Bachelor’s degree in Teaching and Education and Master’s degrees

All programmes help prepare graduates for careers as teachers, as well as in education policy, administration, technology development, leadership and management. Emphasis is placed on equipping students with 21st century skills, as well as broadly based learning modules, phenomenon-based learning and multidisciplinarity. The BA programme is three years and carries 180 ECTS, while the two MA programmes are two years and carry 120 ECTS.

In 2016, there were 957 BA and MA students studying primary and early childhood education, with minor changes over the years in terms of enrolment and completed degrees.

Quality management related to the planning of educational provision

The process of curriculum design, monitoring, review and revision is described as per the PDCA model, beginning with collaboration with practitioners as well as the teacher education forum.

The appropriate learning outcomes are identified with a focus on skills and competences required for graduates, referred to as 21^st century skills in the interviews.

Based on the interviews, students feel well prepared to be teachers and enjoy the field-work experience gained during studies and are pleased that their teaching qualification is recognised in Finland and abroad. Students who have studied abroad felt the programme at the University of Oulu compared well with their international experiences.

There does however appear to be a gap between how the quality process and management system is described and how it works in practice. The procedures, while well described, are not always systematically implemented, which has implications for quality enhancement. The audit team found insufficient evidence as to how academic research feeds into the curriculum in a structured and systematic way, which reflects also on the development of the programmes’ own teaching and learning methods. There is a good research environment, with some research groups receiving very positive assessments in the most recent research assessment exercise. However, there was little overall evidence of how new forms of teaching or research about student learning – with respect to their own students or the school students of their own students – was incorporated into the curriculum to make it more relevant. The audit team recommends that the link between teaching and research is made more systematic and coordinated so as not to rely too much on individual members of staff and individual research groups.

Based on the interviews, the societal impact of the programme was conceived principally in terms of producing graduates for northern Finland, without explicit reference to the role or responsibility that the graduates – as early education or primary school teachers – will ultimately have on the future of Finland. In this respect, the education programme is concerned with two groups of students: the university’s students, and the school children that will be taught by the graduated teachers from the programme. This duality presents particular challenges for the programme.

The audit team sees considerable opportunities regarding life-long learning in developing a portfolio of continuous professional development for existing teachers, including the university’s own graduates. However, this potential was not yet fully recognised.

Quality management related to the implementation of educational provision

The quality management process as described above follows the PDCA model. Interaction with students, academics and external stakeholders provides an important method by which to receive feedback about teaching and learning methods, assessment, students and graduate competences and relevance to working life etc. However, systematic embeddedness of the quality management system is not always evident. Based on the self-evaluation and the interviews, student feedback is valued as important input for the PDCA process, but in practice there is a lot of variation in how well the feedback leads to actions at the course level. Student experiences also seem to vary according to module, between Finnish and international students, and between the programmes.

Concerns were expressed, to different degrees, about: pedagogic practices in the teaching being too didactic, insufficient investment in and use of digitalisation for learning or development of new learning platforms, varying practices in feedback to students on their learning, and in some cases a mismatch between learning outcomes, the curriculum and the assessment. Furthermore, because courses are primarily pass or fail, some students feel they do not get a full understanding as to how they are doing, and little idea as to why certain marks were given. Attention should also be paid to ensuring appropriate levels of language proficiency in courses provided in English, especially given that the university and the faculty were seeking to internationalise the student experience.

Regarding student well-being, the practice of teacher and peer tutors (see chapter 6.1) is commendable. Based upon the interviews, the tutoring teachers are interested in their students, and students value the practice especially at the beginning of their studies. Students felt there was flexibility to plan their studies. Study planning is supported by personal study plans that are done at the beginning of the studies, and discussed with the tutors and revised during studies if needed. Students actively use the Tuudo mobile app to manage their studies and access relevant and up-to-date information concerning student life, although the university also regularly uses email for communications.

Based on the interviews, the staff are pleased that they are able to influence their work, and correspondingly to receive support through the change process. Academic staff say they have participated in the university’s strategy development process, and meet regularly with their Dean to exchange information regarding developments at the university as well as to give feedback to the Rector. Individually, faculty members meet with their manager to discuss their own personal development plan, and set individual goals with respect to research and publications, external funding, conference attendance or training.

The key evaluation methods and follow-up indicators are generally suitable for successful development of the programme. Student progress is monitored in line with the university and national framework, and the programme follows the performance indicators defined at the university level. However, graduate progression into the workplace and their views of the relevance of the programme were not systematically tracked, which poses the risk of developing a gap between the student experience and working life. The audit team recommends that despite the high demand to enrol on the programmes and the high societal demand for the graduates, the

programme should work with greater urgency to revise the curriculum and workload requirements, to challenge their own pedagogic practices and to take measures to tackle problems of student progression measured by the 55 credits per credit year indicator.

Participation in quality work

Collaboration between the programme and its various stakeholders, inside and outside the university, forms an important part of the ethos of the programme.

External stakeholders are regularly consulted, and in turn, their relationship to the programme is described as positive. Likewise, the experience and feedback from the teacher training school, where students undertake internships, provides a good way to get information about the skills requirements for students and is a clear strength of the programme.

Student feedback is continually sought and, based on the interviews, the university student feedback form is easy to use. There is also a feedback day, when teachers discuss the issues raised, and the response. The tutor-teacher system is considered an important way for students to also provide feedback, although more attention should be paid to reflecting on the feedback and making the appropriate changes.

Despite the various mechanisms for receiving information and involving stakeholders in the quality process, attention should be paid to the extent to which the concerns are systematically taken into account or integrated into the activities surrounding programme management.