave the classroom after a session ended, while another emphasised that students often
saw the graduate in a more human, approachable role, as opposed to the typical “serious academic”
persona. Another example highlighted how a graduate enjoyed collaborating with students, cocreating
elements of the class with them. Graduates were also said to adjust their teaching
dynamically based on student needs, such as modifying class plans to accommodate more discussion
on a particular topic or starting each class by connecting with students and checking in on their
progress.
One colleague (C2N) put it like this: “They [students] love it [the class]. I know it in some cases from
first-hand experience because they [students] have told me, in other cases, we know it from
feedback via the university evaluation system.” A different colleague (C4C) remarked, “In terms of
the social dynamics of the classroom, [they] are a very thoughtful teacher. And just given the fact
that so many of [their] students are struggling right now with the intensification of the crisis in the
Middle East, [they] really are somebody who thinks about how to support students beyond the
classroom but for the purposes of academic development.” Another colleague (C4N) highlighted a
positive interaction between the graduate and their students, sharing a student’s feedback: “He [a
student] said: ‘Oh, [graduate’s name] is great. You know, like when [they] kind of walk around the
room and talk to us.’ And yeah, that [programme graduate] had a great attitude, and students really
liked them.” Similarly, a different colleague (C1N) noted, “[Graduate name] seems, yeah, very
approachable by students. They like it. And it looks like [the graduate] is able to build a good rapport
with them” [students].
Acting on principle, i.e., values-based trust was also mentioned, though only in two interviews. Both
colleagues highlighted the graduates’ fairness, particularly in their interactions with students. One
colleague referred to the graduate being fair when assessing students (C3M), while another pointed
out that the graduate demonstrated fairness in their overall treatment of students (C4S).
Discussion
The findings from this research align with existing literature, stressing the importance of trust in
shaping teachers’ practices. Specifically, the perception of being trusted by others matters for
teaching practice, supporting the work of Roxå and Mårtensson (2015) and Simper, Maynard, and
Mårtensson (2022). Although most programme graduates (10) believed their superior trusted them
96
to teach in a student-centred way and these were usually graduates with high student-centred
teaching practices, in the case of seven graduates, trust was not established and their level of
student-centredness differed. One possible factor explaining superiors’ trust may be whether they
actually valued student-centred learning or not.
In line with literature suggesting that trust fosters a culture conducive to discussing teaching
struggles and engaging in reflection (Stocks and Trevitt, 2016; Timmermans et al., 2018; Pleschová et
al., 2021), this study found the perception of trust from a superior being linked with reflective
practices. In five out of seven cases, indifference from the HoD (unless there was a problem) was
associated with a mid or low level of reflectiveness, indicating that a lack of trust seems to affect
reflectiveness more significantly than the presence of trust.
Additionally, while trust is known to encourage openness to new ideas and innovation in teaching
(Iqbal and Vigna, 2021; Simper, Maynard, and Mårtensson, 2022), this study did not confirm that
trust from superiors correlates with innovative practices as measured by presentations and
publications about teaching. This may be due to the study’s reliance on these metrics as proxies for
innovation, as well as the lack of direct inquiry into trust from colleagues, which might play a role in
fostering innovation. Nevertheless, trust appears to be important for teaching innovation. Some
programme graduates in this study perceived freedom to innovate because they felt trusted by their
superior. Even if a teaching innovation failed and received poor feedback from students, the
graduates felt secure that their superior would be understanding. Other graduates, however,
perceived freedom due to their superior’s indifference. These graduates, when innovating, had to be
highly motivated and mindful of the risk involved. If an innovation proved unsuccessful, they risked
facing some form of penalty.
The study also showed that perceptions of trust vary between graduates and colleagues. Graduates’
feelings of being trusted by their HoD were mostly associated with cognition-based trust, focusing on
competence. In contrast, colleagues’ descriptions of trust in the graduates included elements of
cognition-, affect-, and value-based trust, with affect-based trust being particularly prominent. This
indicates that colleagues—whom graduates nominated for their insight into their teaching—have a
more nuanced understanding of trust than the superiors. Care for student experience stood out as an
affective feature of programme graduates that contributed towards colleagues viewing them as
trustworthy, echoing the findings of Timmermans et al. (2018) and Iqbal and Vigna (2021).
To enhance the quality and impact of trust within academic departments, it is recommended that
heads of department gain more insight into their faculty members’ teaching practices. This can be
achieved through inviting them to present on their teaching innovation during departmental
meetings, undertaking a teaching observation, initiating discussions with other teachers and
students, engaging in co-teaching or encouraging teachers to write papers on student learning. By
cultivating a more comprehensive and informed understanding of teaching, heads of department can
foster more complex and supportive trust relationships. This, combined with the trust of colleagues,
could strengthen graduates’ student-centred and reflective practices, as well as support innovation in
teaching. This is important, as two of the programmes assessed in this study—those offered by
Nottingham Trent University and the Slovak Academy of Sciences—expect their graduates to
innovate in their teaching.
Conclusion
This chapter explored whether programme graduates feel trusted by their head of department to
teach in a student-centred way and innovate teaching, and whether this perception translated into
97
student-centred, reflective, and innovative teaching practices. A majority of graduates (10 out of 19)
felt trusted by their HoD and they typically attributed their sense of trust to shared ideas and values
related to teaching. Six programme graduates felt that the freedom they experienced in their
teaching stemmed more from indifference and lack of care than from genuine support and one was
unsure about being trusted.
Graduates who believed their HoD trusted them were generally assessed as high in student-centred
learning. At the same time, perceptions of indifference and ambivalence related to mid or low-level
reflective teaching practices. Due to the small sample and a qualitative nature of this study, these
findings should not be interpreted as statistically generalisable. The level of teaching innovation,
measured through presentations and journal publications about teaching and learning, was relatively
low, with only seven graduates presenting at teaching-related events and four publishing such
papers.
Interviews with colleagues of the programme graduates indicated that they placed considerable trust
in the graduates as teachers. This trust was described as more complex and multifaceted,
encompassing cognition-, affect-, and value-based elements, with a predominance of affect-based
trust. In contrast, graduates’ perceptions of trust from their HoD were primarily cognition-based. This
suggests that colleagues, with their closer and more nuanced understanding of graduates’ teaching
practices, may provide a more comprehensive view of trust compared to heads of department, who
might need to invest more in understanding graduates’ teaching-related perceptions and practices.
References
Cook-Sather, Alison, Hong, Emily, Moss, Tamarah (2021) Developing new faculty voice and agency
through trustful, overlapping, faculty-faculty and student-faculty conversations. International Journal
for Academic Development 26(3): 347-359: 10.1080/1360144X.2021.1947296
de Lange, Thomas, Wittek, Anne Line (2022) Analysing the constitution of trust in peer-based teacher
mentoring groups – a sociocultural perspective. Teaching in Higher Education 27(3): 337-351:
10.1080/13562517.2020.1724936
de Vries, Michael S. (2005) Trust and governance practices among local leaders. International Review
of Administrative Sciences 71(3): 405-424: 10.1177/0020852305057577
Denscombe, Martyn (2010) The good research guide. For small-scale social research projects. 4th
edition. McGraw Hill and Open University Press
Glessmer, Mirjam, Persson, Peter, Forsyth Rachel (in press) Engineering students trust teachers who
ask, listen, and respond. International Journal for Academic Development
Hamshire, Claire, Forsyth, Rachel (14 May 2024): Facilitating conversations about race: staff views on
the importance of accountability and trust in a student-led project, International Journal for
Academic Development: 10.1080/1360144X.2024.2349929
Iqbal, Isabeau, Vigna, John (2021) Care in collaborations: opening up conversations about teaching,
International Journal for Academic Development 26(3): 383-387: 10.1080/1360144X.2021.1937183
Kharouf, Husni, Sekhon, Harjit, Kumar Roy, Sanjit (2015) The components of trustworthiness for
higher education: a transnational perspective. Studies in Higher Education 40(7): 1239-1255:
10.1080/03075079.2014.881352
98
Mayer, Roger C., Davis, James H., Schoorman, David F. (1995) An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academic Management Review 20(3): 709-734. 10.5465/AMR.2007.24348410
Pleschová, Gabriela, Roxå, Torgny, Thomson Kate Eileen, Felten, Peter (2021) Conversations that
make meaningful change in teaching, teachers, and academic development, International Journal for
Academic Development 26(3): 201-209: 10.1080/1360144X.2021.1958446
Roxå, Torgny, Mårtensson, Katarina (2015) Microcultures and informal learning: a heuristic guiding
analysis of conditions for informal learning in local higher education workplaces. International
Journal for Academic Development 20(2): 193-205: 10.1080/1360144X.2015.1029929
Simon, Eszter; Pleschová, Gabriela (2021) PhD students, significant others, and pedagogical
conversations. The importance of trusting relationships for academic development. International
Journal for Academic Development 26(3): 279-291: 10.1080/1360144X.2021.1958446
Simper, Natalie, Maynard, Nicoleta, Mårtensson, Katarina (2022) Informal academic networks and
the value of significant social interactions in supporting quality assessment practices. Higher
Education Research & Development 41(4): 1277-1293: 10.1080/07294360.2021.1896481
Stacey, Pamela, Chan, KinHo (2021) Significant conversations at the intersection of co-teaching and
student-faculty partnership. International Journal for Academic Development 26(3): 360-372:
10.1080/1360144X.2021.1941035
Stocks, Claire, Trevitt, Chris (2016) The place of trust in continuing professional learning programmes:
supporting authentic reflection in portfolio assessment. International Journal for Academic
Development 21(3): 219-229: 10.1080/1360144X.2016.1188819
Tang, Anne L. L, Walker‑Gleaves, Caroline (2022) Hong Kong university teachers’ conceptions and
articulation of teacher care: towards building a model of caring pedagogy. Higher Education 83(2):
503-526: 10.1007/s10734-020-00675-3
Timmermans, Julie A., Bruni, Carmen, Gorbet, Rob, Moffatt, Barbara, Stubley, Gordon, Williams,
Diane, Holmes, Trevor (2018) The flourishing of care in a multidisciplinary Faculty Learning
Community. International Journal for Academic Development 23(4): 367-373:
10.1080/1360144X.2018.1521335
Tschannen-Moran, Megan, Hoy, Wayne K. (2000) A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning,
and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research 70(4): 547-593: 10.2307/1170781
West, Kim, Hoessler, Carolyn, Bennetch, Rebekah, Ewert-Bauer, Tereigh, Wilson, Mary, Beaudoin,
Jean-Pascal, Ellis, Donna E., Brown, Veronica M., Timmermans, Julie A., Verwoord, Roselynn, Kenny,
Natasha A. (2017). Educational Development Guide Series: No. 2. Rapport-Building for Educational
Developers. Ottawa, ON: Educational Developers Caucus: www.stlhe.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2016/03/EDC-Guide-No-2-FINAL.pdf
99
Chapter 11. ED programme graduates serving as educational leaders
Educational leaders play a crucial role in transforming teaching and learning practices in higher
education. These leaders assist colleagues in creating impactful learning and teaching experiences
(Laggini Fiore, 2023). They serve as a source of inspiration (Kelly, 2023) and enable the professional
growth of others (Wu and Chng, 2023), often by initiating and nurturing teaching collaborations
(Fields, Kenny and Mueller, 2019). The influence of educational leaders is evident within their
departments, whether they focus on a single issue, such as promoting innovative teaching methods,
or address multiple concerns, such as gender equality and student-centred learning (Pleschová and
Simon, 2024). Recent case studies (Lang, 2023) and the everyday experiences of educational
developers and academic teachers across different contexts (Wu and Chng, 2023; Crone et al., 2024)
demonstrate that without individuals willing to take responsibility, confront challenges, and guide
others, little change would occur in established teaching and learning practices.
Given the significance placed on educational leadership, this chapter explores the role of graduates
of educational development (ED) programmes as educational leaders in higher education. The
chapter begins by defining educational leadership in higher education as it is understood in the
literature and in this study. It then presents the research methods and summarises the findings
related to the three research questions, situating them within the broader context of existing studies.
The concluding section highlights the most significant results and offers recommendations for
fostering educational leadership.
How the literature conceptualises educational leadership
Mighty (2013: 114) defines leadership as the “capacity to influence others to work towards a set of
shared goals.” While institutional managers are tasked with developing plans and budgets, organising
staff, and engaging in control and problem-solving, educational leadership is more concerned with
setting a direction, aligning individuals, inspiring others, and fostering their motivation (Kinchin,
2023). In higher education, Grunefeld et al. (2015) differentiate between academic leaders, who
occupy formal roles with direct responsibility for teaching and learning, and educational leaders, who
can hold both formal and informal positions and have the responsibility to influence these areas.
Given the complexity of the higher education environment, academic leaders often engage in sensemaking
(Lang and Hosein, 2023) and act as catalysts for new knowledge relevant to teaching and
learning (Fields, Kenny and Mueller, 2019). These findings suggests that educational leaders are
frequently not part of senior management, but instead exert influence from middle positions within
institutions (Kinchin, 2023). Various empirical studies documenting change in higher education
teaching and learning support this view (Anakin et al., 2017; Pleschová and Simon, 2024) or at least
indicate a willingness among middle managers to do so (Serbati et al., 2024).
The literature highlights one dominant theme associated with educational leadership: creating
change to improve teaching and learning (Lang and Rao, 2023). Change in this sense implies changing
more than certain aspects of teaching and learning: it means casting a significant impact on
institutional teaching and learning practices (Grunefeld et al., 2015), cultures (Fields et al., 2019), the
perceived value of teaching, and the provision of support for innovative teaching practices (Crone et
al., 2024).
To achieve change, educational leaders frequently collaborate with colleagues across the institution.
They mentor and empower others in the area of teaching and learning and they, too, are mentored
or seek mentors to support them in their roles (Hathaway, 2018; Jankowska, 2018; Crone et al.,
100
2024). Educational leaders initiate connections and interdisciplinary teaching collaborations among
colleagues who would not have otherwise met, in this way rapidly diffusing knowledge and also
learning new things from diverse communities (Taylor, 2005; Grunefeld et al., 2015; Fields, Kenny
and Mueller, 2019). Working with others gives educational leaders a sense of being identified,
acknowledged and valued by others for fostering change in education (Fields, Kenny and Mueller,
2019; Crone et al., 2024). One such form of recognition is a formal leadership position or committee
membership related to teaching and learning (Amundsen and D’Amico, 2019).
On top of these qualities, educational leaders often need patience and resilience, fostering hope for
desired change even when prospects for change seem limited or distant (McGowan and Felten,
2021). In their book, Rao, Hosein and Kinchin (2023) showcase educational leaders who were
outsiders within their contexts, experiencing feelings of vulnerability, uncertainty, loneliness,
marginalization, and lack of recognition from their institutions. Their reflections demonstrate that
not all educational leaders have access to institutional resources and support to implement teaching
and learning initiatives (Fields, Kenny and Mueller, 2019); instead, they often need to secure their
own resources.
Teaching collaboration—discussed in the previous chapter—influences the perceptions and practice
of educational leadership. Collaboration leads to leadership where power is shared or distributed to
nurture a new collegial culture that supports teaching innovation (Lang and Rao, 2023). In
educational contexts with a dominant collegial culture, academic teachers tend to expect and
appreciate leadership through consensus, not power (Wu and Chng, 2023). Educational leadership
then takes the form of distributed or shared leadership, further promoting relationships and
collaborations across different institutional levels (Fields, Kenny and Mueller, 2019; Fossland and
Sandvoll, 2023; Kinchin, 2023).
The following six characteristics are most frequently mentioned in the literature as distinguishing
educational leaders, although they do not need to possess all of them at one particular time (Fields,
Kenny and Mueller, 2019). First, educational leaders have a theoretically sound and practice-oriented
vision of student learning and higher education, and they often demonstrate excellence in teaching
and/or in researching learning (Taylor, 2005; Grunefeld et al., 2015; Fields, Kenny and Mueller, 2019).
Moreover, educational leaders have affective qualities such as the ability to listen, demonstrate
empathy and establish trust (Fields, Kenny and Mueller, 2019). Notably, educational leaders feel
committed to change (Fields, Kenny and Mueller, 2019; Crone et al., 2024).
This work explores ED programmes that have student-centred learning and reflective teaching
among the intended programme outcomes. A student-centred approach to teaching has been
empirically documented to encourage students to focus on meaning and, moreover, to lead to better
learning outcomes in terms of deeper understanding. In contrast, a teacher-centred approach has
been shown to result in students focusing on mere reproduction of the material studied and
achieving poorer learning outcomes than in a student-centred approach (Åkerlind, 2007). A reflective
approach to teaching, on the other hand, allows higher education teachers to continuously enhance
their practice through regularly considering how students learn in their courses and modifying their
teaching approaches or methods in cases when students do not learn as expected (see Chapter 1 for
more on reflective teaching).
The educational leadership literature connects educational leadership with both concepts—studentcentred
learning and reflective teaching. Fields, Kenny and Mueller (2019) found the narratives of
educational leaders from a Canadian university strongly aligned with student-centred approaches to
101
teaching. At two higher education contexts— in the UK and again in Canada— teachers’ awareness of
the need for student-centredness as effective teaching practice was evidenced to be a strong
enabling factor to change teaching practices. In contrast, teachers with a teacher-centred approach
were found to inhibit change (Anakin et al., 2017). As for reflective teaching, various studies posit
that being reflective is pivotal for any educational leader (Hosein, Rao and Kinchin, 2022: 2; Fossland
and Sandvoll, 2023; Lang and Rao, 2023). Whereas established ways of teaching and learning do not
prepare students for the changing world and its challenges, through reflection individuals can rethink
meanings, transform schemes of thinking and formulate new perspectives (Mezirow, 1991 cited in
Rogers, 2001; see Chapter 2 for more about reflection).
Many educational development programmes equip teachers to adopt student-centred and reflective
teaching practices, positioning graduates to potentially serve as educational leaders within their
institutions. However, the literature offers limited insight into whether these graduates actually step
into educational leadership roles. Fossland and Sandvoll (2023) cite one educational leader (A4) from
Norway and Sweden who noted: “I think there’s ... a new generation of university teachers that have
... grown up with doing the teachers’ training early in their career, getting interested in the learning
issue, in the sense that they take new courses [and] work with their teaching formats in a very much
more active way than was the situation a generation earlier.” This implies that the new generation of
programme graduates might be more willing and capable to serve as educational leaders than their
predecessors.
Insights from the educational leadership literature, along with gaps in our understanding of
educational leadership in higher education, inspired the formulation of three research questions for
this study:
1. Do graduates of ED programmes assume leadership roles in teaching and learning five and
more years after completing the programme? If so, what do these roles involve, and what
are their perceived outcomes?
2. Is there a connection between programme graduates’ student-centredness and
reflectiveness and their engagement in formal leadership roles?
3. Are programme graduates recognised for their contributions to teaching?
Methods
To answer the first research question, graduates of ED programmes from the four higher education
institutions explored in this study were asked as part of a broader interview whether they held any
leadership roles in teaching at their institution. To enhance the study’s validity, colleagues nominated
by programme graduates as individuals highly knowledgeable about their teaching were asked if the
graduate informally influenced others concerning teaching and learning. Additionally, colleagues’
characterizations of the programme graduate as a teacher, gathered through the colleague interview
protocol, were used to answer that question, too.
To explore the relationship between programme graduates’ student-centredness and reflectiveness
and their taking on formal leadership roles, this study cross-checked expert assessment of
programme graduates’ student-centredness and reflectiveness (see Chapter 6) with information
about their formal leadership roles. Finally, to find out whether graduates were recognised for their
teaching, for example, through teaching awards, this study drew from colleagues’ statements about
the graduates in the colleague interviews. Due to the sensitivity of issues discussed in this chapter, to
102
protect anonymity of the research subjects, interviewee codes were intentionality omitted in certain
sections of the text.
ED programme graduates as educational leaders
This study understands educational leaders as individuals who either hold a formal position in the
institution that allows them to influence teaching and learning, are informally recognised for
impacting their colleagues’ teaching practices, or both. Formal positions may include roles such as
dean, vice-dean, provost, pro-vice chancellor, department chair, programme director, programme
board member, course leader, or similar. The role of course leader refers to coordinating multiple
colleagues who teach the same course, rather than solely designing, teaching and assessing a course
as its primary instructor. The following sections present research findings related to the three
research questions.
Educational leadership roles of graduates from ED programmes
Of the 19 programme graduates interviewed for this research, eleven (58%) hold formal educational
leadership roles. The most common roles include programme lead or programme board member (5),
course leader (4), and head (1) or deputy head (1) of the department. Programme graduates also
serve in various other roles such as leader for e-learning and use of artificial intelligence in education
(1), supervision of student work (1), course design (1), timetabling (1) and coordinating student
placements (1). One graduate frequently facilitates training workshops on student-centred teaching
methods.
In the case of three programme graduates, leadership entails membership in institutional bodies: a
quality assurance committee, an exam committee, and the academic senate (institution’s selfgoverning
body). In one case, it was unclear whether the graduate was formally appointed or had
any formal title associated with their role: that graduate serves as an example of good practice for
new teachers who regularly came to observe their classes. Six graduates assume dual and one
multiple leadership roles, for example combining course and programme leadership, leadership in
supervision and in the design of new courses, or serving as deputy head of department together with
being a course leader and an academic senate member.
As presented in the Table below, this study revealed notable differences between the four
institutions in terms of assigning formal educational leadership roles to programme graduates.
Whereas all four graduates from the Nottingham Trent University held a formal role and three out of
five graduates from Central European University held such roles, only two out of five graduates from
both Masaryk University and the Slovak Academy of Sciences were appointed to educational
leadership positions.
At some of these institutions, graduates’ experiences indicated that quality teaching received limited
recognition. For instance, one graduate mentioned that teachers assigned to a course in their
department are routinely given slides from the previous instructor and are expected to use them asis,
rather than redesigning the course and materials. Subject matter expertise, teaching methods, and
the effort put into course planning receive little acknowledgment. It is then not surprising to hear the
graduate saying, “Becoming a departmental member was a bad decision, I would say. This is the
worst group of colleagues I have ever experienced, even though I do like teaching.” Indeed, in this
case, the graduate was not offered any formal leadership position in teaching.
Although not all of the programme graduates had a formal leadership role in education, their
colleagues universally believed they influenced other teachers’ teaching practice. Most colleagues
103
appreciated the influence the graduates had on their own teaching (C4S, C2C, C1N, C2N, C3N, C4N,
C2M, C3M, C4M, C5M). For example, one colleague (C1N) noted, “I definitely learned quite a bit from
them, because we come from very different perspectives. They know a lot about theories and
philosophy and how to teach it in an accessible way.” Another colleague (C3N) commented, “Maybe
he’s had an influence on me, and I think I’ve probably had an influence on him. Which is why we
worked so well together and have done for a number of years now and continue to kind of choose to
do so.” One colleague (C1M) explicitly mentioned that the graduate had influenced them to be more
student-centred and innovative in their teaching. A different colleague attributed the graduate’
influence to enhancements in class planning and structuring (C5M).
The colleagues, moreover, gave a variety of examples illustrating how programme graduates impact
others’ teaching. One colleague (C1S), for example, described that the graduate influences peers
teaching the same subject, as well as a junior colleague who teaches a different subject. Another
referred to the graduate inspiring colleagues to revise the kind of scientific problems assigned to
students in class (C3S). The colleague of the graduate who was departmental head (C3C) shared that
the graduate initiated discussions about teaching during departmental meetings, in this way
influencing how departmental colleagues design courses and assess students. Another colleague
praised the graduate for introducing regular teaching seminars in which departmental colleagues
discuss teaching; previously, they only had research seminars (C2M). In a similar vein, a colleague
(C1M) commended the graduate for being persistent in promoting consensus among the five
teachers teaching a course, despite one senior teacher holding very different views of teaching.
Fostering other’s intrinsic motivation to teach emerged as a strong theme in how graduates from ED
programmes influence other teachers. Two colleagues (C3M, C4M) stressed that they and the
graduate regularly remind each other what they do in teaching, why they do so and why they believe
in it. In one of these cases (C4M), this included encouragement during moments of frustration after
reading student critiques on student feedback forms. Moral support was also mentioned by another
colleague (C5M), who elaborated on how the graduate engages with teachers who feel disappointed
by how their class went: “When they come to see [the graduate] and they’re in a bit of a bad mood,
[the graduate] immediately starts to say that the next lesson can be better, that they can use this,
instantly offering some kind of solution ... You can do it like this. Or wait, I’ve got a link here, have a
look.”
Another recurrent theme was the impact on new colleagues. One colleague (C4M) emphasised that
the graduate, now an established teacher in the department, influences newly hired colleagues, for
example, by discussing teaching and learning with them. Another colleague (C2M) mentioned that
the graduate works closely with a new departmental colleague who had recently arrived from
abroad. “[They] are actually working a lot, sharing with her that experience in pedagogy and
teaching, so I think they have a bit of momentum now and they can do that.”
Despite the generally positive sentiment of the colleagues’ statements summarising how graduates
influence others’ teaching and student learning, one colleague mentioned that the graduate faces
backlash for their activism due to resistance from some long-standing members of the department:
“They are trying to innovate, but I think they are hitting a lot of obstacles where, well, it doesn’t quite
work.”
Programme graduates’ reflectiveness and SCL versus their formal educational leadership
As visualised in the Table, only some programme graduates categorised by the research team as
highly student-centred and highly reflective were appointed to formal educational leadership
104
positions. Specifically, eight out of 13 graduates (61%) evaluated as highly or between mid and highly
student-centred currently occupy a formal educational leadership role. In the case of reflectiveness,
five out of eight highly reflective graduates (63%) hold a formal educational leadership position. It
should be noted, however, that three of the graduates assessed as low or mid for their
SCL/reflectiveness also held formal educational leadership roles.
Table. Programme graduates’ student-centred learning (SCL) and reflective teaching contrasted with
their formal educational leadership roles
Slovak Academy of
Sciences
Central European
University
Nottingham Trent
University
Masaryk University
Graduate’s
code
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G1 G2 G3 G4 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
Formal
leadership
role in
teaching
SCL high mid high high no high high mid
mid-
high
high mid high high high mid high high high high
Reflectiveness high low mid high mid high high
low-
mid
mid mid mid mid mid high low high mid high high
Recognition of programme graduates’ teaching
Although about half of programme graduates in this research have formal educational leadership
roles and their interviewed colleagues universally recognised them for impacting others’ teaching, it
was quite rare for graduates to be institutionally recognised for their teaching. Of the 15 colleagues
of programme graduates that were interviewed, only one colleague (C4C) was aware of the graduate
being acknowledged for their teaching, namely, being promoted from a fellow to a permanent
lecturer position. One colleague (C3C) mentioned that the graduate was recognised but was unsure
about the form of recognition. Another colleague (C2N) opined that the graduate was not recognised
through an award but the fact that the institution continues employing the graduate signals they
value their teaching.
As documented in previous chapters, ED programme graduates in this research are student-centred,
reflective practitioners. They introduce innovative teaching methods, and students appreciate
learning in their classes. Sometimes, they present at conferences about teaching and learning and
publish teaching-related papers in peer-reviewed journals. Of the nine institutions where the
programme graduates currently teach, seven have introduced a teaching award. However, none of
the graduates’ colleagues interviewed for this research could name a specific award that the
graduate had received for teaching. This suggests that, between five and eleven years after finishing
an educational development programme, graduates are typically not being recognised for teaching
excellence or innovative teaching through an award or similar.
Two colleagues mentioned as an example of recognition that the graduate was commended at a
departmental meeting for their innovative teaching approach. One of them (C5M), however, said
105
that such praise was sporadic and was later downplayed by a critique raised for issues unrelated to
teaching. “There are some negative comments for other things because [the departmental chair]
usually brings up what’s not been done on time and what’s not been done at all, which should be
more the opposite for me.” Another colleague described that, in general, teaching receives very little
acknowledgement in their department and said the following about the graduate: “They strive to
teach in the best way they believe possible, regardless of how much effort it costs and that no one
truly recognises it.”
Discussion
Results from this study align with findings from literature that suggest that the change process is
often teacher-driven or bottom-up (Anakin et al., 2017) and that informal (grassroots) leaders can
inspire change beyond individual courses (Pleschová and Simon, 2024). As emphasised in previous
chapters, programme graduates possess a range of qualities of educational leaders, including
trustworthiness (as perceived by their superiors and colleagues) and the ability to initiate and engage
in teaching collaborations. However, this research also uncovered the vulnerability of some
programme graduates, such as the one quoted above, who considered their department the worst
group of colleagues they have ever experienced. These individuals feel disconnected with their
pedagogical culture, despite teaching in the same context where they were educated, rather than
having transitioned to another country as Hosein did (2018).
Although Fossland and Sandvoll (2023) suggest that ED programme graduates might be ready to
undertake educational leadership roles, this research found that only in certain cases were
programme graduates appointed into formal leadership positions with influence on teaching. In
other contexts, graduates influenced teaching and learning within the institution only through
informal means.
Existing literature directly links academic teachers’ leadership potential with their student-centred
approach to teaching (Anakin et al., 2017; Fields, Kenny and Mueller, 2019) and their ability to reflect
on teaching and learning (Hosein, Rao and Kinchin, 2022: 2; Fossland and Sandvoll, 2023; Lang and
Rao, 2023). However, this research did not find sufficient support for the idea that highly studentcentred
and highly reflective teachers are more likely to be promoted to formal educational
leadership positions. This link appears to be context-dependent. In some contexts, such as at
Nottingham Trent University, all ED programme graduates held educational leadership positions,
presumably because they have a teaching qualification, experience, and good reputation for their
teaching. In contrast, at institutions like Masaryk University and the higher education institutions in
Slovakia, where teaching qualifications and expertise are less recognised, only a few graduates were
appointed to formal educational leadership roles. This aligns with Wu and Chng’s (2023) observations
about their journey to becoming educational leaders: “While material rewards are not as crucial, we
think institutional recognition of the work is essential because recognition is a form of endorsement
and empowerment of the self. We feel empowered.”
Conclusion and recommendations
Leadership in educational change is considered an inherent role of academic development (Taylor
2005), and academic developers often foster change by identifying, educating and supporting leaders
from the pool of academic teachers. Academic developers’ influence largely depends on how
educational leaders perceive educational change, and how they position and value the work of
academic developers in relation to that change (Fossland and Sandvoll, 2023). This chapter showed
to what extent the four educational development programmes explored in this work succeeded in
106
nurturing educational leaders. While all programme graduates in this research were recognised by
their colleagues as teachers who had a notable influence on the teaching and learning of other
colleagues, only slightly more than half of the graduates combined these informal educational
leadership roles with formal positions in the institution that allowed them to impact teaching and
learning.
This research did not find a connection between the level of student-centredness or reflective
teaching and appointment to formal educational leadership roles, but the results signal that formal
leadership roles are context-dependent. In contexts where quality teaching gets recognised,
programme graduates are more likely to be entrusted with formal leadership roles, whereas in the
environments where student-centred and innovative teaching is less valued, such appointments are
relatively rare.
Therefore, it is recommended that institutions investing in educational development programmes for
their teachers also take appropriate measures to elevate the importance of teaching. Studentcentred,
reflective and innovative teaching needs to be recognised and rewarded; otherwise, the
potential of programme graduates cannot be fully realised to exert the desired effect on their
departments and institutions. Such recognition can take various forms, for example, awards for
excellence and innovation in teaching, inviting these individuals to offer lectures and workshops
showcasing good teaching practices, or offering teaching grants to drive further professional
development and course design. Institutions should also facilitate pathways for successful
programme graduates into formal positions that allow them to influence institutional teaching and
learning through means other than informal channels. In doing so, institutions can leverage their
champions for teaching and learning to contribute to the development of an institutional culture that
cultivates quality teaching and learning.
References
Åkerlind, Gerlese S. (2007) Constraints on academics’ potential for developing as a teacher. Studies in
Higher Education 32(1): 21-37: 10.1080/03075070601099416
Amundsen, Cheryl, D’Amico, Laura (2019) Using theory of change to evaluate socially-situated,
inquiry-based academic professional development. Studies in Educational Evaluation 61:196-208:
10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.04.002
Anakin, Megan, Spronken-Smith, Rachel, Healey, Mick, Vajoczki, Susan (2017) The contextual nature
of university-wide curriculum change. International Journal for Academic Development 23(3): 206-
218: 10.1080/1360144X.2017.1385464
Crone, Vincent, Prins, Frans, Lutz, Christel, Meijerman, Irma, Schutjens, Veronique, van der Smagt,
Maarten, Wijngaards-de Meij, Leoniek, Bovenschen, Niels, Kluijtmans, Manon (2024): Strengthening
educational leadership through a professional development programme in conjunction with a
teaching-focused full professor career track: reflections of participants. International Journal for
Academic Development 29(3): 366-378: 10.1080/1360144X.2023.2207309
Fields, Jacqueline, Kenny, Natasha Ann, Mueller, Robin Alison (2019) Conceptualizing educational
leadership in an academic development program. International Journal for Academic Development
24:3, 218-231: 10.1080/1360144X.2019.1570211
Fossland, Trine, Sandvoll, Ragnhild (2023) Drivers for educational change? Educational leaders’
perceptions of academic developers as change agents. International Journal for Academic
Development 28(3): 305-318: 10.1080/1360144X.2021.1941034
107
Grunefeld, Hetty, van Tartwijk, Jan, Jongen, Havva, Wubbels, Theo (2015) Design and effects of an
academic development programme on leadership for educational change. International Journal for
Academic Development 20(4): 306-318: 10.1080/1360144X.2015.1068779
Hathaway, Tanja (2018) Negotiating transitions to academic identity: teacher or researcher. In
Hosein, Anesa, Rao, Namrata, Shu-Hua Yeh, Chloe, Kinchin, Ian M. (2018) Academics’ international
teaching journeys: Personal narratives of transitions in higher education. Bloomsbury Publishing, pp.
93-107
Hosein, Anesa, Rao, Namrata, Kinchin, Ian M., Eds. (2022) Narratives of becoming leaders in
disciplinary and institutional contexts. Leadership identity in learning and teaching in higher
education, Bloomsbury Publishing
Hosein, Anesa (2018) Examining pedagogical autonomy in international higher education systems. In
In Hosein, Anesa, Rao, Namrata, Shu-Hua Yeh, Chloe, Kinchin, Ian M. (2018) Academics’ international
teaching journeys: Personal narratives of transitions in higher education. Bloomsbury Publishing, pp.
109-124
Jankowska, Maja (2018) Towards a ‘pedagogy of connection’: ‘Home’ academic not at home. In
Hosein, Anesa, Rao, Namrata, Shu-Hua Yeh, Chloe, Kinchin, Ian M. (2018) Academics’ international
teaching journeys: Personal narratives of transitions in higher education. Bloomsbury Publishing, pp.
93-107
Kelly, Andrew (2023) Participative leadership as an early career academic. In Rao, Namrata, Hosein,
Anesa and Ian Kinchin (Eds.) Narratives of academics’ personal journeys in contested spaces:
leadership identity in learning and teaching in higher education. Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 81-94
Kinchin, Ian M. (2023) Towards an ecological perspective: Reflections on leadership journeys.
Introduction. In Rao, Namrata, Hosein, Anesa and Ian Kinchin (Eds.) Narratives of academics’
personal journeys in contested spaces: leadership identity in learning and teaching in higher
education. Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 197-213
Laggini Fiore, Stephanie (2023) Towards a community for teaching excellence at a research-intensive
university. In Rao, Namrata, Hosein, Anesa and Ian Kinchin (Eds.) Narratives of academics’ personal
journeys in contested spaces: leadership identity in learning and teaching in higher education.
Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 113-128
Lang, Josephine, Rao, Namrata (2023) Conclusion. Perspectives on teaching and learning leadership
in higher education: implications. In Lang, Josephine, Rao, Namrata, Hosein, Anesa (Eds.)
Perspectives on teaching and learning leadership in higher education: Case studies from UK and
Australia. Taylor & Francis Group
Lang, Josephine, Rao, Namrata, Hosein, Anesa, Eds. (2023) Perspectives on teaching and learning
leadership in higher education: Case studies from UK and Australia, Taylor & Francis Group
Lang, Josephine, Hosein, Anesa (2023) Teaching and learning leadership in higher education. An
introduction. In Lang, Josephine, Rao, Namrata, Hosein, Anesa (Eds.) Perspectives on Teaching and
learning leadership in higher education: Case studies from UK and Australia. Taylor & Francis Group
McGowan, Sussanah, Felten, Peter (2021) On the necessity of hope in academic development.
International Journal for Academic Development 26(4): 473-476: 10.1080/1360144X.2021.1903902
108
Mezirow, Jack (1991) Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass cited in
Rogers, Russell R. (2001) Reflection in higher education: A concept analysis. Innovative Higher
Education 26(1): 37-57: 10.1023/A:1010986404527
Mighty, Joy (2013) One important lesson I’ve learned from my involvement with SoTL. Teaching and
Learning Inquiry 1(1): 113-116: 10.2979/teachlearninqu.1.1.113
Pleschová, Gabriela, Simon, Agnes (8 December 2023) Internationalising student learning at the meso
level: the impact of grassroots leadership in a university in Central Europe. European Political
Science: 10.1057/s41304-024-00475-8
Serbati, Anna, Agostini, Daniele, Maniero, Sabrina, Picasso, Federica, Venuti, Paola, Felisatti, Ettore
(2024) Educational leadership for academic development: Practices and reflections at University of
Trento. INTED Proceedings: 2212-2217.
Taylor, K. Lynn (2005) Academic development as institutional leadership: An interplay of person, role,
strategy, and institution. International Journal for Academic Development 10(1): 31-46:
10.1080/13601440500099985
Wu, Siew Mei, Chng, Huang Hoon (2023) Our journeys through the Scholarship of Leading: What
matters and what counts? In Rao, Namrata, Hosein, Anesa and Ian Kinchin (Eds.) Narratives of
academics’ personal journeys in contested spaces: Leadership identity in learning and teaching in
higher education. Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 179-196: 10.5040/9781350196988.ch-011
109
SECTION IV. CONCLUSIONS
Chapter 12. The implications of this study for educational development, institutional practice and
research
Many higher education institutions around the world now offer programmes that equip academic
teachers with the foundational knowledge and skills necessary for effective teaching and learning in
higher education. In countries where educational development (ED) has become an established field
of practice, these programmes are often accredited, providing graduates with a standardised set of
competencies that enable them to support student learning effectively (see, for example, UK
Professional Standards Framework, 2023). While considerable evidence exists regarding the shortterm
outcomes of these programmes (Simon and Pleschová, 2012; Ilie et al., 2020), much less is
known about how programme graduates conceptualise teaching and learning and what they actually
do as teachers over the longer term.
Existing literature suggests that the workplace—whether it be a department, faculty, workgroup, or
another unit—plays a significant role in shaping how academic teachers approach teaching (Roxå,
Mårtensson and Alveteg, 2011). This influence can sometimes contradict what teachers have learned
in ED programmes and what they genuinely aspire to implement in their classrooms (Remmik et al.,
2011). Established teaching practices within the workplace, formal rules determining how teaching
should be conducted, and informal relationships with colleagues all affect how teachers approach
and carry out their teaching (Stewart, 2014; Remmik et al., 2011). This raises the question: what
happens to programme graduates who leave their ED programme inspired and equipped to teach in
a particular way?
This work set out to explore the long-term effects of ED programmes, which we defined as impacts
five or more years after programme completion. In addition to examining individual teachers’
perspectives and practices, it also delves into the role of contextual factors. Given that many ED
programmes, across various contexts, have focused on fostering student-centred learning (SCL) and
reflective teaching as key learning outcomes, this study selected four programmes with similar
objectives. The research collected data to answer three primary questions:
• How do programme graduates understand and interpret student-centred learning five and
more years after completing the ED programme?
• Do programme graduates continue to reflect on their teaching five and more years postgraduation?
If so, how can these reflections be categorised and described, and do graduates
take action based on their reflections?
• What role do graduates’ institutions and the broader national context play in shaping their
ability to implement student-centred and reflective teaching practices? What are the
supportive and constraining factors?
To address these questions, a team of researchers analysed a survey and interviews with 19
graduates from four ED programmes: those offered by the Central European University (previously
Hungary, now Austria), Masaryk University (Czechia), Slovak Academy of Sciences (Slovakia), and
Nottingham Trent University (United Kingdom). The sample included female and male academics
from the fields of biology, education, engineering, linguistics, law, medicine, philosophy, political
science, sociology, and social work. Most of them had very limited teaching experience when they
enrolled in the educational development programme. The graduates were asked about their teaching
principles, how they gather information to enhance their teaching, teaching-related publications, key
110
events that influenced their teaching, colleagues with whom they share a teaching approach, and
institutional factors impacting their teaching. They were also invited to reflect on a recently taught
class session. Some interview questions related to the graduates’ perceptions of being trusted as a
teacher and their leadership roles in teaching.
In addition to interviews with the graduates, data were collected from colleagues recommended by
the graduates as being familiar with their teaching, as well as from the syllabi of mostly
undergraduate courses taught by these graduates. The analysis of this data led to a series of key
findings, which are summarised in this concluding chapter, structured around four main themes: 1)
student-centred learning and reflective teaching, 2) contextual factors that shape teaching—
including teaching collaboration, trustful relationships, and educational leadership, 3) the role of
coaching/mentoring in sustaining and advancing what academic teachers had learned on the ED
programme and 4) the value that programme graduates attributed to their programme. After
discussing these themes, this concluding chapter outlines the implications of this study for
institutions, educational development programmes, and future research.
Student-centred learning and reflective teaching
This research identified four distinct paths that graduates from ED programmes tend to follow in
their teaching practice: the Pragmatic Teacher, the Enthusiastic Student-Centred Innovator, the
Dedicated Teacher Frustrated with Their Institution, and the Converted Teacher-Centred Scholar. The
most prevalent path was that of the Enthusiastic Student-Centred Innovator, which aligns closely
with the programme’s aims of fostering student-centred and reflective teaching practices. Graduates
on this path not only adopt SCL but also introduce teaching innovations. Importantly, they manage to
maintain these approaches even in environments where SCL is not widely practiced, often by
collaborating with colleagues who share similar teaching values.
However, while around two-thirds of the 19 programme graduates in this study followed this desired
path, about a third took one of the other three paths. Those on the Pragmatic Teacher path displayed
a student-centred approach and some level of reflectiveness. Yet, they were often overwhelmed by
high workloads, limiting their ability to engage in deep reflection and innovate their teaching
practices.
The Dedicated Teacher Frustrated with Their Institution path, on the other hand, was characterised
by individuals deeply committed to student-centred learning and reflection, who actively sought to
introduce innovations. Unfortunately, these programme graduates faced significant institutional
barriers: lack of trust in their teaching from superiors, colleagues with opposing teaching values, and
an overall institutional culture that undervalued teaching. Given the scope and number of restraints,
the initial enthusiasm of these programme graduates is likely to diminish, potentially leading to a
decline in student-centred, reflective, and innovative teaching over time.
Finally, the Converted Teacher-Centred Scholar path serves as a cautionary tale. Even programmes
that successfully nurture student-centredness and reflective teaching may find that, five or more
years later, some graduates have reverted to a teacher-centred approach. This shift appears to stem
from institutional pressures, such as the requirement to teach large cohorts with little to no support.
A more detailed examination of programme graduates’ student-centredness and reflectiveness
revealed considerable variation. From the interviews with the graduates, about three-quarters were
identified as highly student-centred, while one-fifth demonstrated mid-level SCL, and one individual
was practising a teacher-centred approach. Colleague interviews corroborated these findings,
111
showing that approximately two-thirds of the graduates were perceived as student-centred, with the
remaining third viewed as partially student-centred.
The evidence of SCL practices was less apparent in the syllabi than in the interviews. Two syllabi did
not reflect any of the six primary aspects of SCL and included only one and three additional SCL
aspects, respectively, suggesting a lack of student-centred focus. In seven cases, coders found at
least four of the six key SCL aspects, though only in a small number of these cases were any
additional SCL aspects also present. Ten syllabi demonstrated between one and three of the six
primary student-centred practices, with the most common features being active learning, authentic
assessment, tasks requiring students to demonstrate higher-order skills, and continuous assessment.
In contrast, only four syllabi indicated that the graduates viewed students as colleagues with similar
power, two syllabi recognised them as individuals with diverse interests and needs, and four
mentioned that students would receive feedback on their assignments. This suggest that programme
participants may need additional help to translate their student-centred views of teaching into their
teaching materials.
The differences in reflective teaching among programme graduates were more pronounced than for
student-centredness. Based on interviews with the graduates, about two-fifths (eight) were
categorised as highly reflective, the same number showed mid-level reflection, and one graduate was
between low and mid-level reflective. Colleague interviews aligned with these findings, with just over
half of the graduates being described as reflective and the remainder as reflective to some extent.
These variations indicate that, while educational development programmes can foster reflective
practice, the extent to which it becomes embedded in teaching varies significantly.
A study into whether the graduates take action based on their reflections revealed that twelve of the
nineteen had plans for addressing situations where students might not learn as intended. For
example, some graduates noted that they would prompt students to interact with peers they do not
typically engage with, aiming to improve interaction between international and home students. In
other cases, however, reflections tended to remain general and abstract, lacking specific examples of
actionable changes the programme graduate intended to implement.
It is also important to note that a classification of mid-level reflection was common among graduates
who chose to share examples of classes they felt had gone well, leading them to see no need for
change. In contrast, deeper reflection was observed in one graduate, who described no fewer than
four concrete measures already adopted to enhance student learning in the next iteration of their
course—a rare but valuable instance of reflective action.
Contextual factors that shape ED programme graduates’ teaching
This section summarises the barriers that prevent programme graduates from engaging in studentcentred,
reflective, and innovative teaching, along with the enablers that encourage such practices.
This study identified a high workload as the primary constraining factor. Graduates typically did not
attribute their sense of being extremely busy to managing large student cohorts; instead, they
reported feeling pressured by high expectations to produce research papers and fulfil various
administrative and other duties. The physical spaces for teaching and learning were noted as the
second most significant barrier to implementing student-centred learning, along with institutional
norms regarding student assessment. Additionally, some programme graduates raised the low value
that the institution attributes to teaching as a constraint on their practices.
112
In terms of supportive factors, most graduates acknowledged the teaching and learning unit as vital
for them to sustain and develop their student-centred teaching practices, reflection, and innovation
in teaching. They perceived departmental colleagues, students, institutional policies, and fellow
graduates as neither supportive nor obstructive to their student-centred practices, reflective
teaching, or innovation. In addition to identifying these constraining and supportive factors, this
research specifically examined three further factors highlighted in existing literature as influential on
higher education teaching practices: teaching collaboration, trustful relationships, and educational
leadership.
Teaching collaboration
Teaching collaboration can significantly enhance teaching-related knowledge and abilities, inspire
reflection on pedagogical practices, and foster innovation (Quinlan and Åkerlind, 2000). This study
found that just over half of the ED programme graduates engaged in teaching collaboration. Those
involved primarily worked with departmental colleagues who shared similar teaching values, often
co-designing and co-teaching courses, helping colleagues develop new courses, advising on teaching
challenges, and providing feedback on teaching via peer observation. In instances where colleagues
with similar teaching-related values were unavailable, graduates participated in interdisciplinary and
cross-institutional teaching partnerships. This latter type of collaboration proved particularly
beneficial, enabling teachers to challenge traditional teaching practices dominant within their
departments and adopt more student-centred approaches.
Additionally, teaching collaboration often provided programme graduates with recognition for their
teaching-related expertise, which was not always evident in their everyday practice. Collaboration
was more robust in institutions that actively supported it, typically through effective systems of
teaching observation and conditions that fostered pedagogical conversations. These environments
allowed programme graduates to learn from one another regarding their teaching values and
practices.
Trustful relationships
The perception of being trusted by their superiors and colleagues in everyday teaching practice was
found to significantly impact the teaching of ED programme graduates. Graduates who felt trusted by
their head of department (HoD) to teach in a student-centred and innovative way tended to exhibit a
high level of student-centredness. Whereas 10 graduates reported feeling trusted, six graduates
perceived indifferent or uninvested attitudes about teaching from their HoDs. Furthermore, there
were substantial institutional differences in whether graduates reported a sense of trust or
indifference. Those who sensed ambivalence or indifference from their HoD generally displayed
reflectiveness at low or mid-levels.
Interestingly, trust from HoDs did not appear to foster teaching innovation as measured by teachingrelated
presentations and publications, with contributions in these areas remaining generally low.
The trust placed in graduates by their HoD differed from that expressed by their colleagues. The
HoD’s trust was primarily rooted in the graduates’ knowledge and competence, whereas the trust
from colleagues was more nuanced, encompassing cognitive, affective, and value-based dimensions.
Educational leadership
This research revealed that all programme graduates were recognised as educational leaders by their
colleagues. This recognition was evident in the colleagues’ descriptions of how the graduates had
influenced their teaching, including by making it more student-centred. Graduates were
113
acknowledged for inspiring others to formulate research problems for students, initiating regular
discussions about teaching within the department, and facilitating collaborative sessions among
teachers on the same course. Additionally, they played a crucial role in integrating new colleagues
into departmental teaching and providing motivation to others, especially during challenging periods
in their teaching practice.
Despite this widespread recognition as informal educational leaders, only about three-fifths of the
programme graduates held a formal educational leadership position within their institutions. Such
roles included serving as course leaders, programme board members, (deputy) department heads, or
having specific responsibilities such as advancing the use of artificial intelligence in education. The
assignment of these leadership positions appeared to be context-specific; while nearly all graduates
from Nottingham Trent University and Central European University held various formal leadership
roles, this was true for only four of the ten interviewed graduates from Masaryk University and the
Slovak Academy of Sciences (SAS).
The research indicated a connection between the value an institution places on teaching and the
likelihood of graduates being nominated for educational leadership positions. High levels of studentcentredness
or reflective teaching did not guarantee formal appointments as educational leaders
unless the institution was perceived—by the interviewed graduates or their colleagues—as valuing
quality teaching overall.
Even five years, and in some cases up to eleven years (SAS), after graduating from their ED
programmes, and despite demonstrating exemplary levels of student-centredness and innovation in
teaching, no colleague was aware of any graduate receiving an award or similar institutional
recognition for their teaching. In contrast, some programme graduates expressed frustration over
the low value attributed to teaching within their institutions. Although six of the nine institutions
where programme graduates currently teach have introduced a teaching award, these accolades
seem to go to others, possibly based on criteria other than student-centredness, reflective teaching,
or teaching innovation.
The role of coaching and mentoring
The literature recognises coaches/mentors as crucial influences on teachers’ practices and, more
specifically, on their capacities for reflection (Rogers, 2001). This research found a connection
between the level of reflection exhibited by programme graduates and the perceived role of
coaches/ mentors from their ED programme in shaping their thinking about teaching. Nine of the
twelve graduates who identified their coaches/mentors as influential in their teaching demonstrated
high levels of reflection, with the level of reflectiveness of the other three assessed as mid-range.
Conversely, those with low levels of reflection either reported having no coaching/mentoring support
or could not recall who their coach/mentor was.
Programme graduates rarely collaborated on teaching with former coaches/mentors from their ED
programmes. Even though three of the four programmes incorporated a coaching/mentoring
component, only one graduate reported ongoing teaching collaboration with their programme
coach/mentor. This collaboration primarily involved discussions about teaching and attendance at
the graduate’s teaching development workshops. The lack of continuity in these partnerships
appears to result from a combination of insufficient institutional support for such collaborations and
the previously mentioned perceptions of overwhelming workloads.
114
Value attributed to the ED programme
Even though this research was not designed to explore the subjective value that programme
graduates attribute to their former ED programmes, it was evident that they remain aware of the
influence of the programme, with many considering it highly beneficial. One graduate (G1C)
remarked, “The certificate programme at Central European University has had a very significant
impact on my approach to teaching, and I think all of the courses that I took served as a foundation
on which I’m now building bricks.”
Their colleague from the same institution (G2C) shared, “Without the programme, I wouldn’t know
half of the things that we have been talking about here today. That’s for sure. And I think I wouldn’t
be even one third of the teacher that I am today. So just to put that out there, that programmes like
this are absolutely necessary and they work. And if you ask me, it’s something that everyone should
have.”
A different graduate (G1M) expressed, “I feel good here (in the teaching and learning unit). ... I call it
an ‘academic spa.’ This space is perfectly created in the middle of your working time, which, I think,
few people have. It is not symbolic but is a part of your work. I have undergone a number of these
programmes, and I have not experienced that something would be repetitive.” Another graduate
(G3M) acknowledged their ED programme and other courses, stating, “It is good that [the teaching
and learning unit] exists; I have learnt so many highly interesting things [from it] that I would
otherwise have learnt by trial and error.”
Some graduates spoke about the importance of their ED programme and follow-up courses
specifically for stimulating their reflection on teaching and student learning. For example, one
graduate (G3C) remarked, “First, I was thinking, why should I go there, because I have already been
teaching for more than ten years. ... But I attended the first course, and I really enjoyed it and I
realised that I do many things in teaching, but I’m not aware why I’m doing them.”
Another programme graduate (G4C) stated, “It’s great to have these opportunities where you really
get to be a teacher not just practically teaching, but also just taking a step back and thinking about
your teaching. Like, what do I do? Why do I do it? What else can I do? What is the context in which
I’m doing this?”
A similar sentiment was echoed by a graduate (G1M), who recalled an educational developer giving
an afternoon workshop about reflection: “I was telling myself: that is such a silly and small thing, but
I cannot define it. Let’s then [go and] learn something. And all of a sudden something was said and I
experienced an existential breakpoint. Wait, I was doing this all the time with my best intentions and
it was wrong? I had to recognise it. Then I felt a wave of excitement: I am far from perfect, and I have
things to improve. ... Also someone who has taught for a number of years and gets nice feedback
from students can advance in teaching through one small aspect.”
Two other graduates recognised their ED programme as “the start of all my thinking about my
educational role and activity” (G2M) and a kick-off for “realising some things that I wasn’t doing well
in my teaching” (G5S). One graduate (G2C) voiced concern that some teachers lack the opportunity
to enrol in an ED programme, especially if they are required to pay for it.
Overall, the graduates from the programme offered by the Slovak Academy of Sciences and
Nottingham Trent University (NTU) were less vocal about valuing the programme. None of the SAS
graduates spontaneously mentioned the value of the ED programme. Of the NTU graduates, two
recalled their programme. One noted that some of the educational development programmes they
115
undertook were “actually unhelpful,” though this was not the case for the general one. Another
assessed the ED programme as “not helpful at all” in making them a more confident or better
teacher. They stated they instead had to find the tools on their own, such as by participating in a
programme during an international conference. This feedback suggests that the educational
development programmes may not have fully addressed all participants’ needs. Additionally, for
some graduates, circumstances may have evolved, presenting new challenges—such as the graduate
who was tasked with teaching three to four hundred students without receiving extra support from
their institution.
Implications from this study for institutions offering educational development
This concluding section highlights what higher education institutions can learn from the four
institutions whose educational development programmes are analysed in this study. Six key lessons
emerged from the research for institutions that provide ED programmes to their academic teachers.
Implications for institutional practices
1. Provide programme graduates with opportunities for further development. If institutions
want the outcomes of ED programmes to be sustained over the long term, they should not
leave the graduates of these programmes to cope alone with the challenges of everyday
teaching. Offering workshops and follow-up courses on specific teaching and learning issues,
along with coaching/mentoring, can further enhance programme graduates’ studentcentredness
and reflective abilities. The balance of high and moderate ratings for reflective
teaching and student-centredness showed that five and more years after the programme, it
continues to be more challenging for programme graduates to be reflective about teaching
than to be student-centred. Therefore, reflection, in particular, requires structured support
to develop. Without continued provision of educational development, there may be no
sustained growth in these teaching capacities, or reflectiveness may even diminish, especially
in situations where graduates face a lack of time to reflect, as some have admitted in a
different study (Remmik, Karm and Lepp, 2013).
2. Set realistic workload expectations. Institutions should make realistic demands on
programme graduates regarding their research publications, administrative tasks, and other
outputs. Given that workload was identified as the primary constraint for enhanced teaching
practice, this issue deserves much more attention than it currently receives. High
expectations for non-teaching outputs at some institutions starkly contrast with low
teaching-related expectations.
3. Create supportive teaching spaces. Higher education institutions should recognise the
importance of teaching spaces that foster student-centred approaches. It is essential to
ensure that newly reconstructed premises meet the expectations for active learning, as well
as promote relationships of equity and trust among teachers and students.
4. Facilitate teaching collaborations. Given that teaching collaboration helps programme
graduates sustain and advance their teaching practices, fostering such collaboration can be a
relatively straightforward way for institutions to support ED programme graduates. This can
be achieved by informing graduates about the benefits of teaching collaboration, promoting
examples of good practice in this area, and, importantly, creating conditions that allow
programme graduates to understand how their colleagues approach teaching and what they
do with their students. A well-functioning system of peer observation and favourable
116
conditions for pedagogical conversations (see Pleschová et al., 2021) were identified in this
research as two key factors that catalyse teaching collaboration. Additionally, institutions can
support teaching collaboration through other initiatives, such as fostering communities of
practice or caring communities, in which faculty members learn from failure through
reflection and dialogue (Le-May Sheffield and Timmermans, 2021).
5. Build trustful relationships. Since trustful relationships significantly impact teaching and this
research found that department heads are often less informed about programme graduates’
teaching than their colleagues, HoDs should invest more time into learning about the
teaching practices of programme graduates, for example by inviting them to present on their
teaching innovations during departmental meetings or encouraging them to write papers on
student learning. Greater insight into graduates’ teaching approaches is essential for
cultivating more multifaceted trusting relationships than those currently in place. Whereas
superiors were reported to trust the graduates mainly in terms of the graduates’ knowledge
and skills, colleagues expressed trust in the graduates that encompassed their competences,
their care for students and their learning, as well as their teaching-related values. Graduates
need this complex trust to feel empowered to take risks when pioneering new teaching
methods.
6. Recognise quality teaching to leverage graduates as educational leaders. Graduates of ED
programmes possess substantial potential to serve as educational leaders; however, their
institutions often fail to capitalise on this potential by not assigning them formal roles that
would allow them to influence teaching practices. This oversight typically occurs in contexts
with low recognition of teaching. Institutions that undervalue teaching often do not
appreciate individual teachers, which can negatively affect their perceptions of achievement,
as recognition has been identified as one of five key measures of success and failure in
academia (Timmermans and Kumar, 2024). Those institutions should invest in enhancing the
recognition of quality teaching and establish criteria that enable successful ED programme
graduates to assume formal roles in educational leadership.
Implications for educational development
1. Stimulate a comprehensive understanding of student-centred learning. Research on
perceptions of SCL among teachers (Trinidad, 2020; Bremner, 2022) shows that teachers
commonly equate SCL with promoting active learning. Different from that, programme
graduates from this research seem to view SCL in a relatively complex way. However, when it
comes to their syllabi, they pay quite little attention to some important aspects of SCL, such
as recognising diverse student needs, fostering balanced power dynamics between students
and teachers, and using continuous assessment. This limited implementation aligns with the
definitions of SCL in the four ED programmes examined in this study. Only the programme
offered by the Slovak Academy of Sciences included in its definition of SCL the notion of
students as colleagues and equals. No other programme than the one realised by
Nottingham Trent University integrated the idea of students as individuals with diverse
interests and needs. None of the programmes referred to the importance of students
receiving grades and feedback as part of their vision of SCL. Programmes should ensure their
articulation of SCL reflects a broad spectrum of its elements and provide sufficient
opportunities for participants to put a nuanced understanding of student-centredness into
practice.
117
2. Make sure syllabi demonstrate SCL. Teaching materials submitted by programme graduates
from the Slovak Academy of Sciences and Masaryk University were typically only one or two
pages long, making it difficult to consider them proper syllabi. In those documents they had
little space to demonstrate the courses aligned with the principles of student-centred
learning. Educational development programmes should help graduates learn to write syllabi
that show SCL and use them in their courses. Teaching and learning units should advocate for
specific standards for course syllabi to meet and promote examples of good practice,
particularly among syllabi designed by programme graduates.
3. Investigate what programme graduates find valuable about the programme. Because
graduates from the various programmes explored in this study attributed different kinds of
value to their programme, programme convenors should collect data post-programme on
which aspects graduates valued most and to understand any elements they felt were lacking.
4. Foster partnerships among programme graduates. Since some ED programme graduates
may face challenges finding collaborators within their departments, collaboration with fellow
graduates offers an alternative for sustaining and enhancing student-centred and reflective
practices. For such partnerships to develop, graduates must be familiar with one another.
Programmes should therefore create ample opportunities for participants to engage with
each other’s teaching ideas and approaches, such as through structured discussions, teaching
observations, or peer review of assignments.
Implications for future research
1. Ask teachers to reflect on a class that did not go well. For future research into higher
education teachers’ reflective teaching, it is recommended that researchers prompt teachers
to reflect on a class that did not go as planned, rather than focusing solely on sessions that
went well. As indicated in other studies (McAlpine and Weston, 2000), suboptimal
performance often encourages deeper, higher-level reflection compared to instances where
the teacher is largely satisfied with the outcome of the class.
2. Assess innovative teaching practices using a variety of measures. Presentations from
teaching conferences, publications of teaching-related papers, and colleague assessments
can only provide a partial picture of innovative teaching approaches. If publications are to be
included as a measure, it would be beneficial to collect those that detail programme
graduates’ teaching innovations. Preferably, researchers first establish a working definition
of what constitutes innovative teaching and then evaluate individual cases against that
definition. If researchers encounter challenges in achieving consensus on the meaning of
innovation, an exploratory study should be conducted initially to define innovative teaching
practices in higher education.
3. Examine the duration and development of teaching collaborations. Research aiming to
uncover the impact of teaching collaboration should account for various aspects that help
capture the quality of these collaborations, including their length, initial purpose, evolving
nature, and perceived benefits.
4. Explore how teaching collaboration may contribute to the development of collaborative
environments for students. None of the programme graduates or colleagues interviewed in
this study described any spill-over effect from teaching collaboration to student
collaboration. Such outcomes may exist, but without specifically asking about them, the
research team did not uncover any evidence of this effect. In a future study, it would
118
moreover be important to gather sufficient data to determine whether the institutional
environment encourages these types of partnerships.
Concluding thoughts
The programmes explored in this study have been preparing faculty members for their teaching roles
for a number of years. In the cases of two institutions, there is evidence that these programmes
achieve positive outcomes in the short term; after completing the programme, the graduates return
to their departments committed and equipped to teach in a student-centred and reflective manner
(Renc-Roe and Yarkova, 2013; Pleschová and McAlpine, 2016). Existing literature indicates that the
workplace significantly influences how participants teach (Remmik et al., 2011; Roxå, Mårtensson,
and Alveteg, 2011; Stewart, 2014). This was also evident in our research, where programme
graduates reported various contextual constraints on their teaching practices. These included
overwhelming workloads due to multiple responsibilities, working in spaces that did not support
student-centred approaches, institutionally prescribed assessment formats, and a lack of recognition
for quality teaching.
Despite this, all but one programme graduate in this research managed to teach in a student-centred
way, albeit to varying degrees, and all demonstrated capacities for reflective teaching. Moreover,
they were seen as educational leaders by their colleagues, and three fifths of them (11) were
appointed by their institutions to formal leadership roles in education. These achievements were
largely due to 10 out of the 19 graduates being engaged in teaching collaborations, same number
feeling trusted by their departmental heads to teach in a student-centred manner and to innovate in
their teaching, and all being regarded as trustworthy by colleagues familiar with their teaching
practices.
However, it was not possible to precisely determine from data whether teaching collaboration,
trusting relationships, and educational leadership were more the result of the programme graduates’
individual efforts or institutionally created conditions. For about one-third of the graduates, it
appeared that they strived to be student-centred and reflective practitioners despite contextual
challenges. In one case, the influence of the context was so strong that the graduate reverted to a
more teacher-centred approach.
Yet, the findings from this research make it clear: higher education institutions should not expect
their academic teachers to perform at their best regardless of the suboptimal conditions they face.
Based on the accounts of programme graduates and their colleagues, the title of this work could just
as easily be “Teachers Excelling and Struggling: The Long-Term Effects of ED Programmes.” In many
cases, teachers acted as champions of student learning despite their working conditions, rather than
because of them. It is evident that if teachers had more favourable conditions for student-centred
and reflective teaching, as well as for teaching innovation, they would likely achieve even greater
success in fostering student learning. Institutional contexts that are more supportive of these
practices would enable teachers to fully realise their potential as teachers. Importantly, many of the
desired changes require cultural shifts within institutions.
Previous research indicates that early-career academics are typically highly committed to being
effective teachers, and their practice often reflects this dedication (Remmik, Karm, and Lepp, 2013;
Stewart, 2014; Pleschová and Simon, 2018; Pleschová and Simon, 2022). However, Lewis (2010: 239)
cautions that even if professors are currently teaching well, there is no assurance that they will
maintain this level of quality throughout their careers. As already concluded long before this study:
119
increasing the relative value of teaching and offering rewards for good teaching is likely to have a
significant impact on teaching quality (Giertz, 1996; Lewis, 2010).
Any professional development effort that is not paired with institutional support for change risks
being a largely wasted activity (Cannon and Hore, 2006). In an environment that does not promote or
support high-quality teaching, even the most committed educators may begin to invest less into
preparing for and reflecting on their classes. This downward shift in effort and engagement—let
alone a failure to rethink teaching practices—works against the purpose of ED programmes, as
previously highlighted (Remmik, Karm and Lepp, 2013).
References
Bremner, Nicholas (2022) What is learner-centred education? A qualitative study exploring the
perspectives of English language teachers in Colombia. Teaching English as a Second Language
Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ) 25(4): https://tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej100/a12.pdf
Cannon, Robert, Hore, Terry (1997) The long‐term effects of ‘one‐shot’ professional development
courses: An Indonesian case study. International Journal for Academic Development 2(1): 35-42:
10.1080/1360144970020104
Giertz, Birgitta (1996) Long‐term effects of a programme for teacher training. The International
Journal for Academic Development 1(2): 67-72: 10.1080/1360144960010209
Ilie, Marian D., Maricuțoiu, Laurentiu, Iancu, Daniel E., Smarandache, Izabella G., Mladenovici,
Velibor, Stoia, Dalia C. M., Toth, Silvia A. (2020) Reviewing the research on instructional development
programs for academics. Trying to tell a different story: A meta-analysis. Educational Research
Review 30: 100331: 10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100331
Le-May Sheffield, Suzanne, Timmermans, Julie A. (2021) Creating a collaborative community spirit for
the future of academic development. International Journal for Academic Development 26(2): 117-
120: 10.1080/1360144X.2021.1918851
Lewis, Karron G. (2010) Pathways toward improving teaching and learning in higher education:
International context and background. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 122: 10.1002/tl.394
McAlpine, Lynn, Weston, Cynthia (2000) Issues related to improving professors’ teaching and
students’ learning. Instructional Science 28: 5-6: 363-385: 10.1023/A:1026583208230
Pleschová, Gabriela, McAlpine, Lynn (2016) Helping teachers to focus on learning and reflect on their
teaching: What role does teaching context play? Studies in Educational Evaluation 48, 1-9:
10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.10.002
Pleschová, Gabriela, Roxå, Torgny, Thomson, Kate, Felten, Peter (2021) Conversations that make
meaningful change in teaching, teachers, and academic development. International Journal for
Academic Development 26(3): 201-209: 10.1080/1360144X.2021.1958446
Pleschová, Gabriela, Simon, Agnes, Eds. (2018) Early career academics’ reflections on learning to
teach in Central Europe. London: SEDA:
www.seda.ac.uk/resources/files/Early_career_academics_reflections_on_learning_to_teach_entire_
book.pdf
120
Pleschová, Gabriela, Simon, Agnes, Eds. (2022) Internationalising teaching in higher education.
Supporting peer learning. Delft: Delft University of Technology: https://impactportal.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2023/03/Internationalising_teaching_in_higher_education_whole_book.pdf
Remmik, Marvi, Karm, Mari, Lepp, Liina (2013) Learning and developing as a university teacher:
narratives of early career academics in Estonia. European Educational Research Journal 12(3): 330-
341: 10.2304/eerj.2013.12.3.3
Remmik, Marvi, Karm, Mari, Haamer, Anu, Lepp, Liina (2011) Early career academics’ learning in
academic communities. International Journal for Academic Development 16(3): 187-199:
10.1080/1360144X.2011.596702
Renc-Roe, Joanna, Yarkova, Tatiana (2013) Preparing doctoral students for a teaching career. The
case of an international university with a history of regional engagement. In Simon, Eszter, Pleschová,
Gabriela (Eds.) Teacher development in higher education. Existing programs, program impact, and
future trends. New York and Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 19-33.
Rogers, Russell R. (2001) Reflection in higher education: A concept analysis. Innovative Higher
Education 26(1): 37-57: 10.1023/A:1010986404527
Roxå, Torgny, Mårtensson, Katarina, Alveteg, Mattias (2011) Understanding and influencing teaching
and learning cultures at university: A network approach. Higher Education 62(1): 99-111:
10.1007/s10734-010-9368-9
Stewart, Martyn (2014) Making sense of a teaching programme for university academics: Exploring
the longer-term effects. Teaching and Teacher Education 38: 89-98: 10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.006
Timmermans, Julie A., Kumar, Vijay (2024) Learning from senior academics’ perspectives of success
and failure. Studies in Higher Education 49(8): 1317-1328: 10.1080/03075079.2023.2264864
Trinidad, Jose Eos (2020) Understanding student-centred learning in higher education: students’ and
teachers’ perceptions, challenges, and cognitive gaps Journal of Further and Higher Education 44(8):
1013-1023: 10.1080/0309877X.2019.1636214
UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education
(2023) Advance Higher Education: www.advance-he.ac.uk/teaching-and-learning/psf
121
ABSTRACT
ED programmes are now a standard way of enhancing quality teaching and learning; in some
countries, they are even mandatory for all new lecturers. Even if there is compelling scholarly
evidence that these programs can change the way lecturers teach, we still know little about their
long-term effects. Such a perspective is crucial since intervening factors can influence graduates’
efforts to change, including pressure to focus on research, major increase in student numbers,
increasing student diversity or the attitudes of colleague lecturers. To effectively respond to changing
student needs and the context of their learning, programme graduates often need more than
involvement in regular initiatives of the educational development unit. Yet, it is unclear what type of
support best addresses lecturers’ needs and has the potential to influence their environment in a
way that prioritises teaching enhancement, innovation and exchanges about good practice in
education. These questions are important because universities strive to be competitive, which often
requires structural changes evaluated over a five-year or longer span.
This work investigates the long-term effects of educational development (ED) programmes on
teaching perceptions and practices five and more years later. The research draws comparisons
between an ED programme at a university in the United Kingdom dedicated to advancing teaching,
an international university where high-quality education is central to its mission, and two universities
in Central and Eastern Europe with an ambition to rise in rankings and attract international students.
It examines collaboration, trusting relationships and leadership as key drivers of effective practices.
Data for this study were collected through semi-structured qualitative interviews with 19 graduates
of the ED programmes and with 15 other individuals familiar with their teaching and other
professional practice.
The work provides insights into factors that shape the effectiveness of educational development
programmes, drawing on recent examples from diverse contexts. It adopts a holistic and critical
approach to examining the long-term outcomes of ED programmes and it offers a strategic
perspective that extends beyond the immediate and day-to-day work of higher education
professionals. The work has an ambition to become a valuable resource for researchers, educational
developers and higher education leaders.
This work is comprised of the following sections:
• Section I. Educational development programmes and the change they are hoped to foster
(chapters 1 & 2)
• Section II. Four case studies (chapters 3-6)
• Section III. Diverse paths of graduates from ED programmes (chapters 7-11)
• Section IV. Conclusions (chapter 12)
Chapter 1. The rationale for researching long-term impact of ED programmes explains why this
work set to explore the long-term effects of ED programmes taking the conceptual lens of studentcentredness
and reflective teaching. It clarifies how since the 1990s student-centred learning (SCL)
that places importance on active learning, continuous assessment and more balanced power
relationship in the classroom has become a predominantly used concept for desired learning in
educational development. The chapter moreover introduces the concept of reflective teaching. It
defines reflection and how it is different from, for example, thinking or deliberation. It details what
reflective teaching means, how is it evidenced to impact student learning, in particular in higher
education and why should teachers approach their practice in a reflective manner. The chapter offers
examples how reflective approach to teaching have been assessed in published literature and it
122
specifies how both student-centred approach to teaching and reflectiveness are evaluated in this
research.
Chapter 2. Design of research on long-term impact of four ED programmes outlines the research
project, research sites where data was collected, collaborators and research methods together with
the international collaborative project BELONG as part of which this research has been undertaken. It
lists the research questions for the study and its purpose. It describes the perspectives taken by the
research team and presents limitations of research that has been undertaken for the study.
Chapter 3. An international university committed to transforming how students learn in the region
introduces the first case: Central European University (CEU). CEU is a front-runner in the region in
offering educational development opportunities not only to its own teachers but also to those who
now teach at many other institutions of Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Middle East.
This chapter presents CEU’s mission, highlighting its goals in terms of education and how they
connect to CEU’s educational development programme that supports teachers to foster studentcentred
learning. It moreover elucidates how CEU’s initiatives cast legacy over the programmes at
other institutions in the region, including two cases discussed later. The chapter presents CEU’s
programme, its definition of student-centredness and reflectiveness in teaching. It provides
information on programme history, major programme assignments for participants to complete,
ways of supporting the participants, and who the programme participants and graduates are,
specifically those recruited for this research.
Chapter 4. A fast-growing, ambitious university portraits an educational development programme
at the second largest higher education institution in Czechia, Masaryk University. The chapter
provides background information about The Foundations of University Teaching Excellence
programme run by Masaryk University’s Center for the Development of Pedagogic Competences
introduced in 2017 as part of a flagship project of Masaryk University. It presents the programme
structure, approach and information about programme participants and graduates together with its
understanding of student-centred learning and reflective teaching.
Chapter 5. An institution that trains scholars but also teachers details another programme offered
in Central and Eastern Europe, at the Slovak Academy of Sciences. The programme is specific in the
type of its provider, which is a predominantly a research institution. It explains that because
universities in Slovakia typically do not provide educational development opportunities to their
doctoral students, a group of academics secured in 2012 external funding to prepare an educational
development programme for early career academics with teaching responsibilities and run it for the
teachers from different institutions across the country. The chapter describes the design and conduct
of the programme, it characterises its participants and the programme’s conceptualisation of
student-centredness and reflectiveness while teaching.
Chapter 6. A university that holds Gold for teaching presents a programme delivered by one of the
largest and most influential higher education institutions in the United Kingdom, Nottingham Trent
University. The chapter first characterises the university and then its educational development
programme Postgraduate Certificate Learning and Teaching in Higher Education that has been in
place since 2008. It describes the programme aims, methods, participants and views of studentcentred
learning and reflective teaching.
Chapter 7. Four paths of HE teachers uncovers four distinct paths that the teachers in this study
have embarked on five and more years after completing an ED programme. These paths emerged
from an analysis of interviews with the graduates and their colleagues and an examination of their
123
course syllabi related to the following themes: a) supporting student learning, b) engaging in teaching
innovation, c) balancing various work responsibilities, and d) responding to contextual factors that
impact teachers’ willingness to teach in a student-centred and reflective way. The four paths
synthesised from the data include 1) the Pragmatic Teacher Path, 2) the Enthusiastic StudentCentred
Innovator Path, 3) the Dedicated Teacher Frustrated with Their Institution Path and 4) the
Converted Teacher-Centred Scholar Path, with the second path being the most prevalent. Each of
these paths has been characterised, and a cameo for each is presented to illustrate a variety of
routes that graduates from ED programmes take.
Chapter 8. Student-centred and reflective teaching five and more years on starts by detailing what
we know from literature about long-term outcomes of educational development programmes. It
then presents the key findings from this research, with a focus on programme graduates’ studentcentred
and reflective teaching practices. Drawing on interviews with programme graduates and
their colleagues, as well as analysis of graduates’ course materials, the study reveals that almost all
teachers exhibit student-centred and reflective practices, though the degree to which they do so
varies significantly. Moreover, the chapter underscores that reflective teaching remains more
challenging for programme graduates to demonstrate than student-centred learning. The chapter
also identifies and describes the factors that both positively and negatively influence graduates’
ability to teach in a student-centred and reflective manner. Based on these findings, it recommends
that higher education institutions set reasonable expectations for the productivity of academic
teachers and ensure that learning spaces are designed to support student-centred learning.
Chapter 9. Teaching collaboration examines collaboration as a factor influencing how graduates
apply their learning from educational development programmes and evolve as educators. It
highlights that successful teaching collaboration relies on teachers’ awareness of colleagues who
share similar teaching philosophies. This awareness depends on having an effective system for
teaching observations and ample opportunities for discussing teaching practices. Graduates who
engage in teaching collaboration appreciate the opportunity to learn from diverse ideas and
approaches, find allies for teaching innovation, and value the benefits of such collaboration for
students. When graduates perceive their department as unsupportive of their teaching values, they
seek collaborators outside their immediate environment. These external collaborations, though
beneficial, are relatively uncommon, suggesting a need for additional institutional support.
Chapter 10. Trusting relationships of ED programme graduates investigates whether graduates feel
trusted by their head of the department to teach in a student-centred and reflective way and
innovate teaching and explores what makes them feel trusted or not. The findings reveal an
association between graduates’ perceptions of trust from their head of department and levels of
student-centred learning and reflectiveness. Additionally, the chapter shows that only a small
number of graduates engage in publicising and publishing their teaching practices, suggesting that
trust from the superior may not translate into teaching innovation. The chapter also uncovers a
contrasting nature of the perceived trust from the head of department, which tends to be primarily
cognition-based, with the more nuanced, multi-dimensional trust expressed by colleagues,
encompassing cognition-, affect-, and value-based trust. Finally, the study recognises that superiors
sometimes express indifference about graduates’ teaching, which may discourage them from
innovating teaching as innovation involves risk-taking. The chapter concludes with recommendations
for heads of department to cultivate trust across the unit.
Chapter 11. ED programme graduates serving as educational leaders maps the educational
leadership roles that graduates from ED programmes hold within their institutions. First, the study
124
details the various formal leadership roles that programme graduates undertake and it explores the
influence they have on teaching and learning informally, as reported by their colleagues. The chapter
then discusses whether a relationship exists between graduates serving in leadership roles in
teaching and learning and their student-centred approach to teaching and reflectiveness. It
elaborates on whether programme graduates receive formal recognition for their teaching and how
such recognition is linked to their leadership roles.
Chapter 12. The implications of this study for institutional practice, educational development, and
research synthesises the key findings of this study and presents recommendations for higher
education institutions on how to enhance support for graduates from educational development
programs. Additionally, it offers suggestions for educational development programmes and for
future research in this area. A critical task for higher education institutions is emphasised—namely,
to enhance the institutional recognition of teaching. Without such recognition, these programmes
face challenges in effectively promoting excellent teaching and improving student learning outcomes.