"

8 Developing a framework and multidimensional evidence matrix for evaluating and documenting teaching excellence at a research-intensive university

Raoul A. Mulder and Kate Tregloan

On 19 August 2021, the Australian city of Melbourne marked an unenviable milestone: its citizens had recorded their 200th day enduring one of the longest and most arduous global lockdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

For the University of Melbourne, the city’s oldest institution of higher education, the extended lockdowns exposed a jarring contrast between its reputational standing in research versus education. On one hand, its research was arguably enjoying greater prominence and relevance to the national conversation than ever before, as its medical experts worked on the frontline of vaccine development and epidemiology, and its social scientists offered insights into the ramifications of restrictions on people’s daily lives. This was familiar territory for a research-intensive university accustomed to being ranked among the top universities in the world, and first in the country. On the other hand, the pandemic necessitated a rapid pivot to online teaching and learning, which proved enormously challenging for staff and students accustomed to a predominantly campus-based teaching model (including those now marooned beyond international borders). A national survey reported a precipitous drop in students’ satisfaction with their educational experience at the University of Melbourne over the preceding year.

While the university had long expressed the intention to place “students at the heart of the university” (University of Melbourne, 2020, p. 10), it was clear that to improve its educational standing it would need to articulate an institutional strategy that would not only improve the student experience but also elevate the status of teaching. The historic prizing of research which propelled the university’s rise in global rankings, had, perhaps inevitably, also fostered an institutional culture where investment in teaching was not equivalently recognised and rewarded. Therefore, arguably the most profound commitment in the University’s Advancing Students and Education (ASE) strategy (which commenced development prior to the pandemic but was published subsequently) was the University’s stated ambition to change its culture so that “the value we place on the education of our students is equal to the value we place on research(University of Melbourne, 2022, p. 31).

In this chapter, we explore some of the challenges associated with making concrete progress towards this goal and describe work to firstly develop a common language around educational excellence, and to subsequently provide guidance around how educational excellence might be demonstrated and documented. This work was commissioned by the Office of the Provost as part of a much larger suite of coordinated, institution-wide initiatives relating to ASE and in particular to a core theme of the strategy: “Valuing Excellence in Education”. This work aligns with broader sector-wide conversations about how teaching excellence can be meaningfully defined, demonstrated, and rewarded in higher education (Ka Yuk Chan & Chen, 2024).

We start by framing the institutional context. We then discuss the rationale for the approach that was adopted to develop and refine a Framework for Educational Excellence and subsequent guidance around how instructors could evidence and document educational excellence. We present the framework and its underpinnings, and conclude by discussing next steps, challenges and success measures.

Institutional context and background

The University of Melbourne, founded in 1853, is a comprehensive, public university, with over 50,000 undergraduate and postgraduate students and over 10,000 instructors and professional staff. The university has nine faculties offering undergraduate courses with bespoke majors including disciplines from Architecture to Zoology, and fifteen graduate schools. Students undertake study at the University’s main campus at Parkville in central Melbourne, and six additional metropolitan and rural campuses. The university is associated with numerous institutes and research centres and has a long history of teaching and research contributions by Nobel Laureates and other research luminaries.  The university is affiliated with the ‘Group of Eight’, a collection of ‘sandstone’ Australian universities whose national prestige is synonymous with their research-intensive culture and high global ranking status.

In its Advancing Students and Education strategy, the University recognised education as “a transformative force in the lives of individuals, in creating a more just, fair, and inclusive community, and in advancing human knowledge”. It acknowledged the imperative of better Valuing Excellence in Education in order to develop a sustained culture of excellence in teaching, learning, and student support – one that parallels its strong research culture. Elevating the value placed on education clearly would require a sustained and multi-pronged approach across many fronts, including systems, processes, and practices. The Framework for Educational Excellence and associated guidance were intended to be two key enablers of related and future initiatives.

Developing the Framework for Educational Excellence

The first practical challenge around better valuing education related to language and how educational excellence might be defined and understood. Academic staff were accustomed to drawing on well-established dimensions (scholarly, disciplinary, societal) and metrics (grant income, publications, journal impact factors, and related esteem measures) to evidence their achievements and impact in research. However, few comparable, agreed-upon dimensions and metrics existed to identify effective or impactful teaching contributions.

For this reason, an immediate priority articulated in ASE was to develop a new whole-of-university framework that would assist instructors to identify and develop excellent teaching practice. This framework would not seek to define benchmarks or standards for each dimension. Instead, its emphasis would be on the development of a shared language around education that could be used to recognise and support educational excellence, with the needs of students at the core.

Instructors would also need to understand how they could demonstrate excellence against the dimensions of the framework. Evidence of educational quality and impact is indisputably important for maximising student success, assuring institutional quality, and informing decisions about instructional approaches, academic hires, performance, confirmation, promotion, and awards. Therefore, advice and guidance in relation to the demonstration, and the documentation, of educational excellence was a necessary adjunct to the framework.

Several objectives would need to be achieved for the framework to enjoy broad acceptance and adoption. First, the dimensions of the framework would have to resonate with all staff: both education-focussed and research-focussed academic teachers as well as ‘third-space’ educationists and professional staff (e.g., learning designers). Past frameworks (e.g., ‘Nine principles guiding teaching and learning at the university of Melbourne’ [2002] and ‘The Melbourne Way’ [2014]), were heavily focussed on teaching by academics, not explicitly recognising the significant contributions made by educational administrators and professional staff. Second, the framework would need to extend beyond standard curricular measures of teaching excellence to identify and reward important behaviours and the substantial ‘invisible’ work which instructors carry out beyond the classroom (Staudt Willet & He, 2024). These include various forms of care, guidance, and other extracurricular support for students; scholarly activities related to teaching; initiative and leadership; professional development; and collegial sharing of teaching-related learnings. Arguably, these are as important to student learning outcomes as the way the subjects are taught. Third, the framework would need to be universally relevant to instructors, regardless of academic discipline. Contributors to the framework had too often seen educational initiatives that were intended to be cross-cutting struggle to gain momentum because of disagreements between Schools around disciplinary needs and priorities. Finally, to the extent possible, the framework would need to align with existing national frameworks (e.g., the Australian University Teaching Criteria and Standards [AUTCAS]) framework, to maximise its portability and broader utility.

Consultation with the senior stakeholders who commissioned the work was a first necessary step, to clarify the intended future use of the framework, the gap it was intended to address, and key expected milestones and deliverables. An extensive review of the literature and an institutional scan was then undertaken to understand what frameworks existed and how they were being used. While adopting an established framework would save considerable time and effort, both personal experience in leading change processes and the literature around change in higher education (e.g., Becher & Trowler, 2001) highlighted that to achieve long-term buy-in, both instructors and students needed to be able to participate in the design of the framework and feel a sense of ownership over the ultimate form of the framework. It was therefore agreed that the best way to proceed was to write a draft framework (drawing on the literature and existing inputs from instructors and students that had been gathered during the process of developing the Advancing Students and Education strategy) and then undertake extensive consultation. This would create an evidence- and literature-informed starting point for discussion. Feedback on the proposal would then be gathered in public forums to gauge whether it resonated and captured what was important (and if not, to use this input to modify the framework).

It was desirable for the consultation process to capture maximum input, from as broad and inclusive a cross-section of the university community as possible. To achieve this, open all-staff forums were hosted in every faculty, including dedicated sessions for professional staff, Associate Deans Teaching and Learning, relevant committees (Academic Programs Committee, Teaching and Learning Quality Assurance Committee), and a range of student groups (e.g., Melbourne Students Forum, student union disability advocates). At the all-staff forums, anyone could attend, share a view, and receive a response. Each session involved a short (20-minute) explanation of the intent and rationale for the framework, emphasising its draft nature and welcoming staff input, followed by 40 minutes of responding to an open Q&A. Recognising that not everyone is comfortable expressing their views in such public arenas, staff and students were also offered the opportunity to provide feedback online, including anonymously.

In all, around 400 staff and 110 students participated in this consultation process, allowing for a great diversity of views to be shared and heard. This work progressed alongside that of colleagues who were developing related documents and policies, such as the Academic Career Benchmarks & Indicators and the university’s People Strategy. Through the online and open forums, 200 specific comments and questions relating to the framework were captured, which were grouped into 26 distinct themes. For transparency, a shared document was created that explained the response to each feedback comment or question. The consultation summary spreadsheet was shared with each of the faculties so that people who participated in the consultation process could see how their contributions were addressed. The overall tenor of staff responses to the framework was extremely positive. The proposed dimensions enjoyed strong validation, though there was spirited debate around which were of greatest relevance to individual disciplines. Numerous constructive suggestions were also offered for modification, renaming or nuancing of the dimensions’ descriptors, as well as aspects of practice that might be considered important to each dimension. Around half of these inputs resulted in changes to the draft.

Developing guidance around evidencing and documenting of good practice

The framing and consultation process outlined above delivered a consensus Framework for Educational Excellence. It centres on seven critical, evidence-informed dimensions of instructors’ contributions to the educational experiences of students, which are briefly outlined below. For each dimension, aspects of good practice relevant to that dimension are identified, offering educators broadened perspectives. In addition, suggestions are offered for how each dimension might be incorporated into their own teaching already or in future.

In support of each of these dimensions and related important aspects – and with a view to enabling their practical adoption into teaching practice across the university – it was necessary to also develop guidance for instructors around evidencing and documenting their contributions. Historically, instructors have relied heavily on scores associated with student evaluations of teaching (SETs) to demonstrate educational excellence for the purposes of confirmation and promotion. While the student voice is an essential element of evaluation, and these surveys provide valuable feedback, they have important limitations as instruments for assessing educational quality and impact. Multiple authors have raised concerns about the design and data collected by SETs, ranging from low response rates to bias and a lack of correlation between SET ratings and objective measures of teaching quality or learning growth (Boring et al., 2016; Chisadza et al., 2019; Clayson, 2022; Uttl et al., 2017). Overreliance on a single source of evidence is undesirable from the perspective of validity, reliability, and fairness. Robust approaches to evidencing of educational excellence in alignment with the new Framework called for a more holistic, multidimensional approach. The approach sought to recognise the complexity of educational endeavours and to complement the student voice by including perspectives and judgements from other relevant parties (Paulsen, 2002).

The authors led a working group of the Teaching and Learning Quality Assurance Committee which aimed to understand practices adopted across the higher education sector and in our own University to evidence teaching effectiveness additional to SET. Anticipated outcomes included a guide to inform academics, academic divisions, and senior leaders in this effort. Commonly identified concerns related to existing practices around the evaluation of teaching. These included perceptions of a ‘low bar’ set for expectations of teaching performance in confirmations and promotions relative to those expected for research. Additional challenges included the difficulty of establishing standards and quantifiable metrics of teaching performance; problematic aspects of student evaluations including participation, bias, and anonymity; and the difficulty of assessing individual performance in team-taught subjects. These conversations also revealed considerable variation in how teaching effectiveness was evidenced and assessed.

The Guide to Evidencing Educational Excellence set out to address many of these concerns. Broadly aligned with the ideas of Paulsen (2002), one of its prime goals was to encourage staff to recognise that three broad groups of stakeholders could offer insight and evidence into the achievement of educational excellence. The groups included educators (who can articulate the rationale that informs their approaches, e.g., how their practice is evidence-based); and students (both current and past, who can speak directly to their educational experience, and for whom metrics of engagement and learning gains offer assessments of the value and impact of their educational experience). Stakeholder groupings also recognised independent experts (who, in their capacity as academic peers, practitioners, employers or community/industry partners can compare the quality and impact of activities to best national or international practice).

The guide also sought to broaden the range of types of evidence that might be considered, to include scholarly evaluations, reflection and professional development, student engagement and outcomes, and peer review of teaching. Mapping the types of evidence discussed above against the seven dimensions of the Framework for Educational Excellence generated an ‘evidence matrix’ that illustrates different sources that may be drawn upon for performance and development reviews, confirmation, promotions and job applications. The sources of evidence can also be used to document excellence for each of the seven dimensions of the framework. The evidence matrix does not privilege one form of evidence over another, though the strength and reliability of evidence can be inferred from the degree to which independent inputs provide corroborating or ‘triangulated’ evidence for achievement in a particular dimension. The guidance matrix could easily be adapted for use in particular discipline areas by modifying the suggested inputs and linking to discipline-relevant examples.

To illustrate the intersection of dimensions of the framework, identified important aspects, and related evidence of excellent practice, we include details below for the first dimension: Well-designed and engaging learning experiences. This is followed by a brief discussion of the rationale for inclusion of the remaining dimensions, and an outline of the approach to staff guidance for evidence. The reader is encouraged to explore the full framework and guidance for all dimensions at https://Melbourne-cshe.unimelb.edu.au/resources/a-framework-for-educational-excellence.

Dimension 1: Well-designed and engaging learning experiences

Curriculum is self-evidently core to the student educational experience and includes not just what is taught but how it is taught. A well-designed curriculum considers what learning activities students undertake and ensures that these are constructively aligned to clearly articulated learning objectives (Biggs et al., 2023). Engaging and impactful learning experiences involve students as active participants in inquiry, allow them to explore, experiment, and learn from their experiences, and give them opportunities to experience practical applications of their learning (Strachan & Liyanage, 2015). In the process, students are intellectually challenged in ways that encourage the development of autonomy, reflection, and evaluative judgement. This intellectual challenge includes engaging with Indigenous and global knowledge systems and under-represented voices. By undertaking collaborative learning, students develop workplace-relevant skills around communication, negotiation, and collaboration.

Table1 illustrates how each dimension relates to identified ‘important aspects of practice’ and intersects with potential evidence inputs from educators, students, and independent experts.

Table 1

Example of Dimension (#1) with identified ‘important aspects of practice’ from the Framework for Educational Excellence, and associated recommendations of evidence types from the Guide to Evidencing Educational Evidence.

Dimension

Educator evidence

Student evidence

Independent expert evidence

1. Well-designed and engaging learning experiences

Important aspects of practice

• Clear alignment between intended learning outcomes and learning activities

• Contemporary and relevant curricula taught by subject matter experts

• Curricula, assessment design, and course materials that ensure equity and accessibility

• Learning experiences that foster inquiry, experimentation, and practical application

• Ongoing opportunities for experiential learning through practice and consolidation

• Peer and self-directed learning activities that foster collaboration and teamwork skills

• Intellectual challenges that encourage autonomous learning, decision-making and reflection

• Effective use of educational technology for engagement and learning

Annotated course/lesson plans demonstrating constructive alignment of intended learning outcomes and learning activities

Examples of course activities and other teaching materials that foster enquiry, and that draw on subject matter expertise

Peer- and self-directed learning activities that foster collaboration and teamwork

Examples of course activities and other teaching materials that demonstrate the qualities outlined under this dimension

Class observations using validated protocols

Intentional design or redesign of learning experiences, aligned with evidence from the literature

Experimentation with, and successful development of, effective use of technology to support student engagement and learning

Student evaluations/commentary on learning experiences that are accessible, engaging, relevant and intellectually stimulating

Student evaluations/commentary on learning experiences that have encouraged them to acquire effective teamwork and collaboration skills, and to study positively with peers

Metrics of student engagement including through learning analytics

Students’ reflective writing on their learning experiences

Student evaluations/commentary on learning experiences that have supported them to better engage with technology for learning and in application in their discipline area

Student evaluations/commentary on learning experiences that have encouraged them to reflect, and to learn independently and with self-direction

Positive ESS responses to relevant SET questions

Peer evaluation of curriculum design and student learning experiences, relative to best practice

Department/School, Faculty, University and National teaching awards), Advance HE, Universitas 21 and GEM Scott Fellowships, grants and other esteem measures that recognise excellence in this dimension

Delivery of an education-focussed development (eg Learning and Teaching Initiative) or research project positively addressing this dimension

Invited review of others’ scholarship (eg as a journal reviewer) addressing this dimension, or invited keynotes or presentations

Adoption of developed innovations or guidance by other educators or institutions that address this dimension

Below, we summarise the remaining six dimensions. As in the example above, important aspects are highlighted to assist educators to consider each dimension of their practice and paired with suggestions for sources of evidence of relevant good practice. Readers are encouraged to refer to the full details of these via the link provided.

Dimension 2: Evidence-based and inclusive teaching practices

Instructor practices have great impact in setting and maintaining a social environment and classroom culture that is intellectually vibrant and conducive to learning (Noben et al., 2022). Effective educators create safe learning environments that are accessible for all students, free from discrimination or vilification, and inclusive of diverse perspectives. They have a strong appreciation of the science and art of learning and teaching. They are self-aware, and also deeply curious about the learner population with whom they are interacting and cognisant of the varied needs of those learners. In their teaching they model respectful academic debate and discourse, elicit active participation and input from all students, and listen and respond thoughtfully to alternative points of view. They make considered use of educational technology for diverse purposes with the goal of maximising and personalising learning opportunities.

Dimension 3: Effective assessment and feedback

Well-designed assessment schemes allow students to demonstrate achievement of intended learning outcomes, and also crucially signpost what is valued in submissions. They are therefore profoundly influential in shaping student motivation, behaviour, and attitudes to learning (Boud & Falchikov, 2006, 2007; Carless, 2015; Vaughan, 2014). Assessment design choices must also consider workload, student diversity, and situational factors (Baik et al., 2019; Jones et al., 2021) to support student wellbeing. Expectations in relation to assessment need to be communicated clearly, marking and grading processes should be transparent and equitable, and students must be provided with regular opportunities to practice and consolidate their knowledge and skills, developing feedback literacy in response to timely, actionable feedback (Carless & Boud, 2018).

Dimension 4: Guidance and support inside and outside the classroom

The quality of the instructor-student relationship is profoundly important, because high-quality relationships and support positively influence students’ academic motivation, engagement and learning strategies (Mattanah et al., 2024; Raboca & Carbunarean, 2024; Snijders et al., 2020). Students look to educators not only as knowledgeable experts, but also as sources of inspiration, guidance, encouragement, and support. Effective instructors support students in multiple ways: recognition of diverse student needs in terms of subject design and delivery, availability for consultation and advice outside class, accommodations in relation to student disadvantage or disability, and proactive identification and support of students at risk. Outside the formal teaching context, academic and professional staff have an important role to play in helping to connect students with university support systems and participating in student advising and mentoring programs. Connecting students with co-curricular opportunities, individuals, or organisations can support students’ learning as well as professional development.

Dimension 5: Integration of scholarship and professional practice into teaching and learning

Coate et al ( 2001) point out that the nature of the relationship between research and teaching depends on the value orientation of academic staff and how resources are distributed. The notion that at a research-intensive university, a scholarly mindset and culture of inquiry infuse every aspect of teaching and learning is an intuitively appealing idea, though one that has not always met with empirical evidence (Marsh & Hattie, 2002). The irony, of course, is that at research-intensive universities, research and teaching can become disassociated (Henkel, 2004), in part because funding regimes treat the two as separate (Scott, 2005). Evidently, scholarly enquiry can inform teaching at many levels: providing evidence to support decisions about what is taught and how; enriching students’ appreciation of an academic discipline; demonstrating the subject matter expertise of the teacher; and inspiring students through engagement with relevant and impactful research. Students have opportunities to participate in original research during their learning journey, experiencing the thrill of discovery, enjoying access to the university’s considerable research infrastructure and capability, and benefiting from its ability to draw on established linkages with professional and community networks to create learning opportunities. In the process, they develop research-oriented skills and competencies such as analysis, problem-solving, and critical thinking which have broad utility and value for professional practice.

Dimension 6: Continuous improvement and professional development

Contemporary understanding of best practice in teaching and learning, like disciplinary knowledge, is constantly evolving and requires dedicated effort to maintain currency and skill (Ashwin et al., 2020). Exemplary instructors consider education to be a vital part of their academic role and are committed to continuous improvement of learning experiences for students. They consult the educational literature and seek formal and informal input and feedback on their teaching from a variety of sources, including students and academic peers (Brookfield, 2017). They dedicate time to improving their expertise, teaching ability, and subjects, and are receptive to coaching and opportunities for professional development in relation to teaching (Larrivee, 2000)­­­.

Dimension 7: Educational collaboration, leadership and commitment to dissemination

 The seventh and final dimension of the framework recognises that a successful educational experience for students is the outcome of planning and input from many contributors, including academic staff, professional staff with expertise in domains such as learning design and educational technology, professional staff who provide academic and student support, and in some cases external partners (Newell & Bain, 2018). Exemplary educators recognise that a high-functioning teaching and learning community depends on constructive and collaborative relationships among all staff who contribute to teaching, and a willingness to show leadership. They are open to new forms of collaboration and ways of working. They also appreciate that creating a vibrant culture around teaching and learning requires commitment to collegial sharing of teaching-related learnings (both successful and unsuccessful), willingness to mentor and support peers, and preparedness to contribute to administrative processes important to teaching and learning, in the pursuit of improved outcomes for both students and staff involved in teaching.

Awareness-raising and integration of supports into university processes

The endorsed Framework for Educational Excellence with its suite of suggested evidence types now provides integrated support accessible to all staff. It underpins over twenty related ASE strategic projects. Awareness of these supports is being raised by teaching and learning leaders such as Associate Deans for Teaching and Learning, and through fora that connect academic and professional staff with students. Faculty meetings – large and small – alongside working groups for each strategy and dedicated Communities of Practice facilitate information sharing and practice development. Central academic development and teaching practice support groups also play a key role in cross-promotion. The FEE and its education themes are now embedded within the Academic Career Benchmarks and Indicators (ACBI), a university-wide guide that supports staff across academic roles (e.g., research-focussed, education-focussed) with planning, evaluating, and recognising academic performance, including during career-development conversations.

Two examples from one academic division (where K.T. has current roles as Associate Dean Teaching and Learning and as Director of an academic development group) illustrate how the FEE is being operationalised ‘in the wild’. The first relates to rapid recent growth in ‘education-focussed’ (EF) academic appointments, reflecting a national trend (Ross, 2019). EF staff are expected to devote 80% of their time to education-related activities, compared with 40% in traditional education/research roles. In this division, EF appointments are projected to make up around 20% of the (full-time-equivalent) academic workforce, making tailored support essential. Clear expectations at both institutional and divisional levels are needed to define good, excellent, and exceptional performance (Kezar, 2001, 2011; McLure & Aldridge, 2022). In this context, the FEE has supported the identification of both teaching and broader student-facing contributions as central to EF roles. Together with university guidance, the FEE informs how new EF academics and their supervisors plan activities and engage in career planning. Many of these staff are transitioning from casual, teaching-only contracts, so the FEE’s language and dimensions offer a broader, longer-term view of academic work—aligned with the ACBI—and support planning for an EF career from Level A (tutor) to Level E (professor).

Alongside using the FEE to guide work and career planning for EF staff, the faculty is developing a Peer Supported Reflection on Education program aligned with the institution-wide Performance Development Review cycle. Performance expectations and how they are communicated shape staff efforts and goals (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Historically, research expectations have been better articulated – with clearer language and impact metrics – than those for education, often skewing performance review conversations. By offering shared dimensions, language, and evidence pathways for excellence in education, the FEE supports the ASE ambition to value teaching more equitably. The new program will be piloted with EF staff in the coming year and will complement the centrally-supported Peer Review of Teaching program. It will focus on the intentional development of teaching practices, grounded in scholarship. EF staff, supported by supervisors, will identify a focus area, develop an evidence-based plan of action through the FEE lens, and test refinements in practice. Reflection on the outcomes of this intervention, and collection of evidence (from educators, students or other experts), will be included in a teaching portfolio, potentially used in future confirmation or promotion processes.

Integrating the FEE for the new EF cohort has positioned it as a key element of an ‘activity system’ for induction (Trowler & Knight, 2000). It contributes directly via formal definitions of academic activity and inclusion in policies and procedures, and indirectly through socialisation – workshops, communities of practice, and initiatives like the Peer Supported Reflection project – which embed its values in teaching development and reflection.

The examples described above illustrate how the FEE and Guide are being used within one academic division to support staff development and enable educators to document achievements within a cohesive framework. Other faculties may take different approaches to documenting and evidencing teaching impact for professional development, performance review, confirmation, or promotion. Some disciplines may prefer quantitative metrics or dashboard-style oversight. These approaches are compatible with the FEE and are being actively explored elsewhere in the institution.

Conclusion

Developing a collectively-agreed set of dimensions and language around educational excellence, and guidance on how excellent teaching practice can be documented has been an important foundational initiative for an institution seeking to rebalance how it values research and education to deliver a comprehensive strategy. The development and refinement of the Framework for Educational Excellence drew on broad and inclusive consultation with staff and student stakeholders through multiple avenues, and alignment with documents and policies focussed on performance and career development. Application of the Framework and the Guide for work and career planning of a new staff cohort is already influencing teaching practices and conversations on the ground.

Of course, further work is needed to embed the deeper values and drivers within these documents, and to build needed recognition of the important contributions of teaching across the institution. This work will include the alignment of the Framework and the Guide with formal processes that support confirmation and promotion applications, and serve as the basis for related decision-making. The broad (and shared) values of excellent education that are expressed at an institutional level must also be translated to the lived experiences of instructors and students. Individual academic divisions will need to decide how excellence can be evidenced and documented for their relevant divisions. For instance, the ‘effective use of technology to support student engagement and learning’ will be quite different for Architecture vs Zoology, and for all in between. Gathering, moderating, and sharing tailored examples will need specialised focus and sufficient resourcing, as well as coordination to ensure consistency. Building on institutional work to identify useful distinctions between appointment levels as well as disciplinary practices will also need nuanced consideration as the pilot expands from a heavily (and literally) education-focussed staff cohort, to include more traditional education and research appointments.

Implementing a robust process for evaluation of effective teaching is a powerful lever for culture change around teaching practice across the institution and also requires substantial investment and an appropriate resourcing plan. Ongoing professional development for supervisors and staff is needed to understand the framework, as is recognition of workload associated with meaningful engagement, and a consistent approach to the collection and oversight of evaluation data. Consistency is also tested as other parts of the institution seek to define related and potentially overlapping activities such as education research and leadership activity for other purposes. A broad framework, such as that developed at our institution is valuable in its flexibility (necessary across a large institution) but also requires clear-eyed and transparent discussions around ‘grey areas’ and potential areas of confusion. These challenges, and the many more that will emerge as the Framework and Guidance are embedded and practiced, will offer scope for further engagement and iteration as we seek genuine equivalence between the value placed on research activity and (excellent) education of our students.

Acknowledgements

This work benefited greatly from informed and inspired leadership and broad collegial engagement. We are particularly grateful to Deputy Vice-Chancellor Gregor Kennedy for directing this undertaking and leading the development of the ASE strategy through the Office of the Provost. We thank the Pro Vice Chancellor Jamie Evans, Professor Chi Baik, Mark Stern, members of the Associate Deans Teaching and Learning group, the Teaching and Learning Quality Assurance Committee, and numerous other colleagues for their substantial intellectual input and support through formal and informal avenues.

References

Ashwin, P., Boud, D., Calkins, S., Coate, K., Hallett, F., Light, G., Luckett, K., MacLaren, I., Mårtensson, K., McArthur, J., McCube, V., McLean, M., & Toher, M. (2020). Reflective teaching in higher education. Bloomsbury.

Baik, C., Larcombe, W., & Brooker, A. (2019). How universities can enhance student mental wellbeing: The student perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(4), 674–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1576596

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes. Open University Press.

Biggs, J., Tang, C., & Kennedy, G. (2023). Teaching for quality learning at university (5th ed.).

Boring, A., Ottoboni, K., & Stark, P. (2016). Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness. ScienceOpen Research. https://doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AETBZC.v1

Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600679050

Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (Eds.). (2007). Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203964309

Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Wiley.

Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment: Learning from award-winning practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315740621

Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354

Chisadza, C., Nicholls, N., & Yitbarek, E. (2019). Race and gender biases in student evaluations of teachers. Economics Letters, 179, 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2019.03.022

Clayson, D. (2022). The student evaluation of teaching and likability: What the evaluations actually measure. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(2), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1909702

Coate, K., Barnett, R., & Williams, G. (2001). Relationships Between Teaching and Research in Higher Education in England. Higher Education Quarterly, 55(2), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2273.00180

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322

Henkel, M. (2004). Teaching and research: The idea of a nexus. Higher Education Management and Policy, 16(2), 19–30.

Jones, E., Priestley, M., Brewster, L., Wilbraham, S. J., Hughes, G., & Spanner, L. (2021). Student wellbeing and assessment in higher education: The balancing act. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(3), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1782344

Ka Yuk Chan, C., & Chen, S. W. (2024). Conceptualisation of teaching excellence: An analysis of teaching excellence schemes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(4), 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2271188

Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st Century: Recent research and conceptualisations, 28(4).

Kezar, A. (2011). What is the best way to achieve broader reach of improved practices in higher education? Innovative Higher Education, 36(4), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9174-z

Larrivee, B. (2000). Transforming teaching practice: Becoming the critically reflective teacher. Reflective Practice, 1(3), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/713693162

Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teaching effectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? The Journal of Higher Education, 73(5), 603–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2002.11777170

Mattanah, J., Holt, L., Feinn, R., Bowley, O., Marszalek, K., Albert, E., Abduljalil, M., Daramola, D., Gim, J., Visalli, T., Boarman, R., & Katzenberg, C. (2024). Faculty-student rapport, student engagement, and approaches to collegiate learning: Exploring a mediational model. Current Psychology, 43(28), 23505–23516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06096-0

McLure, F. I., & Aldridge, J. M. (2022). A systematic literature review of barriers and supports: Initiating educational change at the system level. School Leadership & Management, 42(4), 402–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2022.2113050

Newell, C., & Bain, A. (2018). Team-based collaboration in higher education learning and teaching: A review of the literature. Springer.

Noben, I., Deinum, J. F., & Hofman, W. H. A. (2022). Quality of teaching in higher education: Reviewing teaching behaviour through classroom observations. International Journal for Academic Development, 27(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2020.1830776

Paulsen, M. B. (2002). Evaluating teaching performance. New Directions for Institutional Research, 114.

Raboca, H. M., & Carbunarean, F. (2024). Faculty support and students’ academic motivation. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1406611. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1406611

Ross, P. (2019). The changing nature of the academic role in science. https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-1536209554/view

Scott, P. (2005). Divergence or convergence? The links between teaching and research in mass higher education. In Reshaping the University. Society for Research into High Education and Open University Press.

Snijders, I., Wijnia, L., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Loyens, S. M. M. (2020). Building bridges in higher education: Student-faculty relationship quality, student engagement, and student loyalty. International Journal of Educational Research, 100, 101538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101538

Staudt Willet, K. B., & He, D. (2024). Educators’ invisible labour: A systematic review. Review of Education, 12(2), e3473. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3473

Strachan, R., & Liyanage, L. (2015). Active student engagement: The heart of effective learning. In P. C. Layne & P. Lake (Eds.), Global innovation of teaching and learning in higher education: Transgressing boundaries (pp. 255–274). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10482-9

Trowler, P., & Knight, P. T. (2000). Coming to know in higher education: Theorising faculty entry to new work contexts. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360050020453

University of Melbourne. (2020). Advancing Melbourne 2030. https://about.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/132629/Advancing-Melbourne.pdf

University of Melbourne. (2022). Advancing Students and Education Strategy. https://about.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0031/384367/Advancing-Students-and-Education-Strategy.pdf

Uttl, B., White, C. A., & Gonzalez, D. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007

Vaughan, N. (2014). Student engagement and blended learning: Making the assessment connection. Education Sciences, 4(4), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci4040247

License

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Documenting Teaching Excellence Copyright © 2025 by Utah State University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.