Like clockwork, news organisations run stories a few times a year about falling teaching standards in schools. Then there are the debates among academics, teachers and parents about the best methods – phonics or whole words – to teach children to read. When NAPLAN results are released, the media focus shifts to schools rising through the ranks thanks to innovative changes made to their teaching methodologies.
But when was the last time we saw a similar level of scrutiny on university teaching? We rarely hear about how universities students are taught, except when politicians want more rigorous entry standards for trainee teachers or are planning to overhaul teaching degrees.
More commonly, the conversation centres around non-teaching issues such as how universities are grappling with AI and contract cheating where students pay someone else to do their assignments for them. Or when tutors say how difficult it is to mark work from international students who have poor English language skills.
Yet university teaching deserves our attention, and not just in response to scandals or crises. There is growing evidence that the quality of teaching across Australian universities is declining, and this will have profound consequences for students, employers, and the workforce at large.
The recent Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching (QILT) reports show a number of Australian universities scoring below average on student positive ratings. These surveys measure student satisfaction on indicators ranging from skills development to teaching quality, and the results should be a wake-up call. In the 2023 Student Experience Survey for domestic undergraduates, of the 42 universities surveyed, 15 recorded below-average scores for the overall quality of their educational experience. Notably, five of these universities are part of the Group of Eight (Go8), the nation’s most prestigious research-intensive institutions, which are often perceived as delivering the highest quality education and tend to rate highly in world university rankings.
The QILT report for postgraduates was similar: 18 of 42 universities received below average positive scores for the quality of their entire educational experience. Seven of the eight research-intensive universities fell into this category. Even the University of Sydney, often seen as Australia’s most prestigious institution, registered one of the lowest ratings for overall student experience among its peers.
This underperformance is particularly glaring when viewed alongside the performance of smaller universities like Edith Cowan in Western Australia, Deakin in Victoria and Central Queensland, which had some of the most positive sores for the quality of their entire educational experience. The relatively small University of Divinity, Avondale University and Bond University performed substantially better than other universities.
“Mediocre university teaching may not affect highly motivated students, but a substantial number of others will disengage, drop out, or simply fail to develop the skills necessary for the workforce.”
The focus on research over teaching is the root of this issue.
The surveys throw up questions about the quality of the student experience and teaching particularly at Go8 universities, which dominate global rankings due to their research output and are popular among domestic and international students. Both domestic and, specifically, international students are often seduced into selecting a university because of its reputation in world rankings. When I had a column on higher education for The Age, senior university people continually told me that their market research showed rankings were a major factor determining which university international students chose.
Based on world league tables, the University of Melbourne is seen as Australia’s number one university. Yet the university does not perform as well as many other universities on the quality of the entire student experience.
The problem with world rankings is that they favour research over students’ experience of being in the classroom. Prospective students, particularly undergraduates, probably don’t know how world rankings are worked out and just see a Go8 university as more prestigious. University marketing helps give students this impression. University websites breathlessly advertise their position in world rankings.
Some students may then get a shock when they enrol in a Go8 university and find it is not up to their teaching and student support expectations. I’d argue this disconnect is particularly evident in the ‘practical’ subjects offered in arts degrees. I have taught ‘practical’ media subjects in a Go8 university where many of the people involved did not have a news writing background. However, they were being asked to get students to write profiles and hard news stories. They were versed in plenty of theory, though.
It’s a strange educational decision because you wouldn’t get a science graduate to show medical students how to perform an appendix operation. It’s a similarly absurd situation in university classrooms, yet it’s becoming more common. It’s not just about showing students how to write a hard news story, but having the teaching ability to convey the concepts underpinning a news story.
There are serious repercussions for students, who can pay over $2000 in HECS for subjects, regardless of whether the teaching is up to scratch. Not only are they burdened with debt, but they may also be left with a sense of disillusionment and frustration if their education experience fails to meet expectations.
Teachers’ skills and knowledge can have a significant impact on students’ motivation to learn, according to an abundance of research about the importance of teachers’ capabilities and ability to respond to students. Mediocre university teaching may not affect highly motivated students, a substantial number of others will disengage, drop out or simply fail to develop the skills necessary for the workforce. In a university system that serves a large and diverse student body, disengagement is a real risk. I know from experience that you can’t just tell university students to complete tasks that require a highly defined skill sets without motivating them to learn and using explicit teaching. Secondary schools have come full circle and now teach phonics, a more explicit way of teaching reading. Student-centred learning has its place, but ‘explicit learning’ is not a dirty term.
A systemic failure to engage students is a serious problem not just for students who may be lumbered with a HECS debt for an incomplete degree, but also for the taxpayer and society in general. As we keep hearing, Australia needs a highly-skilled workforce and employers also want skilled people who have soft attributes – such as communication skills – they have developed during their degrees. The Australian Universities Accord estimates that by 2050, 55 per cent of the population will need higher education qualifications.
If the current trend of poor teaching continues, this figure may be unattainable. Domestic enrolments are already at their lowest since 2017.
So what can be done?
In the first instance, language has to change in universities so that teaching is held in equal regard to research. A case in point is a recent email from the Dean of Arts at Melbourne University talking about budgetary constraints. In part it reads:
‘As flagged in my last email, we are working together as a Faculty to ensure that our commitment to excellence in research and in research impact continues to be enabled, in a very tight budgetary environment.’
Nowhere is teaching mentioned in the email.
The Productivity Commission chair, Danielle Wood, recently recommended that the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency should adopt Scotland’s approach and undertake reviews of teaching in universities. She also said lecture and course materials should be made publicly available so prospective students could make more informed decisions about what they study, and people could see what was being taught.
They are both interesting ideas that need to be put on the table.
Universities might also introduce mandatory teaching reviews for all staff, with a particular focus on improving the teaching skills of casual and part-time academics who make up the bulk of the teaching workforce. Universities now require casual academics to complete online induction modules that include some pointers on teaching. Academics are also encouraged to complete a graduate certificate in tertiary teaching or university teaching. (I have a Graduate Diploma in Secondary Education and a Masters of Education). But more must be done to equip staff with the skills needed to foster engagement and motivate students. The topic of university teaching needs to be central in discussions about the future of higher education.
If the quality of teaching is to improve, it must be treated as a cornerstone of university life, rather than an afterthought. This will require systemic changes, from curriculum design to hiring practices to the evaluation of academic staff. Most importantly, universities must recognise that the student experience, not just research output, should be the true measure of their success.
Dr Erica Cervini is a freelance journalist and sessional academic.