The conception of “the good teacher” portrayed in organisational evaluation tools at the University of Iceland

Session Time and Location

Date:
Wed, 6 Jun 2018
Time:
Time:
9:15am to 10:45am
Room: Room:
Oakwood B
Session Track
Session Format

Speaker(s)

Despite the lack of common quality criteria for teaching at the University of Iceland teachers’ performance in teaching within the University is evaluated by different tools. From a social theory perspective those tools are a part of the structure academics are socialized into. Using a discourse analysis, the most influential evaluations tools of the organisation were analysed to explore the concept of “the good teacher” and their practices. Preliminary findings indicate a narrow, technical view of teaching practices that neither take into account SoTL ideas nor focus on professional development. The findings will be discussed in the light of constrains of dominant research discourses on academics identities.

  • Session References +

    Archer, M. (2003). Structure, agency and internal conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Bull, T., Gelles, R. J., Sandström, U. & Yngve, A. (2017). The External Review of the Evaluation System for Public Higher Education Institutions in Iceland. Reykjavík: Quality Board for Icelandic Higher Education

    Chalmers, D. (2011). Progress and challenges to the recognition and reward of the scholarship of teaching in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(1),25-38

    Chalmers, D., Lee, K. & Walker, B. (2008). International and national quality teaching and learning performance models currently in use. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.455.9666&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    Skelton, A. (2012). Teacher identities in a research-led institution: In the ascendancy or on the retreat? Brithish Eduction Research Jounal, 38(1), 23-29.

    Smith, K. (2013). Critical discourse analysis and higher education research. In Huisman, J. and Tight, M. (eds). Theory and Method in Higher Education Research, London: Emerald, 61-80.