Higher Education

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 221–238 | Cite as

The reflective institution: Assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning

  • John Biggs
Article

Abstract

Three definitions of ``quality'' have entered the qualityassurance (QA) debate: quality as value for money, quality as fitfor the purpose of the institution, quality as transforming. The firstis pivotal for retrospective QA, which sees QA in terms ofaccountability, and conforming to externally imposed standards. The lasttwo are pivotal for prospective QA, which sees QA asmaintaining and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning in theinstitution. In this paper, the reflective practitioner is taken as themodel for prospective QA. Three stages are involved in institutionalreflective practice: articulating an espoused theory of teaching, thequality model (QM); continually improving on current practicethrough quality enhancement (QE), in which staff development should playan important role; and making quality feasible (QF), by removingimpediments to good teaching, which often arise through distortedpriorities in institutional policy and procedures. These three stages,QM, QE, and QF, are essential ingredients in prospective QA.

aligned teaching criterian-referenced assessment quality assurance quality enhancement quality feasability reflective practice staff development 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alverno College Faculty (1994). Student Assessment-as-Learning at Alverno College. Milwaukee: Alverno College Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Biggs, J.B. (1996a). ‘Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment’, Higher Education 32, 347–364.Google Scholar
  3. Biggs, J.B. (1996b). ‘Assessing learning quality: Reconciling institutional, staff, and educa-tional demands’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 21, 3–15.Google Scholar
  4. Biggs, J.B. (ed.) (1996c). Testing: To Educate or to Select? Education in Hong Kong at the Crossroads. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Educational Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, J.B. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: Open Univer-sity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Biggs, J.B. and Collis, K.F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Borko, H. and Livingston, C. (1989). ‘Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathem-atics instruction by expert and novice teachers’, American Educational Research Journal 26, 473–498.Google Scholar
  8. Bowden, J. and Marton, F. (1998). The University of Learning. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  9. Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities for the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advabncement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  10. Coady, T. (ed.) (2000). Why Universities Matter. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  11. Cole, N.S. (1990). ‘Conceptions of educational achievement’, Educational Researcher 18(3), 2–7.Google Scholar
  12. Cowan, J. (1999). On Becoming an Innovative University Teacher: Reflection in Action. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Crooks, T.J. (1988). ‘The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students’, Review of Educational Research 58, 438–481.Google Scholar
  14. Dawkins, J. (1987). Higher Education; a Policy Discussion Paper. Canberra, Australian Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  15. Dunkin, M. and Precians, R. (1992). ‘Award-winning university teachers' concepts of teaching’, Higher Education 24, 483–502.Google Scholar
  16. Elliott, J. (1991). Action Research for Educational Change. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Frederiksen, J.R. and Collins, A. (1989). ‘A systems approach to educational testing’, Educational Researcher 18(9), 27–32.Google Scholar
  18. Goodlad, S. (1995). The Quest for Quality: 16 Forms of Heresy in Higher Education. Buckingham: Open University Press and The Society for Research into Higher Education.Google Scholar
  19. Harvey, L. and Green, D. (1993). ‘Defining quality’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 18, 8–35.Google Scholar
  20. Hong Kong University Grants Committee (2000). Letter to Universities (2 May, 2000).Google Scholar
  21. Jarratt Report (1985). Report of the Steering Committee for Efficiency Studies in Universities. London: Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.Google Scholar
  22. Kember, D. (2000). Action Learning and Action Research: Improving the Quality of Teaching and Learning. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  23. Kember, D. and Wong, A. (2000). ‘Implications for evaluation from a study of students' perceptions of good and poor teaching’, Higher Education 39, 69–97.Google Scholar
  24. Liston, C. (1999). Managing Quality and Standards. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  25. McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  26. Mentowski, M. (2000). Learning that Lasts. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  27. Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K. (1998). Teaching for Learning in Higher Education. Buck-ingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Schon, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Temple Smith.Google Scholar
  29. Seymour, D.T. (1993). On Q: Causing Quality in Higher Education. Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press.Google Scholar
  30. Stigler, J. and Hiebert, J. (1999). The Teaching Gap. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. Shuell, T.J. (1986). ‘Cognitive conceptions of learning’, Review of Educational Research 56, 411–436.Google Scholar
  32. Taylor, C. (1994). ‘Assessment for measurement or standards: The peril and promise of large scale assessment reform’, American Educational Research Journal 31, 231–262.Google Scholar
  33. Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Ware, J. and Williams, R.G. (1975). ‘The Dr. Fox Effect: a study of lecturer effectiveness and ratings of instruction’, Journal of Medical Education 50, 149–156.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Biggs
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyThe University of Hong KongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations