Quality Assurance in Education

What constitutes high quality teaching and learning and how to assure it
Erika Martens, Michael Prosser,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Erika Martens, Michael Prosser, (1998) "What constitutes high quality teaching and learning and how to assure it", Quality
Assurance in Education, Vol. 6 Issue: 1, pp.28-36, https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889810200368
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889810200368
Downloaded on: 14 March 2018, At: 21:48 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 21 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2698 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(1997),"Multi-models of quality in education", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 22-31 <a href="https://
Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 21:48 14 March 2018 (PT)

doi.org/10.1108/09684889710156558">https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889710156558</a>
(2003),"Quality assurance in education: internal, interface, and future", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 11 Iss 4 pp.
202-213 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880310501386">https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880310501386</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:603747 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


What constitutes high
quality teaching and
learning and how to
assure it
Erika Martens and
Michael Prosser
The authors
Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 21:48 14 March 2018 (PT)
Erika Martens is a Lecturer in the Academic Development
Unit, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia.
Michael Prosser is Professor and Director of the
Academic Development Unit, La Trobe University,
Bundoora, Australia.
Abstract
The evaluation and continuous improvement of the quality
of teaching and learning in higher education is an issue of
sustained concern. While most universities are implement-
ing systems of quality assurance there is substantial
variation in the principles underlying these systems. La
Trobe University has developed and implemented a
university-wide system of quality assurance that ensures
that each subject is systematically reviewed and enhanced
by those teaching in the subject. While it incorporates
compulsory student evaluation of teaching of each subject
the result of this student evaluation is not the focus of the
quality assurance system. The focus is on ensuring that
those teaching the subject reflect on and make recommen-
dations for further improvement of the subject. This paper
outlines the quality assurance system, the principles on
which it is based and describes and analyses the processes
engaged in during its development.
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 6 · Number 1 · 1998 · pp. 28–36
© MCB University Press · ISSN 0968-4883
28
Introduction
While universities have always been concerned
with systems of quality improvement of their
teaching and learning, their efforts have not
always been as systematic as they could be nor
as visible and accountable as they could be (van
Vught and Westerheijden, 1994). The issues of
quality assessment, quality assurance and
quality enhancement have received greater
attention within Australia and worldwide
during the late 1980s and 1990s. There is a
growing number of academic journals address-
ing issues of quality, a growing number of
academic and management-oriented confer-
ences, and, within Australia, a growing number
of government-sponsored reports. The most
influential so far has been the report, Achieving
Quality (Higher Education Council, 1992),
which led to the establishment of the Commit-
tee for Quality Assurance in Higher Education
between 1994 and 1996. Since then, Australian
universities have been developing and imple-
menting a range of different systems for quality
assurance of teaching and learning, with quali-
tatively different underlying assumptions of
what constitutes good teaching and learning,
and different approaches to the assurance and
enhancement of quality (Harman, 1996).
Most, if not all, such schemes incorporate
the use of student evaluation of teaching as a
prime source of information (van Vught and
Westerheijden, 1994). But little thought is
given to the relationship between the assump-
tions underlying what constitutes high quality
teaching and learning, the assumptions on
which the quality assurance procedures are
based, and the assumptions underlying the
development of the student evaluation proce-
dures which are a constituent part of the
quality assurance process.
In this paper, we will describe and examine
an example of a scheme for quality assurance
of teaching and learning which, in its design,
attempted to incorporate a particular view on
what is meant by high quality teaching and
learning and a particular perspective on
quality assurance. In the first part of the
paper, we describe what we mean by high
quality teaching and learning, we then
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the
1996 Conference of the Higher Education
Research and Development Society of Australasia
under the title: “A developmental focus on quality
assurance of teaching and learning”.
 What constitutes high quality teaching and learning and how to assure it
Erika Martens and Michael Prosser
examine two fundamentally different perspec-
tives on quality assurance and relate our view
of teaching and learning to those perspectives.
In the second part, we describe and analyse an
example of a scheme for quality assurance of
teaching and learning developed on the basis
of this analysis. In the final part, we identify
and discuss a number of issues which have
emerged from the initial pilot and implemen-
tation of the scheme.
Constitution of high quality teaching and
learning
The issue of what constitutes high quality
teaching and learning is one which is of prime
importance in the development of quality
assurance systems, and one which is often not
explicitly addressed. There is a growing con-
Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 21:48 14 March 2018 (PT)
sensus that high quality teaching is not just
about high quality presentation of content,
nor just about the implementation of high
quality teaching skills. High quality teaching
is fundamentally about affording high quality
student learning (Ramsden, 1992). Assuring
quality of teaching based on this concept of
quality teaching is about keeping a focus on
how and what students are learning, and how
this can be improved (Trigwell and Prosser,
1991; Prosser, 1993). It is fundamentally
about affording a context in which high quali-
ty learning is possible and is encouraged.
What is meant by high quality learning in
this context? For us, high quality learning is
learning which focuses fundamentally on the
development of meaning and not on repro-
duction. A substantial amount of research on
student learning in higher education has
shown that students develop qualitatively
different understandings of the material they
are studying, and that this variation in under-
standing relates to the variation in the way
they approach their studies. The variation in
the way they approach their studies has been
described in terms of surface and deep
approaches. A surface approach is one in
which the students intend to reproduce mate-
rial they are studying in order to meet
externally imposed demands. In the process,
they adopt strategies focused on, for example,
rote memorisation. A deep approach, on the
other hand, is one in which the students’
intention is to understand the material they
are studying. They adopt strategies aimed at
seeking meaning in that material. Research in
student learning in several fields of study has
shown that the former approach results in low
29
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 6 · Number 1 · 1998 · 28–36
quality learning outcomes, while the latter
results in higher quality outcomes (Trigwell
and Prosser, 1991). In this context, a low
quality learning outcome is characterised,
for example, as one in which the students’
knowledge is unrelated to their past experi-
ences, is poorly structured or unstructured, is
composed of isolated bits of information, and
is of a short-term duration. Subjects in which
students report adopting deeper approaches
to study are ones in which they report that the
teachers are good and that the goals and
standards are clear. Subjects in which they
report adopting more surface approaches are
ones in which they report overly high work-
loads and assessment strategies aimed at
reproducing learnt materials (Entwistle and
Ramsden, 1983). What is clear from this
research is that it is the subject as a whole –
how it is designed, taught and assessed –
which relates to the quality of student learn-
ing. High quality teaching in higher education
takes account of each of these aspects.
As noted by Ramsden (1992), fundamental
to this view of teaching and learning is that
high quality teaching is context-related,
uncertain and continuously improvable. To
assure the quality of teaching based on this
concept of teaching, universities need to
ensure that the system is open enough to
allow for variation between, for example,
disciplines, years of study, compulsory and
elective subjects. They need to take into
consideration that the ways taken to improve
teaching and learning are likely to be uncer-
tain in the outcomes and consequently
require a continuing focus on improvement.
Any system of quality assurance of teaching
that takes as its point of departure that good
teaching is about affording high quality
student learning will need to explicitly take
account of these three issues. This is certainly
the case for systems based on student evalua-
tion of teaching.
Approaches to quality assurance of
teaching and learning
The literature on quality assurance in higher
education argues that schemes for quality
assurance are often based on one of two
fundamentally opposed approaches. Any
successful scheme needs to expertly combine
the two approaches or to carefully negotiate
between the two (Elton, 1988; Pollit, 1987; van
Vught and Westerheijden, 1994; Vroeijensteijn
and Ackerman, 1990; Vroeijensteijn,1994).
 What constitutes high quality teaching and learning and how to assure it
Erika Martens and Michael Prosser
On the one hand, there is the approach which
emphasises the intrinsic characteristics of the
institution, the confidential, self-directed
improvement of quality through trusting peers
and self-evaluation, but which runs the risk of
being unreliable, impressionistic and uneven.
On the other hand, there is the approach which
emphasises the extrinsic characteristics of a
higher education institution, insisting on exter-
nal managerial control, comparable, statistical
data and public reporting, but which runs the
risk of losing the trust and commitment of the
participants and thereby becoming ineffectual
(Elton, 1988; Pollit, 1987; van Vught and
Westerheijden, 1994).
The approaches underlying schemes for
quality assurance of teaching and learning
could therefore be characterised thus:
Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 21:48 14 March 2018 (PT)
(1) An approach based on ensuring that the
subject as a whole, and not just the teach-
ers, are contributing to the improvement
of student learning over time. Good
teaching is seen in terms of enhancing the
relationship between the student and the
subject, not just in terms of how individ-
ual staff members are performing – the
focus is on the continuous improving of
student learning.
(2) An approach based on ensuring that
teaching staff fulfil their duties, and iden-
tifying those who are not performing
adequately, often relying on standardised
student evaluation questionnaires to
monitor staff performance – the focus is
on managing individual staff performance
Which of these two fundamentally different
approaches is more consistent with the view of
high quality teaching and learning espoused
earlier? We would argue that the former and
not the latter is more likely to take account of
contextual variation in teaching and learning,
as well as to treat the improvement of teaching
and learning as problematic and needing to be
continuously worked on. However, institu-
tional needs for a reliable system of quality
assurance requires that certain concessions
are made to the former approach. In this
paper we will describe and analyse an example
of a quality assurance scheme, incorporating
student evaluation of teaching as a key source
of information, which is based on an attempt
to reconcile these two approaches. It stresses
the need for the maintenance of a firm
concept of high quality teaching and learning
as well as a “common sense” approach to
30
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 6 · Number 1 · 1998 · 28–36
quality assurance, which, in the words of
Ingrid Moses: “Change efficiency agendas
into educational ones”.
Description and analysis of the scheme
In this section we describe the Australian and
institutional context within which the scheme
was developed, briefly describe the scheme,
and analyse the scheme in terms of the princi-
ples on which it is based.
The Australian context
Until quite recently in Australia, university
teaching remained relatively unexamined.
However, things are changing in this respect.
Several merging streams are encouraging
universities to examine and revise their view
of teaching and quality assurance. The first is
the growing visibility and respectability of the
view of teaching and learning summarised
above (Ramsden, 1992). With a conceptual
basis to the experiences of students’ learning,
academic development has begun to focus on
assisting staff to redefine teaching in terms of
student learning.
This leads directly to the second issue
which also has the potential to contribute to
the re-examination and redefinition of teach-
ing and quality assurance. The Common-
wealth Government took over complete finan-
cial responsibility for funding Australian
universities from the states in 1972. In its
subsequent reports, the importance of teach-
ing was continually asserted but it was not
until the late 1980s that the Commonwealth
itself earmarked money for the improvement
of teaching via the National Staff Develop-
ment Fund, the National Priority (Reserve)
Fund, and the Committee for the Advance-
ment of University Teaching, and more
recently the Committee for University Teach-
ing and Staff Development. Good teaching
now has some explicit rewards, and with it the
gradual move to procedures to formalise the
quality assurance of teaching for individual
and departmental purposes.
So, in the early 1990s, as an activity, the
quality assurance of teaching was being trans-
formed from something done sporadically by
individual staff via a feedback questionnaire to
students, to something done routinely by a
department as part of its ongoing monitoring
and review processes which are now becoming
institutionalised in response to accountability
and quality assurance pressures.
 What constitutes high quality teaching and learning and how to assure it
Erika Martens and Michael Prosser
Finally, in 1993, the Australian Govern-
ment established the Committee for Quality
Assurance in Higher Education (Harman,
1996). This was in operation for three years,
having been discontinued by a new incoming
Australian government in 1996 (although a
number of its functions are being taken over
by another body). During its tenure, it estab-
lished processes for the auditing of the quality
assurance processes and outcomes of
Australian universities and dispersed sums
of money to universities based on the
Committee’s judgement of the quality of
these processes and outcomes. The processes
involved an annual “quality round” during
which each university produced a self-
evaluation report describing its processes and
Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 21:48 14 March 2018 (PT)
outcomes. These reports were submitted to
the national committee, which arranged visits
to each university with the aim of auditing the
reports. Universities were then placed in
bands, and funds were dispersed based on the
band in which the university was placed.
It is in this context that La Trobe Universi-
ty, in 1994, instituted its present scheme for
quality assurance of teaching and learning.
Institutional context
The institution described here is a large, well
established suburban and regional university. It
was established in 1967. It has 22,000 students
enrolled in a range of professional and
generalist courses. It has a well established
research record, and its faculties cover a wide
range of professional and generalist fields of
study. It is geographically dispersed across two
metropolitan and six regional campuses. It has
had an academic development unit since 1993,
which has focused mainly on the study and
improvement of teaching and learning within
the University.
At the March 1994 meeting of the
University’s Academic Board (the major
academic decision making body of the
University), the vice-chancellor reported that
University’s Council had noted that in the
context of the 1994 quality round:
It was now urgent to implement the remaining
recommendations of the strategic plan in respect
of undergraduate teaching and quality assurance
which have already been approved by Council. It
was important to introduce a scheme for obtain-
ing regular and reliable feedback from students
on all courses. (La Trobe University Board
Meeting Papers, March, 1994)
31
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 6 · Number 1 · 1998 · 28–36
It should be noted that the focus of the Council
decision was on “regular and reliable feedback
from students” and not on continuous
improvement in the quality of teaching and
learning. The scheme that was eventually
developed, however, had the continuous
improvement of the quality of teaching and
learning as its primary focus.
The scheme was developed by the academic
development unit in consultation with the
deans, heads of schools, the Academic Union
and appropriate central university committees.
The scheme was piloted in a small number
of schools in semester 1, 1994, and in the
whole University in semester 2, 1994. The
scheme, with some revisions, was endorsed
by the Academic Board in 1995 and imple-
mented in 1996. The scheme applies to
all undergraduate subjects, with first-year
subjects being reviewed annually, and later
year subjects biennially.
The scheme, and the principles on which
it is based, is summarised in Table I. A
description of the sequence of the process is
found in Figure 1 in the appendix.
As shown in Table I, we approached the
design of the scheme with the goal of combin-
ing a compulsory use of student feedback for
quality assurance with the educational princi-
ples described previously. This was achieved
by the combination of a single university-wide
process with a flexible instrument and a care-
fully designed reporting/contextualising
strategy. The tendency of a single instrument
to gloss over disciplinary differences and be
perceived as “top-down” and authoritarian
was altered by the flexibility of the instru-
ment. Each aspect of the three components
was shaped according to educational princi-
ples to play a specific role so that the overall
process could fulfil our main goal: an educa-
tionally viable system of quality assurance.
The process aims to ensure that all subjects
are reviewed by their subject co-ordinator,
and that the subject co-ordinators provide a
report to their heads of schools setting out
plans for improvement. This process is
designed to enable a systematic, confidential
review to take place, which is controlled by
the subject co-ordinators who are in the best
position to design enhancements to the teach-
ing and learning in the subject.
The flexibility of the student evaluation
instrument allows for a high degree of control
by schools over the questions included in any
survey, and thereby allowing for a
 What constitutes high quality teaching and learning and how to assure it Quality Assurance in Education
Erika Martens and Michael Prosser Volume 6 · Number 1 · 1998 · 28–36

Table I Principles of the scheme

Institutional policy: Resolutions of La Trobe University Academic Board and Council for compulsory student evaluation of subjects
Approach: Combine a compulsory use of student feedback for quality assurance with educational principles
1. Develop a single university-wide process separate from that 2. Develop a flexible instrument which permits an effective
used by individual staff to describe their performance development approach
Aspects of process Principle Aspects of instrument Principle
All subjects to be reviewed Systematic review of all Schools are permitted to use their Teachers need to trust the
regularly; reviews to be subjects will maximise own instruments if these are instrument in order to learn
documented enhancement acceptable to the faculty from the data it generates
Reports on subjects submitted
to heads of school who report
to dean of faculty. Reports filed
in school for future use in
school reviews etc.
One source of data for reviews Student feedback must Quality Assurance of Subjects Control over design allows
to be a compulsory student be central to any evaluation Questionnaires are developed by all commitment to and
Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 21:48 14 March 2018 (PT)

evaluation of subjects
Detailed results of, and data
collected, to be the property of
the subject co-ordinator, and
released only at his or her
discretion or permission
The subject co-ordinator is
responsible for the
implementation of the
enhancements during the
next teaching round
Heads of schools/deans are
responsible for ensuring that
subjec tco-ordinators
systematically reivew and
recommend enhancements of
all subjects
Note
a Used yearly to survey all graduating students of all Australian universities on their course as a whole (that is, that it should include questions
of learning and teaching schools; some vary questionnaires relevance of instrument to
according to the needs of individual disciplines
subjects Norm ranking is impossible.
Contextual variation is
accounted for
Confidential and Items for questionnaire are focused Data used for management
developmental systems on aspects of the subject not on decision should be separate
work best in enhancing individual performance. from data for developmental
subjects purposes
Enhancements are more Student evaluation questionnaire Focus on high quality
likely if responsibility is items to be chosen from the student learning
matched with power dimensions used in the course
experience questionnairea
School-specific issues best More than one source of evidence is Developmental improvements
dealt with at the source incorporated into the review are increased if data are
contextualised

on good teaching, clear goals, appropriate workload and appropriate assessment (teaching and learning processes), and on the achievement
of generic skills and/or of subject aims and objectives (outcomes of teaching and learning) (Ramsden, 1991).

contextualisation of the process according to diverse groupings. As only one source of

discipline and type of subject. The flexibility of
the instrument is curtailed to an extent by the
strong suggestion that survey questions are to
correspond to the dimensions of the Course
Experience Questionnaire (Ramsden, 1992)
and thereby focus on those aspects of the
teaching known to be closely related to student
learning, but not necessarily to teachers’
performances. This “enforced” flexibility also
excludes the possibility of norm ranking across
32
evidence for the short report, the data gener-
ated by the survey are highly relevant, but also
properly contextualised, thereby increasing the
effectiveness of the suggested enhancements.
Analysis of the scheme
To reiterate: we conceptualise high quality
teaching to be teaching which leads to high
quality student learning. The quality of
student learning is conceptualised in terms of
 What constitutes high quality teaching and learning and how to assure it
Erika Martens and Michael Prosser
Figure 1 Process of implementing the quality assurance scheme
Schools determine whether to develop their
own Scheme, consistent with the
University-wide principles, or to adopt the
University-wide scheme
University-wide Scheme
Schools revise School-based questionnaire
developed previously (individual staff
performance questions need to be approved
at a School meeting)
Schools photocopy questionnaires onto
scannable questionnaire blanks
Subject Co-ordinators arrange for the
administration of the questionnaires
Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 21:48 14 March 2018 (PT)
Subject Co-ordinators place completed
questionnaires into the envelopes supplied
and complete the details on the front of the
envelopes
School returns sealed envelopes to ...
for processing
Sealed envelopes containing completed
questionnaires and analyses of the results
returned to Schools for distribution to
Subject Co-ordinators
Subject Co-ordinators prepare brief report,
including a summary of student evaluations,
and forward it to Head of School
Head of School arranges for reports to be
reviewed, places reports in subject file, and
reports to Dean on progress and outcomes
of the reviews
a qualitative variation in the learning outcomes
relating to a qualitative variation in approaches
to study taken by the students relating to their
perceptions of various aspects of a subject.
University teaching is conceived of as being
context related, uncertain and continuously
improvable. During the development of the
scheme we chose methods for introducing
change into a university which corresponded
in approach and effect to our principles of
learning and teaching. We also followed prin-
ciples of evaluation based on the same con-
cepts of teaching and learning (Scriven, 1981;
Centra, 1979; Ramsden, 1992). The approach
we adopted can be summarised as combining
a single, compulsory, centrally organised
33
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 6 · Number 1 · 1998 · 28–36
School-based Scheme
Schools develop their own scheme,
consistent with University-wide principles
School-based Scheme approved by School
Staff Meeting
School-based Scheme submitted to the
Faculty for approval
Relevant faculty committee review the
Scheme and informs School of its decision
(either accept, revise or reject)
Schools implement the approved Scheme,
including the submission of Subject
Co-ordinators’ reports to Heads of Schools
and Heads of Schools’ Reports to Dean of
Faculties
process with a student evaluation instrument
which is flexible, individually customisable
and based on the concept of learning
explained above (see Table I). This combina-
tion of a compulsory process with a flexible
student evaluation instrument also allowed us
to accommodate the characteristics of teach-
ing in various fields of study.
During the period of development of the
scheme, we considered methods of introduc-
ing change into universities. Ingrid Moses
(1995) indicates that there are various
desiderata for successful introduction of
change: change should be compatible with
institutional traditions, be given support and
adequate resources from the power élite,
 What constitutes high quality teaching and learning and how to assure it
Erika Martens and Michael Prosser
members of the institution should be informed
of the process of change and should have
opportunities to influence it, and external
pressures on the institution should be taken
into consideration. These factors are further
varied depending on the culture of the
institution and how the staff working in it are
motivated. La Trobe University, combining
generalist classic disciplines with several
professional and technical fields, has an
institutional culture which is diverse, and
sharp differences in approaches to teaching
and learning, to research and to the motivation
of staff are likely to exist between faculties and
schools.
Wherever possible, our approach strove to
adhere to the four desiderata mentioned
above. The University has a wide variation in
Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 21:48 14 March 2018 (PT)
the background of its student intake and has a
tradition of valuing teaching highly. A system
which would assure the quality of teaching
probably had a better chance of finding wide
support amongst the staff at La Trobe than at
some other Australian universities. During the
development, we worked closely with heads of
schools and individual academics as well as
with representatives of the staff and the staff
association. At the same time, strong support
was forthcoming from the hierarchy who
funded both pilots during the first year. We
made the school the focus and locus of con-
trol, so that disciplinary differences were
accommodated, but we also gave full owner-
ship over the data to each individual subject
co-ordinator to assure access to information
and control. In order for staff to take to the
idea and see it as valuable for them, it was
arranged that the information gained from
this process could be used in applications for
promotion. For the schools, the information
generated by the co-ordinators would form
part of the five-yearly school review process.
Furthermore, we took great care to main-
tain our principles of constructive, develop-
mental evaluation of teaching (Centra, 1979;
Ramsden, 1992; Scriven, 1981). Highest
commitment and developmental effectiveness
was achieved by the combination of power
and responsibility in the hands of the subject
co-ordinator, and by requesting that the data
were contextualised and interpreted by that
person in the form of a written report which
was then used both by the school and by the
subject co-ordinator or the teaching team.
The writing of a report ensured that the sub-
ject co-ordinators learnt something about the
34
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 6 · Number 1 · 1998 · 28–36
subject and their role in it from the contextu-
alisation of the data (Centra, 1993). All
subject co-ordinators were able to call on the
academic development unit to help them
interpret the data, write the report, and design
improvements. We also provided a pamphlet
which guided lecturers, step by step, to an
interpretation and contextualisation of the
data. Because they had a high level of input
into the choice of questions, they were more
likely to value the information. The fact that
each subject co-ordinator was able to design
the range of improvements for his/her subject
corresponds to the principle of self-evaluation
(Pollit, 1987). This also assured that contex-
tual variations, as well as subject-specific
characteristics, were taken into consideration
in suggestions for improvement in the report.
The report is the basis for the continuous
improvement of teaching in each subject but,
as each report is unique and the co-ordinator
might change each year, the outcomes of the
changes are uncertain.
Discussion and conclusion
In this final part, we identify and discuss a
number of issues which have emerged from
the initial pilot and implementation of the
scheme.
Characteristics of the scheme
The scheme has the following characteristics.
First, and most importantly, the scheme has,
as its principle focus, the improvement of
student learning. The scheme itself was
designed around a principled perspective on
what constitutes good learning and teaching.
Second, all subjects are consistently
reviewed and enhanced. The central activity of
the system is the written documentation of a
context-related review of various aspects of the
subject, done by the person(s) able to reflect
and interpret the student-generated data: the
co-ordinator, or teaching team. The
suggestions for improvement contained within
the report are acted on several levels: by the
teaching team; by the school; and by the
faculty. Schools, by filing these reports every
year, have documented evidence that they
regularly review and use to enhance all
subjects. This evidence can be used for the
purposes of school reviews, curriculum
reviews, budgeting and other decision-making
processes. Individual staff members may, if
 What constitutes high quality teaching and learning and how to assure it
Erika Martens and Michael Prosser
they wish, use this evidence in their own career
enhancement as part of teaching portfolios.
Third, the flexibility of the scheme allows
for the incorporation of discipline-specific
needs and situations and thereby prevents, as
far as possible, the scheme becoming irrele-
vant to the actual purpose, i.e. enhancement
of teaching and learning.
The effects on the quality of teaching are
obvious in the anecdotal data we have received
from participating schools and individuals:
(1) The writing of the reports is being used
by the subject co-ordinators and/or the
teaching team as an opportunity to
thoroughly review the subject.
(2) The report from previous co-ordinators is
sought by the new co-ordinators of the
subject, in order to prepare themselves for
Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 21:48 14 March 2018 (PT)
the teaching of it.
(3) The reports are used by schools to
prepare their school review data for the
reviewing committee
(4) The reports are used in school staff
meetings which review the quality of
teaching in various subjects in the school.
(5) The data are used by some individual
staff as evidence of good teaching in
promotion applications.
(6) Schools which used their own question-
naire designs and systems prior to the
development of the quality assurance
scheme continue to use them to assure
the quality of teaching in their school and
continue to make high quality teaching a
major aspect of their school tradition.
These schools are proud of their reputa-
tion of being student-centred.
(7) Responsibility for the process has
devolved to the school level (away from
the central level) where a mixture of
academic and administrative management
takes responsibility for its enactment.
(8) Some faculties have taken on a strong co-
ordinating role (i.e. health), others have
not (humanities). This corresponds with
their discipline-specific traditions and
patterns.
Issues
In the literature about quality assurance, the
discussion is dominated by the struggle to
negotiate between the two dangers of overly
developmental schemes which may be ineffec-
tive in demanding high levels of compliance,
or promoting actual change, and those
schemes which are overly managerial and
35
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 6 · Number 1 · 1998 · 28–36
which thereby have a high rate of compliance,
but remain ineffective in changing actual
practices. The parallel to student assessment
is obvious. The pull between formative and
summative assessment approaches is a similar
bind. Assessment, as well as quality assurance
schemes, are processes which have a high
capacity to influence behaviours within our
institutions. The art of designing them so that
the outcomes match the objectives of the
developer of the scheme is not well practised
or well taught.
The unintended outcomes mentioned by
Lewis Elton (1988) have certainly been
noticed in the developmental phase (e.g.
initial resistance to change): some schools
were most reluctant to participate during the
first pilot round. Unexpected effects on other
areas were noticed again during the first pilot,
when schools which had been conducting
their own internal questionnaires were no
longer able to use them. Schools regretted this
as they trusted their instrument and had a
continuous line of yearly data from it available
for making educational as well as personnel
decisions. Both these consequences were
addressed in the final version of the scheme.
We should not finish without drawing
attention to the fact that this approach to
evaluation and quality assurance involves a
substantial cultural shift in our university and,
we are sure, other universities. To expect that
institutions which traditionally conceived
of teaching as a very private activity, not
requiring systematic evaluation and public
reporting, can accept or adjust to changes
that we have described in the short term is
unrealistic. We expect that the full implemen-
tation of the scheme across the whole
university will take five or more years. We are
not seeking simple compliance to an exter-
nally imposed, relatively straightforward
scheme, but a cultural shift to a focus on
continuous development and improvement.
We believe we are making headway, but we
would not wish to imply in this paper that we
have met all our goals.
In conclusion, we wish to reiterate that each
quality assurance system needs to be careful in
analysing the situation of the institution, it
needs to be very flexible in its approach, and
the combination of process and student
evaluation instrument needs to be carefully
considered, as unintended consequences in
one area can originate from a bad choice in
another. A firm adherence to an explicit view
 What constitutes high quality teaching and learning and how to assure it
Erika Martens and Michael Prosser
of what constitutes good teaching and learn-
ing, and an explicit view of issues of change
and culture, will furthermore influence the
specific approach taken in assuring the quality
of teaching and learning. It may be worth
noting here that the principles underlying the
development of the quality assurance scheme
also underlay the development of La Trobe
University’s voluntary system for student
evaluation of teaching, and the evaluation of
teaching for the university’s promotion
system. The academic development unit has
attempted to develop a coherent structure for
each of these forms of evaluation and quality
assurance of teaching and learning.
References
Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 21:48 14 March 2018 (PT)
Centra, J.A. (1993), Reflective Faculty Evaluation, Jossey-
Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Elton, L. (1988), “Accountability in higher education: The
danger of unintended consequences”, Higher
Education, Vol. 17, pp. 377-90.
Entwistle, N. and Ramsden, P. (1983), Understanding
Student Learning, Croom Helm, London.
Harman, G. (1996), “Quality assessment with national
institutional rankings and performance funding: The
Australian Experiment, 1993-1995”, Higher Educa-
tion Quarterly, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 295-311.
Higher Education Council (1992)
La Trobe University Board Meeting papers (1994)
Martens, E. (1996), “Quality assurance and subject
evaluation for the reflective practitioner”, Innova-
tions and Learning in Education: the International
Journal for the Reflective Practitioner, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 28-34.
Moses, I. (1995), “Tensions and tendencies in the manage-
ment of quality and autonomy in Australian higher
education”, Australian Universities’ Review, Vol. I,
pp. 11-15.
Moses, I. (1988), Academic Staff Evaluation and Develop-
ment, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia.
36
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 6 · Number 1 · 1998 · 28–36
Pollit, C. (1987), “The politics of performance assessment:
Lessons for higher education?”, Studies in Higher
Education, Vol. 12, pp. 87-98.
Prosser, M. (1993), “Phenomenography and the principles
and practices of learning”, Higher Education
Research and Development, Vol. 12, pp. 21-31.
Ramsden, P. (1992), Learning to Teach in Higher
Education, Routledge, London.
Ramsden, P. (1991), “A performance indicator of teaching
quality in higher education: the course experience
questionnaire”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 16,
pp. 129-50.
Ramsden, P., Margetson, D., Martin, E. and Clarke, S.
(1995), Recognising and Rewarding Good Teaching
in Australian Higher Education, Final Report,
Australian Government Publishing Service,
Canberra.
Scriven, M. (1981), “Summative teacher evaluation”, in
Millman, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Teacher Evaluation,
Sage, London, pp. 245-71.
Seldin, P. (1985), Changing Practices in Faculty Evaluation,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Trigwell, K. and Prosser, M. (1991), “Improving the Quality
of Student Learning: the influence of learning
context and student approaches to learning on
learning outcomes”, Higher Education, Vol. 22,
pp. 251-66.
Välimaa, J. and Westerheijden, D.F. (1995), “Two
discourses: Researchers and policy-making in
higher education”, Higher Education, Vol. 29,
pp. 385-403.
van Vught, F.A. and Westerheijden D.F. (1994), “Towards a
general model of quality assessment in higher
education”, Higher Education, Vol. 28, pp. 355-71.
Vroeijensteijn, A.I. (1994), Improvement and Accountabili-
ty: Navigating between Scylla and Charybdis, Higher
Education Policy Series 30, Jessica Kingsley, London.
Vroeijensteijn, A.I. and Acherman, H.A. (1990), “Control
orientated versus improvement orientated quality
assessment”, in Goedebruure, L.C.J., Maassen,
P.A.M. and Westerheijden, D.F. (Eds), Peer Review
and Performance Indicators: Quality Assessment in
British and Dutch Higher Education, Lemma, Utrecht.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Vivek B. Kamat, Jayant K. Kittur. 2017. Quantifying the quality of higher and technical education: salient perspectives.
International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management 8:2, 515-527. [Crossref]
2. Subhashini Bhaskaran, Kevin Lu, Mansoor Aali. A data mining approach for investigating students’ completion rates 105-116.
[Crossref]
3. Gerda Hagenauer, Simone E. Volet. 2014. Teacher–student relationship at university: an important yet under-researched
field. Oxford Review of Education 40:3, 370-388. [Crossref]
4. Susan R. Hemer. 2014. Finding time for quality teaching: an ethnographic study of academic workloads in the social sciences
and their impact on teaching practices. Higher Education Research & Development 33:3, 483-495. [Crossref]
5. Jan Kleijnen, Diana Dolmans, Jos Willems, Hans van Hout. 2011. Does internal quality management contribute to more
control or to improvement of higher education?. Quality Assurance in Education 19:2, 141-155. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Brad Long. 2010. Losing sight of Humboldt: a synoptic review of Australian government policy over the last 35 years. Journal
of Further and Higher Education 34:3, 451-465. [Crossref]
7. Ann Mitsis, Patrick Foley. 2009. Culturally‐anchored values and university education experience perception. International
Journal of Educational Management 23:6, 484-504. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Nina Becket, Maureen Brookes. 2006. Evaluating quality management in university departments. Quality Assurance in
Education 14:2, 123-142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Eleonora Milano Falcão Vieira, Neri dos Santos. 2005. Gestão estratégica do conhecimento no campo da avaliação em educação
Downloaded by Universitas Negeri Semarang At 21:48 14 March 2018 (PT)

a distância. Cadernos EBAPE.BR 3:4, 01-07. [Crossref]

10. Stefan Lagrosen, Roxana Seyyed‐Hashemi, Markus Leitner. 2004. Examination of the dimensions of quality in higher
education. Quality Assurance in Education 12:2, 61-69. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Ortrun Zuber‐Skerritt, Val Roche. 2004. A constructivist model for evaluating postgraduate supervision: a case study. Quality
Assurance in Education 12:2, 82-93. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Ian C Reid. 2001. Reflections on using the Internet for the evaluation of course delivery. The Internet and Higher Education
4:1, 61-75. [Crossref]
13. Martin Oliver, Grainne Conole. 2000. Assessing and enhancing quality using toolkits. Quality Assurance in Education 8:1,
32-37. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Mei-Lin Law. 2000. Managing quality of teaching and learning in the ophthalmic nursing course. Nurse Education Today
20:2, 136-140. [Crossref]
15. Marcia Devlin. An Approach to Improving Teaching in Higher Education 68-87. [Crossref]