research on teacher effectiveness

• Utility Menu

• Get Involved
• News & Events

qualtrics survey

National center for teacher effectiveness.

Project Status:   Past Focus Area: Teacher Effectiveness Location: Massachusetts, Georgia & Washington, D.C.

How are multiple measures used in teacher evaluation related to one another and student learning? 

In July 2009, NCTE commenced a six-year effort to join disparate strands of education research, and develop a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of how to measure teacher and teaching effectiveness.   NCTE is developing valid measures of effective mathematics teaching to be shared with practitioners, policymakers, and researchers.  The measures may help target and plan teacher training, and improve teacher observation and feedback processes. 

There are three key strands of the work:

• The core study Developing Measures of Effective Mathematics Teaching , which included a extensive data collection effort, and the development of valid and reliable tools to the field of education.  Read the research overview .
• Supplementary studies that aim to be responsive to the needs of education practitioners and policymakers. These studies investigate  professional environments , teacher effects , teacher evaluation systems , and item response theory . 
• National leadership activities such as conferences and webinars. You can learn more about these topics by accessing our resources below. 

The project is led by Harvard Graduate School of Education Professors Thomas J. Kane and Heather Hill, Dartmouth College Professor Douglas O. Staiger, and Project Director Corinne Herlihy.

Johanna Barmore

... Read more about Johanna Barmore

David Blazar

... Read more about David Blazar

Elizabeth Cascio

Job Market Paper:  Breaking rank? An investigation of families’ preferences for schools and their causal moderators Dissertation Committee:  Martin West, David Deming, Desmond Ang Research Interests:  School Integration, School Choice, Racial Attitudes/Bias, Prosocial Behavior, Sociopolitical Preferences, Applied Quantitative Methods in Education Research PIER Summer Residency Placement: Wake County Public Schools

Email Website   Twitter  

Claire Gogolen

• Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI)
• Exploring Explanations for the "Weak" Relationship Between Value Added and Observation-Based Measures of Teacher Performance
• Effective teaching in elementary mathematics: Identifying classroom practices that support student achievement
• NCTE Student Assessments
• Technical Report: Creation and Dissemination of Upper-Elementary Mathematics Assessment Modules
• Approximate measurement invariance in cross-classified rater-mediated assessments
• Year-to-Year Stability in Measures of Teachers and Teaching
• Teachers' Knowledge of Students: Defining a Domain
• Teacher Characteristics and Student Learning: Toward a More Comprehensive Examination of the Association
• Attending to General and Content-Specific Dimensions of Teaching: Exploring Factors Across Two Observation Instruments

Do Value-Added Estimates Identify Causal Effects of Teachers and Schools?

CEPR Faculty Director Thomas Kane discusses value-added estimates in the following Brookings Institution paper.... Read more about Do Value-Added Estimates Identify Causal Effects of Teachers and Schools?

Who is an Effective Teacher?

CEPR Faculty Director Thomas Kane discusses the minimum standard of effectiveness for teachers in the following Brookings Institution paper.... Read more about Who is an Effective Teacher?

Prioritizing Teaching Quality in a New System of Teacher Evalaution

National Center for Teacher Effectiveness (NCTE) leaders Heather Hill and Corinne Herlihy  emphasize the importance of focusing on the quality of teaching, and not "teacher quality," in the following article published in the Education Outlook Series by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Teachers are the most important school-level factor in student success—but as any parent knows, all teachers are not created equal. Reforms to the current quite cursory teacher evaluation system, if done well, have the potential to remove the...

Education Agencies

With the goal of positioning ourselves as a national resource on teacher effectiveness research, we have partnered with four school districts on the east coast to conduct rigorous research, develop tools, and share best practices and lessons learned in teacher evaluation and professional development.

The National Center for Teacher Effectiveness is supported by the  Institute of Education Sciences , U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305C090023 to the Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University.

• Focus Areas

Featured Resource

Explaining teacher effects on achievement using measures from multiple research traditions, conference resources.

Beyond the Numbers Convening  (2014) 

Putting the Pieces Together: Taking Improved Teacher Evaluation to Scale  (2011)

Access the NCTE instruments, data archive, and video library

You may also like

• Middle School Mathematics Teachers and Teaching Survey
• Developing Common Core Classrooms Through Rubric-Based Coaching

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Systematic review article, rediscovering teaching in university: a scoping review of teacher effectiveness in higher education.

• 1 Department of Psychology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
• 2 Department of Psychology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
• 3 Department of Training and Education Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
• 4 Department of Psychology, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece
• 5 Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, University Research Center of Loannina (U.R.C.I.), Ioannina, Greece

Although teacher effectiveness plays a critical role in the learning process, little is known about its conceptualization and assessment, particularly in higher education (HE). This review aims to fill this gap by (a) listing the literature on teacher effectiveness, (b) identifying the instruments that have been used to assess teacher effectiveness (HE), and (c) highlighting the most effective teaching approaches based on the relevant literature. The selection process considered studies published since 1990 and conducted in higher education contexts with students. The research articles measured instructional processes and faculty effectiveness in terms of student outcomes, focusing on student achievement and student satisfaction. In reviewing the international research, special attention was paid to Southeastern Europe and Greece in particular. After a thorough review, the analysis revealed 26 studies. The results show that there is no universal definition of effective higher education teaching. Effective teaching may manifest itself in high scores on student performance assessments or in rewarding classroom interactions. Based on this principle, the way teacher effectiveness is defined is closely linked to proposed solutions in educational policy. Furthermore, research has shown that student-centered teaching styles are perceived by students as more effective, engaging, and performance-enhancing. However, several studies have not clarified why different teachers use different teaching styles in similar contexts. This review represents a step forward in our understanding of teacher effectiveness in HE. Nonetheless, effective teaching strategies could be better conceptualized through future research aimed at assessing the contextual nature of teaching along with student perceptions of effectiveness and expectations for an effective classroom climate.

Introduction

The quality of teaching and learning in higher education (HE) has gained worldwide attention in the last decade ( Devlin, 2007 ; Henard and Roseveare, 2012 ; Cardoso et al., 2015 ; Milienos et al., 2021 ). The new educational vision of higher education is to ensure effective teaching in universities and to be able to determine this effectiveness. University teaching can be defined as an academic activity that requires extensive professional skills and practices, as well as a high level of disciplinary and other contextual expertise. Attempting to apply effective teaching approaches as a university teacher ensures the foundation for a quality learning and teaching context ( Tadesse and Khalid, 2022 ). Such an attempt is critical for all teaching staff, academic researchers, higher education institutions, and indeed for the entire higher education sector, both nationally and internationally.

Altbach et al. (2009) argue that there has been an unprecedented shift in the goals of higher education over the past 50 years. Society should be well prepared to respond effectively to the challenges of the global marketplace and high competitiveness by proactively engaging in the development, adaptability, and utilization of knowledge. All this could serve as a foundation for national growth in the service and manufacturing sectors ( Zuñiga et al., 2010 ). In this context, higher education plays an important and crucial role in the development of human capital, entrepreneurial perspectives, and innovative practices related to a sustainable knowledge economy within the new teaching and learning paradigm ( Dill and Van Vught, 2010 ).

The process of evaluating teacher effectiveness has changed over time, as has the definition of what constitutes effective teaching. Effective teaching has been defined in many ways over the years ( Cruickshank and Haefele, 1990 ; Cheng and Tsui, 1999 ; Campbell et al., 2004 ; Muijs, 2006 ; Zuñiga et al., 2010 ; Hoidn et al., 2021 ), and approaches to assessing teacher effectiveness have changed with the development of different definitions and beliefs about what to measure. There is consensus that high-quality teaching is important and that it may be the most important education-related factor in improving student achievement ( Ding and Sherman, 2006 ; Devlin and Samarawickrema, 2010 ). However, the measurement of teacher effectiveness has remained vague, in part because there has been no consensus on what an effective teacher is and does. In a discussion of research-based indicators of effective teaching, Cruickshank and Haefele (1990) pointed out that “a tremendous underlying problem in evaluating teachers is that there is no agreement on what constitutes good or effective teaching” (p. 34).

Faculty members are evaluated in a variety of ways to determine whether they should be promoted or rewarded and to potentially improve their performance. An appropriate measure of faculty members' research productivity that is often used is the number and quality of published scholarly papers and reports. A similar measure of teaching effectiveness is not as readily available ( McBean and Al-Nassri, 1982 ; Khandan and Shannon, 2021 ). Aside from the fact that there is no clear agreement on what an effective teacher is and does-or perhaps because of it-there is no universally accepted method for evaluating teacher effectiveness. Some of the common evaluation methods refer to classroom observations, which aim to measure teachers' approaches to a standard of effective teaching, and value-added models, which aim to measure the extent to which teachers can contribute to their students' achievement growth.

The purpose of this review paper is to improve understanding of and further conceptualize teacher effectiveness in higher education from both a practical and research-oriented perspective. The processes that occur in the classroom and student outcomes that relate to performance improvement are the focus of this review, as these issues are prevalent in the current educational policy landscape. Thus, the rationale for this review lies primarily in the complexity of teaching and learning and the relative novelty of the widespread inclusion of co-teaching in teacher education. More specifically, through a rigorous and systematic process, we aim to provide a comprehensive descriptive overview of the scope, range, and nature of research on teacher effectiveness in higher education. In addition, we provide a foundation for future research and practice in this area by presenting in three distinct ways (a) the range of findings, (b) clarifying conceptual boundaries, and (c) suggesting refinements to operational definitions of teacher effectiveness in higher education.

A Complicating Concept

Teaching and learning are two sides of the same coin. The most recognized criterion for measuring teaching effectiveness is the amount of student learning ( Marsh, 1984 ; Devlin and Samarawickrema, 2010 ; Richardson, 2017 ; Vermunt and Donche, 2017 ). There are consistently high positive correlations between students' ratings of the amount learned in the course and their overall ratings of the instructor and the course: those who learn more give higher ratings to their instructors ( Cohen, 1981 ; Theall and Franklin, 2001 ). In addition, students' perceptions of the learning context are known to influence the methods and tactics of learning ( Karagiannopoulou and Milienos, 2015 ). Although this relationship between learning and teaching is discussed as reciprocal ( Richardson and Watt, 2006 ), studies have clearly shown that students' perceptions of the learning environment have an impact on learning methods, which in turn influences academic performance ( Karagiannopoulou and Christodoulides, 2005 ). The literature on instruction is replete with well-researched ways in which teachers can, first, teach content and skills that enhance students' learning opportunities, and second, assess learning through various types of assessments ( Karagiannopoulou and Milienos, 2013 ; Entwistle and Karagiannopoulou, 2014 ). Moreover, the literature is equally focused on formulating suggestions about what not to do in the classroom. Yet, there is no rulebook on what teaching methods are most appropriate and effective for the skills and/or content being taught. Students often do not know whether the method chosen by an individual instructor was the best teaching method or simply the method with which the instructor felt most comfortable ( Ramsden, 1991 ; Pratt, 1998 ; Bates and Poole, 2003 ).

More specifically, although research shows that college teachers have the greatest impact on student achievement ( Gibbs and Jenkins, 2014 ), defining the characteristics that describe quality teachers and measuring the evidence that would capture effectiveness remains quite problematic in education ( Partee, 2012 ). Nonetheless, there have been few attempts to define those particular qualities-tolerating ambiguity, demonstrating authenticity and empathy-that characterize “outstanding teachers” and that are associated with better personal understanding of students ( Fraser et al., 2010 ; Karagiannopoulou and Entwistle, 2019 ). Researchers contend that while there are many notable theories and ideas about assessment, there is no single tool that can be used to quickly and accurately determine and evaluate teacher effectiveness. There is talk of the need for teachers and stakeholders to cultivate a shared understanding of good practice ( Yorke, 2003 ; Leiber, 2018 ).

There is a need to better understand the notion of teacher effectiveness in higher education, specifically what it is and whether and how it can be achieved. Therefore, the focus of this review was to examine the nature and scope of the empirical literature in this area, particularly studies that use observational data, as observational instruments and frameworks are an important method for understanding teacher effectiveness in practice. For the purposes of this study, the term “instrument” refers to any structured observational scale or organizational framework used to measure (or organize data) aspects of teacher effectiveness in higher education. Our scoping review served two purposeful research questions as follows:

(1) How has teacher effectiveness been conceptualized in empirical research to date?

(2) What dimensions can be distinguished?

The study also aims to provide further insights for pedagogical practice as to whether important lessons for quality teaching can be drawn from this literature.

Given the exploratory nature of the research questions, a scoping review method was used. Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach for which there is not yet a universal study definition or definitive approach ( Arksey and O'Malley, 2005 ; Anderson et al., 2008 ; Davis et al., 2009 ; Levac et al., 2010 ; Daudt et al., 2013 ), particularly in the field of education ( Egan et al., 2017 ; Hariharasudan and Kot, 2018 ).

Scoping studies represent an approach to reviewing research findings to contextualize knowledge in terms of:

- Examining the scope, diversity, and nature of research activities.

- Determining the appropriateness of a full systematic review—Abridging and disseminating research findings.

- Identifying research gaps in the existing literature ( Arksey and O'Malley, 2005 ).

A scoping review is not a linear process (as typically prescribed in the protocol for systematic review), but a back and forth between early results and new findings, with changes in search terms and even questions ( Arksey and O'Malley, 2005 ).

Thus, in accordance with Arksey and O'Malley's framework for scoping reviews, an “iterative” process was undertaken ( Arksey and O'Malley, 2005 , p. 8): the search terms defined below were not fixed from the outset, but were distinguished as the process progressed so that all relevant literature could be captured.

More specifically, the scoping review method used in this study was initially guided by Arksey and O'Malley's (2005 ) five-stage framework, but then our research team, which consisted of four researchers, decided to add an additional stage after considering Daudt et al. (2013) , who suggested additional recommendations.

Originally, the sixth stage was intended to be a voluntary stage where experts in areas related to the research question would be asked to review and comment on the stages of the study to ensure that it was conducted efficiently and proceeded without bias. Both Levac et al. (2010) and Daudt et al. (2013) emphasized that this phase is part of the process, and it is retained for this review.

Thus, we went through each stage of the review process independently. Conflicts were collaboratively resolved after each step.

Search Strategy and Source Selection

In this systematic scoping review ( Arksey and O'Malley, 2005 ; Daudt et al., 2013 ; Andersen et al., 2021 ), a comprehensive search strategy was developed. After an initial search of the topic area in collaboration with an information search expert.

Definitions and understandings of teacher effectiveness vary in many ways. In general, the term seems to be associated with the “how” of teaching (i.e., teaching style and/or learning environment, student engagement) rather than the “what” of teaching (i.e., curriculum content). However, Gill and Singh (2020) note that the above term is sometimes used to refer to both. Based on this distinction, we focused on the “how” of teaching (i.e., teaching style and/or learning environment, course difficulty, student engagement).

Parameters were set for the study that influenced the scope of the search. Specifically, only studies published since 1990 and related to the relationship between teacher effectiveness and teaching evaluation were considered. In addition, only studies that were available in English and only studies in peer-reviewed journals were considered. A systematic search was conducted in the following electronic collections and databases: EBSCOhost Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, ScienceDirect, Education Research Complete, and Web of Science (Science and Social Science Index). Searches for titles, abstracts, and keywords were also conducted using the search terms listed in Table 1 . To be more specific, we matched terms from higher education (“higher education,” “universit * ,” “University * ,” “postsecondary”) with search terms from “effectiveness” (“teaching effectively * ,” “effective teaching,” “effective learning,” “effective instruction”) in this review page.

Table 1 . Sample of search terms for the ERIC database.

The literature on teacher effectiveness is extensive and fragmented. Researchers working in various fields theorized, conduct studies, and publish articles in various journals. Often, researchers do not attempt to identify connections among these disparate findings, or they do not build on findings from other fields. This could mean that the knowledge acquired is less cumulative than might be optimal. This means that views of research in such areas depend on the conceptual frameworks adopted by individual research papers ( Okoli, 2019 ). The categories selected for our review were deemed useful; however, scholars in other disciplines may have used different categories.

Study Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The identification and selection of articles for this review began with broad categories and many search terms ( Sibgatullin et al., 2022 ). The authors gradually narrowed the group of studies to those that met specific criteria. More stringent standards and criteria could have been applied. Dynarski (2008 , p. 27) stated in this regard that: “Selective exclusion of research requires great caution, as selectivity can be interpreted as compromising scientific objectivity for purposes that educators cannot discern and may misinterpret.” Consistent with Dynarski's (2008) statement, this review refrained from using narrow criteria so that studies that might be informative for specific purposes or audiences were included. Dynarski also stated:

“Of course, it is possible that the results of some studies are due to publication bias or that they result from local conditions that are unusual or difficult to replicate. But if syntheses review all the evidence and apply sound standards, educators can make up their own minds about whether the results are credible or whether the implementation conditions are unrealistic and not useful to them.” (p. 28).

The breadth of the above search terms resulted in a wide range of items. After removing duplicates, this initial search yielded more than 1,080 studies. To narrow the results, abstracts were reviewed to determine if studies met the following criteria (see Table 2 ):

Table 2 . Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Research Methodology . Since the main objective of this review is to identify frameworks for teaching effectiveness and related characteristics, both qualitative and quantitative research were considered.

Participants . The research must have been conducted in a higher education context with undergraduate students, either as part of a module or as a stand-alone module. We did not exclude studies based on a specific discipline.

Location . The research was conducted internationally, with a particular focus on Southern European countries and Greece in particular.

Relevance . Finally, the work under review must state in its own words that the goal of the research was to improve teacher effectiveness in order to be considered appropriate.

Approximately 250 articles met the above criteria and were therefore included in the next phase. Subsequently, this pool of the initially selected 250 articles was reviewed for relevance and methodological rigor. Articles were selected according to the Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement ( Moher et al., 2009 ).

For studies to be included in this review, they should also meet a number of additional criteria:

- Use an instrument to measure teacher effectiveness or instructional practice.

- Include a measure of student outcomes or impact on teacher effectiveness.

- They should report methods that meet high research quality standards, such as reliable and validated instruments, appropriate study design, and necessary controls.

In the next phase, the resulting collection of studies was evaluated. Additional exclusions were made if a closer reading revealed that they were of a different scope or did not meet the quality standards of this synthesis. Specifically, research was excluded if it was of poor quality, did not fit the topic, was beyond the scope, focused on schooling, or even lacked descriptions of data and methods. The overall analysis yielded 26 studies ( Figure 1 ) that were thoroughly reviewed. Full-text versions of the articles were obtained, and each article was reviewed and deemed appropriate by members of the research team. A review of the reference lists for each article also helped to identify additional relevant literature that could be considered for the study.

Figure 1 . PRISMA flow diagram (adapted from Moher et al., 2009 ).

As mentioned earlier, the search was narrowed by focusing on studies that measured instructional processes and outcomes that impacted student outcomes. Particular attention was paid to studies that measured teacher effectiveness in terms of adding value to student achievement and satisfaction.

This narrowing of scope was important to ensure that the amount of literature to be reviewed and summarized was sufficient to turn it into a practical and informative paper.

Quality Appraisal

All 29 identified studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Crombie model for critical appraisal of qualitative or quantitative research ( Glasper and Carpenter, 2021 ). Although not strictly required in a scoping study ( Engel-Yeger et al., 2018 ), critical appraisal involved the use of a series of questions that serve as a process or framework for assessing studies for their trustworthiness, value, and relevance in a particular context, culminating in a critique of each research article's objective(s), method(s), findings, and conclusions ( Glasper and Carpenter, 2021 ). Three studies were excluded due to lack of trustworthiness, leaving 26 studies (five descriptive papers: 2, 6, 8, 16, 17; twelve qualitative studies: 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, 23, 26; eight quantitative studies: 4, 9, 15, 21, 22, 24, 25; and one that used mixed methods: 12) to review and summarize. The selected studies are marked with an * in the References section.

This scoping review resulted in 26 articles from five countries. Of these, 9 studies were conducted in Australia, seven in the United Kingdom, three in the United States, one in Canada, one in Hong Kong, one in Iran, one in South Africa, one in Pakistan, one in Tanzania, and one in both Australia and the United Kingdom. Conspicuous by its absence was literature from Europe. In this section, we present articles that were the focus of our original research questions.

To improve conceptual clarity and determine the nature and scope of research on effectiveness in higher education, we first present the methodological characteristics of the studies descriptively (in alphabetical order of the last names of the first authors of each article). Second, our analysis focuses on how teacher effectiveness is conceptualized and implemented in higher education. We also provide a nuanced discussion of the findings and phenomena within these studies. In addition, noteworthy trends and implications for teacher efficacy and for future theoretical and empirical studies are discussed. Rather than providing the results of statistical analyses or summarizing the overall findings, we have chosen to describe the characteristics of typical manifestations of teacher effectiveness in higher education and how it has been researched to guide academic staff and researchers (see Table 3 ).

Table 3 . Included studies from 1990 (in alphabetical order).

How Has Teacher Effectiveness Been Conceptualized in Empirical Research to Date?

Teacher effectiveness in higher education can be viewed from three different but interrelated perspectives: Measuring inputs, processes, and outputs ( Devlin and Samarawickrema, 2010 ). Input refers to what a faculty member brings to their position. It is generally measured and includes elements such as the teacher's background, beliefs, expectations, experience, pedagogical and content knowledge, certification and licensure, and educational background. These measures are sometimes defined in the literature with the term “teacher quality” ( Qureshi and Ullah, 2014 ). Processes, on the other hand, refer to the interaction between teachers and students. This may include a teacher's professional activities within the larger University community. Outcomes are the results of instructional processes, such as the impact on student achievement, graduation rates, student behavior, engagement, attitudes, and social-emotional wellbeing. Other outcomes may include contributions to the University or community in the form of taking on leadership roles or training other faculty.

Numerous attempts have been made to classify the characteristics of teacher effectiveness. Numerous theoretical perspectives have been used, based on qualitative or quantitative approaches, and from different disciplinary viewpoints ( McMillan, 2007 ). Student perspectives have also been used in attempts to classify ( Vulcano, 2007 ). However, there is no universally accepted definition of effective higher education teaching ( Johnson and Ryan, 2000 ; Trigwell, 2001 ; Paulsen, 2002 ).

Effective teaching is generally understood to be instruction that is focused and centered on students and their learning ( Devlin and Samarawickrema, 2010 ; Qureshi and Ullah, 2014 ).

Given the importance of these distinctions, it is suggested that the term teacher effectiveness be used, but much more broadly than is common in current policy discussions and the specific frameworks under study. In the following lines of this section, a more nuanced definition of teacher effectiveness is provided that encompasses both the broad tasks teachers perform and the various outcomes that education stakeholders value.

Gradually, policy discussions tend to define teacher effectiveness as a teacher's ability to make higher than expected progress as reflected in student standardized test scores. This emphasis on attributing success on standardized tests to teachers and measuring the outcome of teaching by averaging test scores has a number of strengths. However, the definition also has significant shortcomings and has been viewed with skepticism.

The first limitation is related to the assumptions about causality that underlie this approach. If one directly relates student achievement to teacher effectiveness, one must determine what portion of the effectiveness score is attributable solely to the teacher. This determination is difficult not only for practical reasons, but also for logical reasons: It requires assumptions that may be irrational. According to Fenstermacher and Richardson (2005 , pp. 190–191), “[...] learning requires a combination of circumstances that go far beyond the actions of a teacher.”

It is worth noting that teacher effectiveness can be measured without considering classroom climate if teacher effectiveness is narrowly defined as a teacher's apparent impact on his or her students' learning, as is the case with standardized tests. Adopting this limited aspect ignores other important teacher resources and behaviors that contribute to successful learning.

Another criticism of this definition is that too narrow a focus on standardized test scores as the most important and reliable-and in some cases only-measure of student outcomes is not always consistent with all perspectives on effective teaching and learning ( Bassey et al., 2019 ). A review of the literature on teacher evaluation revealed that researchers' definitions of teacher effectiveness are more expansive. More specifically, according to Campbell et al. (2004 , p. 3), “teacher effectiveness is the impact that classroom factors, such as instructional practices, teacher expectations, classroom organization, and use of classroom resources, have on student achievement.” This definition describes what happens in the classroom, but the measure of effectiveness is still student achievement. However, many researchers believe that there are other important outcomes that make for effective teachers besides student performance on standardized tests ( Atkins and Brown, 2002 ). A number of studies looking at factors that predict academic achievement have found that the influence of students' perceptions of the learning environment is a stronger predictor of academic achievement than prior academic ability, possibly leading to better learning outcomes ( Karagiannopoulou and Christodoulides, 2005 ; Richardson and Watt, 2006 ; Entwistle, 2009 ).

Student achievement growth should be an important element in assessing teacher effectiveness; however, criticism of the performance-based view of teacher effectiveness is warranted. A broader view of teacher effectiveness that includes other features of teaching needs to be part of the discussion.

Teaching effectiveness is a controversial, value-laden concept with varying definitions. Therefore, a meaningful definition of teaching effectiveness should be related to the specific context in which teaching is assessed ( Laurillard, 2002 ; Devlin and Samarawickrema, 2010 ). Communities should openly classify the values and assumptions that underpin their understanding of what it means to be an effective teacher and what they define as best practices ( Fry et al., 2008 ). For example, a definition might reflect a college's mission, the unique practices of an academic discipline, or the values underlying a particular teaching award.

Thus, there are three elements to consider when evaluating the effectiveness of teaching in a given context:

- Criteria: Characteristics of effective teaching.

- Evidence: Documentation of instruction.

- Standards: expectations of quality and quantity.

What Dimensions of Teacher Effectiveness Can Be Distinguished?

Even when teaching analogous courses, different teachers teach in different ways, and this can affect their students' satisfaction, motivation, and achievement ( Theall and Franklin, 2001 ).

Approaches to Teaching in Higher Education

Trigwell and Prosser (1993 ) conducted an interview-based study of 24 academic staff members who taught freshman chemistry and physics courses. They identified five different teaching approaches that differed in terms of their goals and teaching strategies. Some methods were teacher-oriented and aimed at conveying information to students, while other techniques were “student-oriented and aimed at effecting conceptual change in students” ( Prosser and Trigwell, 1999 , pp. 153–154). Trigwell and Prosser also developed a quantitative instrument, the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI), to measure the teaching practices of a larger number of teachers. This questionnaire “contained 16 items that measured teachers' intentions and strategies related to two basic approaches to teaching: a conceptual change or student-centered approach and a delivery or teacher-centered approach” ( Prosser and Trigwell, 1999 , pp. 154–157).

Accordingly, using this questionnaire, Coffey and Gibbs (2002 ) found that teachers who took a student-centered approach reported using a more specific repertoire of teaching methods than teachers who took a teacher-centered approach.

In addition, Trigwell et al. (1999 ) demonstrated that students whose teachers took a student-centered approach showed a deeper approach to learning according to their scores on ATI and were rated as effective. At the same time, they show a less superficial approach to learning than students whose teachers took a teacher-centered approach. Moreover, when teaching methods involved a sense of acceptance and mutual respect for each other's thinking, a class climate emerged that fostered a “meeting of the minds” ( Karagiannopoulou and Entwistle, 2013 ).

Sander et al. (2000 ) argued that students expected to be taught primarily through frontal lectures but preferred more interactive and group-based activities, even calling them more effective.

However, these studies do not shed light on why different teachers use different teaching methods in similar contexts. Some researchers have attributed this to constitutional characteristics of the teachers themselves: different teaching styles ( Mbalamula, 2017 ), thinking styles, or personality traits ( Zhang and Sternberg, 2002 ). This is not entirely acceptable, as it remains unclear why teaching styles should evolve as a result of training ( Gibbs and Coffey, 2004 ) or experience ( Åkerlind, 2004 ). Other scholars have underscored that different approaches to teaching reflect different fundamental conceptions of teaching and that teaching approaches improve as more sophisticated and refined conceptions are acquired ( Entwistle and Walker, 2002 ; Bidabadi et al., 2016 ).

Conceptions of Teaching in Higher Education

Interview-based research has confirmed a number of different teaching beliefs that also determine teaching effectiveness among University faculty ( Dunkin, 1990 ; Dall'Alba, 1991 ; Samuelowicz and Bain, 1992 , 2001 ; Pratt, 1998 ; Willcoxson, 1998 ). Gow and Kember (1993) used the analytic categories that emerged from their own interviews to create a questionnaire on teaching beliefs (see Table 4 ). The questionnaire contained 46 items measuring nine subscales subsumed under two broad orientations to teaching.

Table 4 . Gow and Kember's (1993) orientations to teaching.

Gow and Kember (1993) obtained 170 responses to this questionnaire from staff at two institutions in Hong Kong and calculated student learning approaches using Biggs's (1987) Study Process Questionnaire. In departments where teaching was primarily focused on imparting knowledge, students' use of a deep learning approach tended to decline over the course of their studies, and with it their perceptions of their teachers' effectiveness.

On the other hand, students in departments where the main idea of teaching was to facilitate learning reported less use of a surface approach to learning ( Kember and Gow, 1994 ).

Subsequently, Kember (1997) reviewed the accumulating interview-based research on this topic. While noting that there was some variation in terminology, he argued that most of the studies adhered to five conceptions of instruction that can be located on a path from a fully teacher-centered, content-oriented conception of instruction to a fully student-centered and learner-oriented conception of teaching and teacher effectiveness as follows ( Kember, 1998 ):

▪ Teaching as communicating and reporting information.

▪ Teaching as transmission of structured knowledge.

▪ Teaching as interaction between the teacher and the student.

▪ Teaching as the promotion of understanding on the part of the student.

▪ Teaching as generating conceptual change and intellectual development in the student.

The relationship between students' perceptions of the teaching and learning environment could lead to more effective teaching in terms of the quality of student learning. Recent studies take a step beyond established theories ( Kember, 1998 ; Prosser et al., 2007 ) and propose an additional sixth approach to teaching that considers the experiences of “meeting the mind” and supports perceptions related to emotional-cognitive teaching experiences ( Entwistle, 2018 ; Karagiannopoulou and Entwistle, 2019 ).

Beliefs and Contexts vs. Objectives in Teaching

There is substantial indeterminacy-even fuzziness-in the conception of approaches to teaching and teaching effectiveness in higher education. On the one hand, a teacher's approach to teaching and teaching effectiveness may reflect the teaching behavior that, other things being equal, the teacher finds most comfortable. In this case, it is likely to be closely related to the teacher's conception of teaching ( Kember and Kwan, 2000 ). On the other hand, an approach to teaching and teaching effectiveness might reflect a behavior that the teacher is compelled to engage in by the curriculum, the institution, or the students themselves. In this case, it is probably more closely related to the teacher's perception of the teaching environment than to his or her own conception of teaching: It embodies a specific response to a particular teaching situation that is directly manifested in the teacher's classroom behavior ( Martin et al., 2002 ).

According to Pratt (1998) , there is an internal balance between the activities, intentions, and principles of different teachers and the specific environments in which they operate.

Accordingly, Dunkin (1990 ) introduced the term “orientations in relation to teaching effectiveness” in a similar way. While, Gow and Kember (1993) used the term only to refer to broad categories of ideas, their questionnaire also included items that might refer to teaching purposes rather than principles of teaching.

Despite these assumptions about substantial agreement between teachers' views and purposes, Samuelowicz and Bain (1992 ) found evidence in their interviews that teachers may have adopted two different kinds of conceptions of teaching effectiveness: the “ideal” and the “working.”

From the limited data available, it appears that academic teachers' articulated instructional goals are consistent with their “ideal” conception of teaching, while their teaching practices, including assessment, reflect their “working” conception of teaching. If this is the case, research could profitably be directed toward the factors (teacher-, student-, and institution-related) that prevent academic teachers from acting in accordance with their ideal conception of teaching, thus helping to solve one of the puzzles of higher education-the discrepancy between stated goals (fostering critical thinking) and teaching practices (unimaginative delivery of content and testing of factual knowledge) so often referred to in the literature ( Samuelowicz and Bain, 1992 , p. 110).

Murray and Macdonald (1997 ) found that there are differences between teachers' beliefs and perceptions of teaching effectiveness and their actual teaching practices and actions. This discrepancy appears to be more common among teachers whose beliefs about learning are more focused on supporting students. Murray and Macdonald suggested three possible explanations for this phenomenon: teachers may be dissatisfied and discouraged in their actual goals by environmental constraints; teachers' actual beliefs about teaching may be more accurately reflected in their actual actions than in their conceptions or principles; and teachers may not have experienced adequate training or staff development to facilitate operationalizing their conceptions of teaching into applicable teaching strategies.

This paper has attempted to capture teaching effectiveness in HE (i.e., the dimensions and approaches to teaching effectiveness) to determine how scholars have conceptualized, described, and researched this phenomenon. The wide range of definitions used to describe teaching effectiveness is a testament to the continuous evolution of the teaching and learning process.

Considering that the first article cited in this review was published in 1990, there is still no consensus on how to define and identify effective teaching, despite the large amount of research that has been conducted in the area of teacher effectiveness over the years.

The data examined in this scoping study have shown a lack of evidence for a common and widely accepted definition. This is perhaps not surprising given that teacher effectiveness is a very broad concept that encompasses a wide range of variables that need to be considered (i.e., imponderable and predictable factors), beginning with the bilateral relationship and connection between teaching and learning, and thus between teachers and students. Shedding light on the ways in which teacher effectiveness is defined is important for two main reasons. First and foremost, what is measured is a consideration of what is valued, and therefore what is measured is valued ( Goe et al., 2008 ). Definitions recommend and shape what needs to be calculated. For example, if policy discussions are only about standardized tests, important outcomes can be truncated to those that can be calculated using standardized test scores. In contrast, when policy discussions focus on teacher-student interfaces, the focus shifts to classrooms and documenting effective interactions between teachers and their students.

Moreover, different definitions lead to different policy solutions. When the discussion focuses on teacher effectiveness, the conversation potentially leads to improving teachers' scores on measures of knowledge or signals of that knowledge, such as certification. When the conversation is about instructional practices or standards, specific instructional concepts, practices, or approaches come into focus.

It is also noteworthy that a high percentage of the articles came from the Anglo-American context (i.e., 7 from the United Kingdom and 3 from the United States). The remaining articles were either from more economically advanced nations (e.g., Australia, Canada, and Hong Kong) or from low-income countries (e.g., Tanzania and Pakistan). This suggests that teacher effectiveness in HE is of particular interest in certain international settings. The concept of teacher effectiveness in HE was popularized by countries in the global North in the second half of the twentieth century and has traditionally taken on less importance in less economically developed countries-probably because of financial constraints, different political situations and social contexts, and/or different educational conditions. Nevertheless, some of them-such as Pakistan and Tanzania, which are officially moving from low-income to middle-income country status in 2020 ( Diao et al., 2020 )-are trying to gain a foothold in the field of teaching innovation and provide educational opportunities worthy of those in the developed world, with the goal of reducing their out- migration rates in favor of better learning and work opportunities.

Limitations

Scoping review studies have several limitations. Scoping studies identify the amount and type of literature that currently exists in the area of interest rather than assessing the quality of that evidence. Consequently, they cannot determine whether particular studies provide robust or generalizable results ( Arksey and O'Malley, 2005 ). In addition, scoping studies do not aim to summarize findings or combine results from different studies ( Arksey and O'Malley, 2005 ). This review is limited to measuring teacher effectiveness and does not address methods for measuring the impact of universities, the effectiveness of curricula or the implementation of professional development (unless they include measures that explicitly apply to teachers), or other evaluations of educational interventions or frameworks. Although these are important and related topics, they are beyond the scope of this review.

In addition, for feasibility reasons, this study only considered articles written in English, which may have resulted in applicable articles not being included in the review. Another limitation of this study is that proxies for the term “teacher effectiveness”, such as “teacher mastery”, were not included in the key search terms. In addition, searches of electronic databases may have overlooked articles that did not include the key search terms in their title, abstract, or keywords. Despite attempts to be as comprehensive as possible, not all studies on teacher effectiveness may have been identified in this review.

Conclusions

In this review, we presented the results of a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and published literature on teacher effectiveness in HE. Teacher effectiveness should broadly encompass competence in four areas (teaching style, course organization, student engagement, and determination of progress). This review represents a first step toward understanding evidence-based practices in teaching.

It is important to note, however, that the summary themes of practice do not contain an exhaustive list of all possible practices of teachers. Instead, the themes embody the most important practices related to implementing teacher effectiveness.

While many of the instruments promoted a comprehensive analysis of effectiveness using multiple methods of data collection, many of them did not take into account the contextual nature of instruction. Some of the instruments recommended other data collection techniques for assessing the overall quality of effectiveness to be used in conjunction with observation techniques.

Nevertheless, additional research is needed to assess teacher effectiveness along with student perceptions of effectiveness and expectations for an effective classroom climate. In this way, scholars and education stakeholders can gain a better understanding of effective teaching practices and how they relate to the evaluations of higher education's most important consumers, the students.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Author Contributions

SM conceived and designed the study. SM and CL performed the literature search and study selection process. SM, CL, AK, VD, and EK performed the final analysis process. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

This work was funded by Microkosmos, Italo-Hellenic Cultural Association for Education.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

* Åkerlind, G. S (2004). A new dimension to understanding University teaching. Teach. Higher Educ. 9, 363–375. doi: 10.1080/1356251042000216679

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., and Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution . Paris: UNESCO.

Google Scholar

Andersen, B. L., Jørnø, R. L., and Nortvig, A. M. (2021). Blending adaptive learning technology into nursing education: a scoping review. Contemp. Educ. Technol. 14, ep333. doi: 10.30935/cedtech/11370

Anderson, S., Allen, P., Peckham, S., and Goodwin, N. (2008). Asking the right questions: Scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Res. Policy Syst. 6, 1–12. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-6-7

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Arksey, H., and O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8, 19–32. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616

Atkins, M., and Brown, G. (2002). Effective Teaching in Higher Education . New York, NY: Routledge.

Bassey, B. A., Owan, V. J., and Agunwa, J. N. (2019). Quality assurance practices and students' performance evaluation in universities of South-South Nigeria: A structural equation modelling approach. Br. J. Psychol. Res. 7, 1–13. Available online at: https://philarchive.org/rec/BASQAP?how_to_cite=1

Bates, A. W., and Poole, G. (2003). Effective Teaching With Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

* Berk, R. A (2005). Survey of 12 strategies to measure teaching effectiveness. International J. Teach. Learn. Higher Educ. 17, 48–62.

* Bidabadi, N. S., Isfahani, A. N., Rouhollahi, A., and Khalili, R. (2016). Effective teaching methods in higher education: requirements and barriers. J. Adv. Med. Educ. Profession. 4, 170.

Biggs, J. B (1987). Study Process Questionnaire Manual. Student Approaches to Learning and Studying . Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.

Campbell, R. J., Kyriakides, L., Muijs, R. D., and Robinson, W. (2004). Differential Teacher Effectiveness: towards a model for research and teacher appraisal. Oxford Rev. Educ. 29, 347–362. doi: 10.1080/03054980307440

Cardoso, S., Tavares, O., and Sin, C. (2015). The quality of teaching staff: higher education institutions' compliance with the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance: The case of Portugal. Educ. Assess. Eval. Account. 27, 205–222. doi: 10.1007/s11092-015-9211-z

Cheng, Y. C., and Tsui, K. T. (1999). Multimodels of teacher effectiveness: Implications for research. J. Educ. Res. 92, 141–150. doi: 10.1080/00220679909597589

* Coffey, M., and Gibbs, G. (2002). Measuring teachers' repertoire of teaching methods. Assess. Eval. Higher Educ. 27, 383–390. doi: 10.1080/0260293022000001382

Cohen, P. A (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: a meta-analysis of multisection validity studies. Rev. Educ. Res. 51, 281–309. doi: 10.3102/00346543051003281

Cruickshank, D. R., and Haefele, D. L. (1990). based indicators: Is the glass half-full or half-empty?. J. Personnel Eval. Educ. 4, 33–39. doi: 10.1007/BF00177128

* Dall'Alba, G (1991). Foreshadowing conceptions of teaching. Res. Dev. Higher Educ. 13, 293–297.

Daudt, H., van Mossel, C., and Scott, S. J. (2013). Enhancing the scoping study methodology: A large inter-professional team's experience with Arksey and O'Malley's framework. BMC Med. Res. 13, 48–56. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-48

Davis, K., Drey, N., and Gould, D. (2009). What are scoping studies? A review of the nursing literature. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 46, 1386–1400. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.02.010

Devlin, M (2007). “Improving teaching in tertiary education: Institutional and individual influences,” in Excellence in Education and Training Convention (2007). Singapore: Singapore Polytechnic.

* Devlin, M., and Samarawickrema, G. (2010). The criteria of effective teaching in a changing higher education context. Higher Educ. Res. Dev. 29, 111–124. doi: 10.1080/07294360903244398

Diao, X., Kweka, J., McMillan, M., and Qureshi, Z. (2020). Economic transformation in Africa from the bottom up: New evidence from Tanzania. World Bank Econ. Rev. 34(Supplement_1), S58–S62. doi: 10.1093/wber/lhz035

Dill, D. D., and Van Vught, F. A. (2010). National Innovation and the Academic Research Enterprise: Public Policy in Global Perspective. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ding, C., and Sherman, H. (2006). Teaching effectiveness and student achievement: examining the relationship. Educ. Res. Q. 29, 40–51.

* Dunkin, M. J (1990). The induction of academic staff to a University: processes and products. Higher Educ. 20, 47–66. doi: 10.1007/BF00162204

Dynarski, M (2008). Comments on Slavin: Bringing answers to educators: guiding principles for research syntheses. Educ. Res. 37, 27–29. doi: 10.3102/0013189X08315011

Egan, A., Maguire, R., Christophers, L., and Rooney, B. (2017). Developing creativity in higher education for 21st century learners: a protocol for a scoping review. Int. J. Educ. Res. 82, 21–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2016.12.004

Engel-Yeger, B., Tse, T., Josman, N., Baum, C., and Carey, L. M. (2018). Scoping review: the trajectory of recovery of participation outcomes following stroke. Behav. Neurol. 2018, 5472018–5472018. doi: 10.1155/2018/5472018

Entwistle, N (2009). Universities into the 21st Century: Teaching for Understanding at University: Deep Approaches and Distinctive Ways of Thinking . Available online at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Universities-into-the-21st-Century%3A-Teaching-for-at-Entwistle/5ed70e26bc8e55b46f316080d80bed321825722f

Entwistle, N (2018). Student Learning and Academic Understanding: A Research Perspective With Implications for Teaching . New York and London: Elsevier.

Entwistle, N., and Karagiannopoulou, E. (2014). “Perceptions of assessment and their influences on learning,” in Advances and Innovations in Assessment and Feedback , eds C. Kreber, C. Anderson, N. Entwistle, and I. McArthur (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press), 75–98.

* Entwistle, N., and Walker, P. (2002). “Strategic alertness and expanded awareness within sophisticated conceptions of teaching,” in Teacher Thinking, Beliefs and Knowledge in Higher Education (Berlin: Springer), 15–39.

Fenstermacher, G. D., and Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. Teach. Coll. Rec. 107, 186–213. doi: 10.1177/016146810510700113

Fraser, B. J., Aldridge, J. M., and Soerjaningsih, W. (2010). Instructor-student interpersonal interaction and student outcomes at the University level in Indonesia. Open Educ. J. 3, 10021. doi: 10.2174/1874920801003010021

Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., and Marshall, S., (eds.). (2008). A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice. New York: Routledge.

Gibbs, G., and Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training of University teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learn. Higher Educ. 5, 87–100. doi: 10.1177/1469787404040463

Gibbs, G., and Jenkins, A. (2014). Teaching Large Classes in Higher Education: How to Maintain Quality With Reduced Resources. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gill, S., and Singh, G. (2020). Developing inclusive and quality learning environments in HEIs. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 34, 823–836. doi: 10.1108/IJEM-03-2019-0106

Glasper, A., and Carpenter, D., (eds.). (2021). How to Write Your Nursing Dissertation . New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Goe, L., Bell, C., and Little, O. (2008). Approaches to Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness: A Research Synthesis . Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.

* Gow, L., and Kember, D. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to student learning. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 63, 20–23. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1993.tb01039.x

Hariharasudan, A., and Kot, S. (2018). A scoping review on Digital English and Education 4.0 for Industry 4.0. Soc. Sci. 7, 227. doi: 10.3390/socsci7110227

Henard, F., and Roseveare, D. (2012). “Fostering quality teaching in higher education: policies and practices,” in An IMHE Guide for Higher Education Institutions , 7–11.

Hoidn, S., Reusser, K., and Klemenčič, M. (2021). “Foundations of student-centered learning and teaching,” Routledge International Handbook of Student-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education , 17–46.

Johnson, T. D., and Ryan, K. E. (2000). A comprehensive approach to the evaluation of college teaching. New Direct. Teach. Learn. 2000, 109–123. doi: 10.1002/tl.8309

Karagiannopoulou, E., and Christodoulides, P. (2005). The impact of Greek University students' perceptions of their learning environment on approaches to studying and academic outcomes. Int. J. Educ. Res. 43, 329–350. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2006.05.002

Karagiannopoulou, E., and Entwistle, N. (2013). Influences on personal understanding: approaches to learning, perceptions of assessment, and the “meeting of minds”. Psychol. Teach. Rev. 13, 80–96. Available online at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1149736.pdf

Karagiannopoulou, E., and Entwistle, N. (2019). Students' learning characteristics, perceptions of small-group University teaching, and understanding through a “meeting of minds”. Front. Psychol. 10, 444. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00444

Karagiannopoulou, E., and Milienos, F. S. (2013). Exploring the relationship between experienced students' preference for open-and closed-book examinations, approaches to learning and achievement. Educ. Res. Eval. 19, 271–296. doi: 10.1080/13803611.2013.765691

Karagiannopoulou, E., and Milienos, F. S. (2015). Testing two path models to explore relationships between students' experiences of the teaching–learning environment, approaches to learning and academic achievement. Educ. Psychol. 35, 26–52. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2014.895800

Kember, D (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into University academics' conceptions of teaching. Learn. Instruct. 7, 255–275. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00028-X

Kember, D (1998). Teaching beliefs and their impact on students' approach to learning. Teach. Learn. Higher Educ. 4, 1–25.

Kember, D., and Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student learning. J. Higher Educ. 65, 58–74. doi: 10.2307/2943877

* Kember, D., and Kwan, K. P. (2000). Lecturers' approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instruct. Sci. 28, 469–490. doi: 10.1023/A:1026569608656

Khandan, R., and Shannon, L. (2021). The effect of teaching–learning environments on student's engagement with lean mindset. Educ. Sci. 11, 466. doi: 10.3390/educsci11090466

Laurillard, D (2002). Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies. New York: Routledge.

Leiber, T (2018). Impact evaluation of quality management in higher education: a contribution to sustainable quality development in knowledge societies. Eur. J. Higher Educ. 8, 235–248. doi: 10.1080/21568235.2018.1474775

Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., and O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement. Sci. 5, 69. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

Marsh, H. W (1984). Students' evaluations of University teaching: dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and utility. J. Educ. Psychol. 76,707–754. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.76.5.707

* Martin, E., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., Ramsden, P., and Benjamin, J. (2002). “What University teachers teach and how they teach it,” in Teacher Thinking, Beliefs and Knowledge in Higher Education . Berlin: Springer.

Martin, N. K., and Shoho, A. R. (2002). “Teacher experience, training, & age: The influence of teacher characteristics on classroom management style,” in What University Teachers Teach and How They Teach It: In Teacher Thinking, Beliefs and Knowledge in Higher Education , eds E. Martin, M. Prosser, K. Trigwell, P. Ramsden, and J. Benjamin(Dordrecht: Springer), 103—126.

* Mbalamula, Y. S (2017). Complementing lecturing as teaching pedagogy and students learning styles in universities in Tanzania: State of issues. Educ. Res. Rev. 12, 653–659. doi: 10.5897/ERR2017.3232

McBean, E. A., and Al-Nassri, S. (1982). Questionnaire design for student measurement of teaching effectiveness. Higher Educ. 11, 273–288. doi: 10.1007/BF00155619

* McMillan, W. J (2007). ‘Then you get a teacher': Guidelines for excellence in teaching. Med. Teacher 29, e209–e218. doi: 10.1080/01421590701478264

Milienos, F. S., Rentzios, C., Catrysse, L., Gijbels, D., Mastrokoukou, S., Longobardi, C., et al. (2021). The contribution of learning and mental health variables in first-year students' profiles. Front. Psychol. 12, 1259. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.627118

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D. G. Prisma Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6, e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Muijs, D (2006). Measuring teacher effectiveness: Some methodological reflections. Educ. Res. Eval. 12, 53–74. doi: 10.1080/13803610500392236

* Murray, K., and Macdonald, R. (1997). The disjunction between lecturers' conceptions of teaching and their claimed educational practice. Higher Educ. 33, 331–349. doi: 10.1023/A:1002931104852

* Norton, L., Richardson, T. E., Hartley, J., Newstead, S., and Mayes, J. (2005). Teachers' beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher education. Higher Educ. 50, 537–571. doi: 10.1007/s10734-004-6363-z

Okoli, C (2019). Developing Theory from Literature Reviews with Theoretical Concept Synthesis: Topical, Propositional and Confirmatory Approaches . Available online at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3452134 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3452134

Partee, G. L (2012). Using Multiple Evaluation Measures to Improve Teacher Effectiveness: State Strategies From Round 2 of No Child Left Behind Act Waivers . Center for American Progress.

* Paulsen, M. B (2002). Evaluating teaching performance. New Direct. Inst. Res. 2002, 5–18. doi: 10.1002/ir.42

Pratt, D. D (1998). Five Perspectives on Teaching in Adult and Higher Education . Krieger: Krieger Publishing Co.

Prosser, M., Martin, E., and Trigwell, K. (2007). “4 Academics' experiences of teaching and of their subject matter understanding,” in BJEP Monograph Series II, Number 4-Student Learning and University Teaching (Scotland: British Psychological Society), 49–59.

Prosser, M., and Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience in Higher Education . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

* Qureshi, S., and Ullah, R. (2014). Learning experiences of higher education students: approaches to learning as measures of quality of learning outcomes. Bull. Educ. Res. 36, 79–100. Available online at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Learning-Experiences-of-Higher-Education-Students%3A-Qureshi-Ullah/901e743718cd6193fe5c2fcde4b30c810fe6cedf#citing-papers

* Ramsden, P (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The Course Experience Questionnaire. Stud. Higher Educ. 16, 129–150. doi: 10.1080/03075079112331382944

Richardson, J. T (2017). Student learning in higher education: a commentary. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 29, 353–362. doi: 10.1007/s10648-017-9410-x

Richardson, P. W., and Watt, H. M. (2006). Who chooses teaching and why? Profiling characteristics and motivations across three Australian universities. Asia-Pacific J. Teach. Educ. 34, 27–56. doi: 10.1080/13598660500480290

* Samuelowicz, K., and Bain, J. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by academic teachers. Higher Educ. 24, 93–111. doi: 10.1007/BF00138620

* Samuelowicz, K., and Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics' beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Educ. 41, 299–325. doi: 10.1023/A:1004130031247

* Sander, P., Stevenson, K., King, M., and Coates, D. (2000). University students' expectations of teaching. Stud. Higher Educ. 25, 309–323. doi: 10.1080/03075070050193433

* Shao, L. P., Anderson, L. P., and Newsome, M. (2007). Evaluating teaching effectiveness: where we are and where we should be. Assess. Eval. Higher Educ. 32, 355–371. doi: 10.1080/02602930600801886

Sibgatullin, I. R., Korzhuev, A. V., Khairullina, E. R., Sadykova, A. R., Baturina, R. V., and Chauzova, V. (2022). A systematic review on algebraic thinking in education. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 18, em2065. doi: 10.29333/ejmste/11486

Tadesse, E. F., and Khalid, S. (2022). Are teachers and HE are on the same page? Calling for a research–teaching nexus among Ethiopian and Pakistani academics. J. Appl. Res. Higher Educ. doi: 10.1108/JARHE-09-2021-0348 [Epub ahead of print].

Theall, M., and Franklin, J. (2001). Looking for bias in all the wrong places: a search for truth or a witch hunt in student ratings of instruction? New Direct. Inst. Res. 2001, 45–56. doi: 10.1002/ir.3

Trigwell, K (2001). Judging University teaching. Int. J. Acad. Dev. 6, 65–73. doi: 10.1080/13601440110033698

* Trigwell, K., and Prosser, M. (1993). Approaches adopted by teachers of first year University science courses. Res. Dev. Higher Educ. 14, 223–228.

* Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., and Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and students' approaches to learning. Higher Educ. 37, 57–70. doi: 10.1023/A:1003548313194

Vermunt, J. D., and Donche, V. (2017). A learning patterns perspective on student learning in higher education: State of the art and moving forward. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 29, 269–299. doi: 10.1007/s10648-017-9414-6

* Vulcano, B. A (2007). Extending the generality of the qualities and behaviors constituting effective teaching. Teach. Psychol. 34, 114–117. doi: 10.1177/009862830703400210

* Willcoxson, L (1998). The impact of academics' learning and teaching preferences on their teaching practices: a pilot study. Stud. Higher Educ. 23, 59–70. doi: 10.1080/03075079812331380492

Yorke, M (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Educ. 45, 477–501. doi: 10.1023/A:1023967026413

Zhang, L. F., and Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Thinking styles and teachers' characteristics. Int. J. Psychol. 37, 3–12. doi: 10.1080/00207590143000171

Zuñiga, P., Navarro, J. C., and Llisterri, C. (2010). ”The importance of ideas: Innovation and productivity in Latin America,” in The Age of Productivity: Transforming Economies From the Bottom Up. Development in the Americas Report , eds C. Pagés (Inter-American Development Bank/Palgrave-McMillan), 223–255.

Keywords: teacher effectiveness, higher education institutions, undergraduate students, scoping review, teacher student interaction

Citation: Mastrokoukou S, Kaliris A, Donche V, Chauliac M, Karagiannopoulou E, Christodoulides P and Longobardi C (2022) Rediscovering Teaching in University: A Scoping Review of Teacher Effectiveness in Higher Education. Front. Educ. 7:861458. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.861458

Received: 24 January 2022; Accepted: 28 February 2022; Published: 28 March 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Mastrokoukou, Kaliris, Donche, Chauliac, Karagiannopoulou, Christodoulides and Longobardi. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Claudio Longobardi, claudio.longobardi@unito.it

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Teacher Evaluation and Teacher Effectiveness

Introduction, purposes of teacher evaluation.

• International Policy and Research Reports
• US Policy and Research Reports
• Textbooks on Teacher Effectiveness and Teacher Evaluation
• Early Models of Teacher Evaluation
• Contemporary Models of Teacher Evaluation
• Measuring Teacher Effectiveness
• Value-Added Models in Teacher Evaluation
• Teacher Observation in Teacher Evaluation
• Impacts of Teacher Evaluation on Teacher Quality

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• A Pedagogy of Teacher Education
• Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Black Women in Academia
• Girls' Education in the Developing World
• History of Education in Europe
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Teacher Evaluation and Teacher Effectiveness by James H. Stronge , Leslie W. Grant , Xianxuan Xu LAST REVIEWED: 28 July 2021 LAST MODIFIED: 28 July 2021 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0138

Teacher evaluation has evolved over time from focusing on the moral values of a teacher in the early 1900s to standards-based evaluation models of today that seek to include measures of student academic progress. Often, teacher evaluation systems seek to serve two needs: accountability and improvement. Changes in teacher evaluation have been influenced by political winds as well as a desire to create systems that are fair and balanced. This article begins with an overview of the purposes of teacher evaluation. Next, often-cited international and US policy and research reports as well as foundational textbooks related to teacher effectiveness and teacher evaluation are highlighted. The article then provides an overview of early models of teacher evaluation focused on the roles and responsibilities of a teacher and the evolution to contemporary models of teacher evaluation with a focus on a standards-based and/or outcomes-based approach to evaluation. The next section highlights seminal works that emerged in measuring teacher effectiveness as well as value-added models to support an outcomes-based approach by including student academic progress as part of evaluation. Including student outcomes has been the topic of intense discussion as policymakers and researchers debate the validity of the use of student test scores in terms of value-added modeling and other growth models. Researchers do not agree on the stability of such models and whether they do differentiate between effective and less effective teachers. Research will continue to inform and enrich this debate and discussion. Teacher observation remains a critical part of the evaluation process and the article provides a historical overview of common practices and challenges of teacher observation. Finally, works that illuminate impacts of teacher evaluation are provided, including texts and reports related to teacher growth and development, teacher retention, and teacher compensation.

Teacher evaluation that is intended to be productive and actionable must address either teacher growth and support, the quality of teacher performance, or both. In essence, teacher evaluation can and should consider purposes for helping teachers improve their performance as well as providing accountable for their work. While other teacher evaluation purposes are identified periodically (e.g., school improvement), the most commonly accepted purposes for teacher evaluation are: (1) supporting teacher personal and professional growth that leads to improved and sustained quality performance, and (2) documenting results of teaching practices for reporting and accountability. There is considerable discussion and little agreement in the extant literature regarding whether both purposes can and should be achieved within the same performance evaluation system. One point of agreement is that regardless of the purpose— teacher professional growth or teacher accountability—the intended purpose(s) of teacher evaluation must be actionable if evaluation is to a worthwhile endeavor. Earlier publications— Peterson 2000 , Gordon 2006 , and Stronge 2006 —posit the rationale for a connection among evaluation of teacher performance, teacher growth and development, and school improvement. A case for using evaluation for the purpose of accountability, or teacher dismissal, more specifically, is made in Chait 2010 . A case for using evaluation for the purposes of teacher development is described in Donaldson and Peske 2010 . Crowe 2010 argues that the first evaluation of a teacher occurs in her teacher education program and that we should have a strong accountability system for teacher education programs to make sure the graduates have the knowledge and skills to be effective with students. Huber and Skedsmo 2016 frames the primary purposes of teacher evaluation as formative (teacher growth and support) and summative (teacher accountability). A report from the National Council on Teacher Quality, Gerber 2019 advocates for teacher evaluation designs that help teachers improve their practice and support distribution of teacher quality equitably across schools.

Chait, Robin. 2010. Removing chronically ineffective teachers: Barriers and opportunities . Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

Chait recognizes that teachers have a tremendous impact on student achievement and that teachers vary greatly in their effectiveness. This report focuses on one critical piece in the human capital systems in school—the dismissal of chronically ineffective teachers. The challenges in removing teachers who are persistently ineffective and fail to improve even with intensive support over time are described.

Crowe, Edward. 2010. Measuring what matters: A stronger accountability model for teacher education . Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

Crowe extends the argument of accountability and teacher evaluation into the sector of teacher preparation. He maintains that teacher education programs should serve as a real quality control and use empirically based indicators to measure the extent to which graduates help their students learn.

Donaldson, Morgaen L., and Heather G. Peske. 2010. Supporting effective teaching through teacher evaluation: A study of teacher evaluation in five charter schools . Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

This text reports findings from a study of teacher evaluation practices in five charter schools. The authors find that a rigorous teacher evaluation system can influence teachers’ instructional capabilities in a positive way.

Gerber, Nicole. 2019. Teacher evaluation that’s meaningful . Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.

This report provides a short review of teacher evaluation trends and practices in the United States that directly or indirectly are related to making the purposes of teacher evaluation meaningful. Included in the review are findings related to teacher evaluation rating categories, frequency of evaluations, use of observations, evaluation components, and student growth measures.

Gordon, Stephen P. 2006. Teacher evaluation and professional development. In Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice . 2d ed. Edited by James H. Stronge, 268–290. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

DOI: 10.4135/9781412990202.d105

Gordon makes a case for the alignment among teacher evaluation, professional development, and school improvement goals—with all aspects moving toward the same common denominator of improving student learning.

Huber, Stephan G., and Guri Skedsmo. 2016. Teacher evaluation—accountability and improving teaching practices. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability 28:105–109.

DOI: 10.1007/s11092-016-9241-1

This journal article discusses the importance of both teacher growth and teacher accountability as important purposes for teacher evaluation. The authors frame their review and arguments in terms of formative (ongoing growth orientation) and summative (accountability orientation) purposes of teacher evaluation.

Peterson, Kenneth D. 2000. Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices . 2d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

This book recognizes that the evaluation of teachers is a complex activity. It provides an examination of the many purposes of teacher evaluation. The purposes include to protect children, provide feedback to teachers regarding the quality of their practice, reassure audiences who are stakeholders in quality teaching, make personnel decisions, inform teacher educators, and shape future practice.

Stronge, James H. 2006. Teacher evaluation and school improvement: Improving the educational landscape. In Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice . 2d ed. Edited by James H. Stronge, 1–23. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

DOI: 10.4135/9781412990202.d4

In this book chapter, Stronge suggests that a conceptually sound and properly implemented evaluation system for teachers is a vital component of successful reform efforts. The chapter discusses key features of effective teacher evaluation systems and offers one model for designing a quality teacher evaluation system for school improvement and teacher growth.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Education »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Academic Achievement
• Academic Audit for Universities
• Academic Freedom and Tenure in the United States
• Action Research in Education
• Adjuncts in Higher Education in the United States
• Administrator Preparation
• Adolescence
• Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Courses
• Advocacy and Activism in Early Childhood
• African American Racial Identity and Learning
• Alaska Native Education
• Alternative Certification Programs for Educators
• Alternative Schools
• American Indian Education
• Animals in Environmental Education
• Art Education
• Artificial Intelligence and Learning
• Assessing School Leader Effectiveness
• Assessment, Behavioral
• Assessment, Educational
• Assessment in Early Childhood Education
• Assistive Technology
• Augmented Reality in Education
• Beginning-Teacher Induction
• Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
• Black Undergraduate Women: Critical Race and Gender Perspe...
• Blended Learning
• Case Study in Education Research
• Changing Professional and Academic Identities
• Character Education
• Children’s and Young Adult Literature
• Children's Beliefs about Intelligence
• Children's Rights in Early Childhood Education
• Citizenship Education
• Civic and Social Engagement of Higher Education
• Classroom Learning Environments: Assessing and Investigati...
• Classroom Management
• Coherent Instructional Systems at the School and School Sy...
• College Admissions in the United States
• College Athletics in the United States
• Community Relations
• Comparative Education
• Computer-Assisted Language Learning
• Computer-Based Testing
• Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Evaluating Improvement Net...
• Continuous Improvement and "High Leverage" Educational Pro...
• Counseling in Schools
• Critical Approaches to Gender in Higher Education
• Critical Perspectives on Educational Innovation and Improv...
• Critical Race Theory
• Crossborder and Transnational Higher Education
• Cross-National Research on Continuous Improvement
• Cross-Sector Research on Continuous Learning and Improveme...
• Cultural Diversity in Early Childhood Education
• Culturally Responsive Leadership
• Culturally Responsive Pedagogies
• Culturally Responsive Teacher Education in the United Stat...
• Curriculum Design
• Data Collection in Educational Research
• Data-driven Decision Making in the United States
• Deaf Education
• Desegregation and Integration
• Design Thinking and the Learning Sciences: Theoretical, Pr...
• Development, Moral
• Dialogic Pedagogy
• Digital Age Teacher, The
• Digital Citizenship
• Digital Divides
• Disabilities
• Distance Learning
• Distributed Leadership
• Doctoral Education and Training
• Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in Denmark
• Early Childhood Education and Development in Mexico
• Early Childhood Education in Aotearoa New Zealand
• Early Childhood Education in Australia
• Early Childhood Education in China
• Early Childhood Education in Europe
• Early Childhood Education in Sub-Saharan Africa
• Early Childhood Education in Sweden
• Early Childhood Education Pedagogy
• Early Childhood Education Policy
• Early Childhood Education, The Arts in
• Early Childhood Mathematics
• Early Childhood Science
• Early Childhood Teacher Education
• Early Childhood Teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand
• Early Years Professionalism and Professionalization Polici...
• Economics of Education
• Education For Children with Autism
• Education for Sustainable Development
• Education Leadership, Empirical Perspectives in
• Education of Native Hawaiian Students
• Education Reform and School Change
• Educational Statistics for Longitudinal Research
• Educator Partnerships with Parents and Families with a Foc...
• Emotional and Affective Issues in Environmental and Sustai...
• Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
• English as an International Language for Academic Publishi...
• Environmental and Science Education: Overlaps and Issues
• Environmental Education
• Environmental Education in Brazil
• Epistemic Beliefs
• Equity and Improvement: Engaging Communities in Educationa...
• Equity, Ethnicity, Diversity, and Excellence in Education
• Ethical Research with Young Children
• Ethics and Education
• Ethics of Teaching
• Ethnic Studies
• Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention
• Family and Community Partnerships in Education
• Family Day Care
• Federal Government Programs and Issues
• Feminization of Labor in Academia
• Finance, Education
• Financial Aid
• Formative Assessment
• Future-Focused Education
• Gender and Achievement
• Gender and Alternative Education
• Gender, Power and Politics in the Academy
• Gender-Based Violence on University Campuses
• Gifted Education
• Global Mindedness and Global Citizenship Education
• Global University Rankings
• Governance, Education
• Grounded Theory
• Growth of Effective Mental Health Services in Schools in t...
• Higher Education and Globalization
• Higher Education and the Developing World
• Higher Education Faculty Characteristics and Trends in the...
• Higher Education Finance
• Higher Education Governance
• Higher Education Graduate Outcomes and Destinations
• Higher Education in Africa
• Higher Education in China
• Higher Education in Latin America
• Higher Education in the United States, Historical Evolutio...
• Higher Education, International Issues in
• Higher Education Management
• Higher Education Policy
• Higher Education Research
• Higher Education Student Assessment
• High-stakes Testing
• History of Early Childhood Education in the United States
• History of Education in the United States
• History of Technology Integration in Education
• Homeschooling
• Inclusion in Early Childhood: Difference, Disability, and ...
• Inclusive Education
• Indigenous Education in a Global Context
• Indigenous Learning Environments
• Indigenous Students in Higher Education in the United Stat...
• Infant and Toddler Pedagogy
• Inservice Teacher Education
• Integrating Art across the Curriculum
• Intelligence
• Intensive Interventions for Children and Adolescents with ...
• International Perspectives on Academic Freedom
• Intersectionality and Education
• Knowledge Development in Early Childhood
• Leadership Development, Coaching and Feedback for
• Leadership in Early Childhood Education
• Leadership Training with an Emphasis on the United States
• Learning Analytics in Higher Education
• Learning Difficulties
• Learning, Lifelong
• Learning, Multimedia
• Learning Strategies
• Legal Matters and Education Law
• LGBT Youth in Schools
• Linguistic Diversity
• Linguistically Inclusive Pedagogy
• Literacy Development and Language Acquisition
• Literature Reviews
• Mathematics Identity
• Mathematics Instruction and Interventions for Students wit...
• Mathematics Teacher Education
• Measurement for Improvement in Education
• Measurement in Education in the United States
• Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis in Education
• Methodological Approaches for Impact Evaluation in Educati...
• Methodologies for Conducting Education Research
• Mindfulness, Learning, and Education
• Mixed Methods Research
• Motherscholars
• Multiliteracies in Early Childhood Education
• Multiple Documents Literacy: Theory, Research, and Applica...
• Multivariate Research Methodology
• Museums, Education, and Curriculum
• Music Education
• Narrative Research in Education
• Native American Studies
• Nonformal and Informal Environmental Education
• Note-Taking
• Numeracy Education
• One-to-One Technology in the K-12 Classroom
• Online Education
• Open Education
• Organizing for Continuous Improvement in Education
• Organizing Schools for the Inclusion of Students with Disa...
• Outdoor Play and Learning
• Outdoor Play and Learning in Early Childhood Education
• Pedagogical Leadership
• Pedagogy of Teacher Education, A
• Performance Objectives and Measurement
• Performance-based Research Assessment in Higher Education
• Performance-based Research Funding
• Phenomenology in Educational Research
• Philosophy of Education
• Physical Education
• Podcasts in Education
• Policy Context of United States Educational Innovation and...
• Politics of Education
• Portable Technology Use in Special Education Programs and ...
• Post-humanism and Environmental Education
• Pre-Service Teacher Education
• Problem Solving
• Productivity and Higher Education
• Professional Development
• Professional Learning Communities
• Program Evaluation
• Programs and Services for Students with Emotional or Behav...
• Psychology Learning and Teaching
• Psychometric Issues in the Assessment of English Language ...
• Qualitative Data Analysis Techniques
• Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Research Samp...
• Qualitative Research Design
• Quantitative Research Designs in Educational Research
• Queering the English Language Arts (ELA) Writing Classroom
• Race and Affirmative Action in Higher Education
• Reading Education
• Refugee and New Immigrant Learners
• Relational and Developmental Trauma and Schools
• Relational Pedagogies in Early Childhood Education
• Reliability in Educational Assessments
• Religion in Elementary and Secondary Education in the Unit...
• Researcher Development and Skills Training within the Cont...
• Research-Practice Partnerships in Education within the Uni...
• Response to Intervention
• Restorative Practices
• Risky Play in Early Childhood Education
• Scale and Sustainability of Education Innovation and Impro...
• Scaling Up Research-based Educational Practices
• School Accreditation
• School Choice
• School Culture
• School District Budgeting and Financial Management in the ...
• School Improvement through Inclusive Education
• School Reform
• Schools, Private and Independent
• School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
• Science Education
• Secondary to Postsecondary Transition Issues
• Self-Regulated Learning
• Service-Learning
• Severe Disabilities
• Single Salary Schedule
• Single-sex Education
• Single-Subject Research Design
• Social Context of Education
• Social Justice
• Social Network Analysis
• Social Pedagogy
• Social Science and Education Research
• Social Studies Education
• Sociology of Education
• Standards-Based Education
• Statistical Assumptions
• Student Access, Equity, and Diversity in Higher Education
• Student Assignment Policy
• Student Engagement in Tertiary Education
• Student Learning, Development, Engagement, and Motivation ...
• Student Participation
• Student Voice in Teacher Development
• Sustainability Education in Early Childhood Education
• Sustainability in Early Childhood Education
• Sustainability in Higher Education
• Teacher Beliefs and Epistemologies
• Teacher Collaboration in School Improvement
• Teacher Evaluation and Teacher Effectiveness
• Teacher Preparation
• Teacher Training and Development
• Teacher Unions and Associations
• Teacher-Student Relationships
• Teaching Critical Thinking
• Technologies, Teaching, and Learning in Higher Education
• Technology Education in Early Childhood
• Technology, Educational
• Technology-based Assessment
• The Bologna Process
• The Regulation of Standards in Higher Education
• Theories of Educational Leadership
• Three Conceptions of Literacy: Media, Narrative, and Gamin...
• Tracking and Detracking
• Traditions of Quality Improvement in Education
• Transformative Learning
• Transitions in Early Childhood Education
• Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities in the Unite...
• Understanding the Psycho-Social Dimensions of Schools and ...
• University Faculty Roles and Responsibilities in the Unite...
• Using Ethnography in Educational Research
• Value of Higher Education for Students and Other Stakehold...
• Virtual Learning Environments
• Vocational and Technical Education
• Wellness and Well-Being in Education
• Women's and Gender Studies
• Young Children and Spirituality
• Young Children's Learning Dispositions
• Young Children's Working Theories
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [185.66.15.189]
• 185.66.15.189

Teacher Effectiveness

• University of Delhi

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Liya Mihu Tage Monju

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

This site belongs to UNESCO's International Institute for Educational Planning

IIEP Learning Portal

Search form

• issue briefs
• Improve learning

Teacher education and learning outcomes

This brief examines the impact of teacher education on the quality of education. It provides suggestions of how educational planners and decision makers can improve the effectiveness of initial teacher education programmes and continuing professional development (CPD) to improve teaching quality.

Many countries are unable to recruit and train enough teachers to provide universal access to both primary and secondary education (Education International and Oxfam Novbib, 2011; UNESCO IICBA et al., 2017). Some countries hire unqualified and/or untrained teachers to fill the gap. (ADEA, 2016). Globally, 85 per cent of primary teachers were trained in 2018, whereas in sub-Saharan Africa, only 64 per cent of primary and 50 per cent of secondary teachers were trained in 2018–17 (UIS, TTF, and GEMR, 2019).

Sustainable Development Goal target 4.c seeks to increase the supply of qualified teachers (Education 2030, 2016). Five of the seven indicators relate to teacher training or qualifications. However, teacher education programmes vary between countries regarding length, content, modality (school or institution based), and entry requirements (OECD, 2018; UIS, 2017). Countries define the status of a ‘qualified teacher’ differently, making data comparisons difficult (UIS, 2017). Furthermore, ‘qualified’ does not necessarily equate to being trained to teach (target 4.c.1, 4.c.3) (Bengtsson et al., 2020).

What we know

Quality teachers a key role improve learning outcomes (Cosentino and Sridharan, 2017). Analysis from sub-Saharan Africa found that teacher content and pedagogical knowledge significantly improve student achievement (Bold et al., 2017).

Research on the direct impact of pre-service teacher education and CPD is inconclusive. Initial training is not always adapted to the challenges teachers face (Best, Tournier, and Chimier, 2018), and the effectiveness of the few evaluated in-service CPD programmes is mixed (Popova et al., 2019).

Research is inconclusive about the minimum academic level required for teaching, especially at primary level. Some studies show that beyond a certain threshold, academic level has moderate or no effects on primary level learning outcomes (Best, Tournier, and Chimier, 2018). Conversely, a study in sub-Saharan African countries demonstrated that teachers with upper secondary education affect learners more positively than those with lower secondary education (Bernard, Tiyab, and Vianou, 2004). However, ‘in India, pre-service teacher training and holding a Master’s level qualification were found to have a significant positive correlation to learner outcomes’ (UNESCO, 2019: 47).

Pre-service education can improve effectiveness. Practice must be linked to theory for recruits to apply their knowledge and skills in a classroom setting before teaching full-time (OECD, 2018; UNESCO, 2019). ‘The most effective teacher training courses involve active, experiential, practice-based learning focusing on outcomes rather than inputs. These courses consider trainee teachers as “reflective practitioners”, who learn both by doing and reflecting on their practice’ (UNESCO, 2019: 48).

Instruction type and quality matter more than participation (Martin, 2018; OECD, 2018; Taylor and Robinson, 2019). Effective training includes a specific subject focus, initial face-to-face aspect, follow-up, and participatory practices for everyday teaching activities. CPD opportunities linked to career progression, salary increases, or other incentives are more likely to be successful (Martin, 2018; Popova et al., 2019).

Classroom management and pedagogical skills help develop more effective teachers. Classroom management, providing feedback, learner-centred practices, and flipped classrooms appear to have a positive impact on learner performance. Pre- and in-service teacher education programmes could develop these skills (Best, Tournier, and Chimier, 2018). CPD programmes focusing on subject-specific pedagogy could enhance learning significantly (Popova et al., 2019).

Teacher education best functions as part of a continuum, that includes pre-service training, induction and mentoring of new teachers, and CPD (Education Commission, 2019; Martin, 2018; OECD, 2019; Popova et al., 2019; Taylor, Deacon, and Robinson, 2019; UNESCO, 2019; UNESCO IICBA et al., 2017; VVOB, 2019). Ministries of education, schools, and teacher training institutions should coordinate their training efforts and opportunities (UNESCO, 2019), and embed CPD into career structures (Tournier et al., 2019: 68) for teachers to continuously gain new skills.

Collaborative practices are important. Activities that combine CPD and colleague collaboration facilitate both the teachers’ need for competence and relatedness (Tournier et al., 2019). Some countries have established professional learning communities to support collaborative learning and mentor new teachers and senior staff (Jensen et al., 2016).

Lack of capacity and coordination.  Many countries lack the resources to provide pre-service training to enough new teachers due to limited training facilities; too few well-trained, qualified educators; and the inability to provide supervised school placements (Taylor and Robinson, 2019). Some programmes do not align with national curricula or national education policies and do not prepare teachers for the real world (Westbrook et al., 2013). Other issues include planning pre-service training alongside recruitment strategies and existing teacher needs (UNESCO, 2019).

There is a gap between research-supported CPD and that provided by many government-funded, at-scale programmes (Popova et al., 2019: 2). In-service training, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is often ineffective and does not meet teachers’ needs (Popova et al., 2019; UNESCO IICBA et al., 2017; World Bank, 2018). Follow-up training, and monitoring and evaluation of effectiveness are often non-existent (Taylor and Robinson, 2019; UNESCO IICBA et al., 2017; World Bank, 2018).

Difficulties in balancing pre-service professional development programmes.  Teacher education programmes often struggle to balance theory and practice, content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and pedagogy (Taylor and Robinson, 2019). Some programmes rely too much on theoretical teaching teach theory rather than giving students classroom experience (Popova et al., 2019; UNESCO, 2019). High-performing systems typically incorporate more practical training into their pre-service programmes (OECD, 2018). Many teachers in LMICs lack the minimum subject matter knowledge to teach (Popova et al., 2019; Taylor, Deacon, and Robinson, 2019). This typically stems from low entry requirements to pre-service training or shorter programmes.

Lack of qualified motivated candidates entering teacher education programmes. Underperforming education systems produce too few quality candidates to create a new cohort of quality teachers (Taylor, Deacon, and Robinson, 2019; Taylor and Robinson, 2019). Minimum entry requirements should attract candidates with a sufficiently high level of education while still guaranteeing sufficient candidates to meet needs (UNESCO, 2019). In some contexts, it is already difficult to attract candidates, and raising entry standards could reduce numbers further.

Cost, sustainability and coherence.  Central challenges include cost and sustainability. Resources are required to build more training facilities; hire, train, and support teacher educators; and offer higher salaries to attract better candidates. Some LMICs use assistance from NGOs or other international organizations to mitigate this issue, but most of these programmes are unsustainable (Martin, 2018; Taylor and Robinson, 2019). This raises coordination and consistency issues for programmes provided by different NGOs and other organizations, especially in crisis-affected contexts (Richardson, MacEwen, and Naylor, 2018).

Equity and inclusion

A lack of proper training leaves teachers unprepared to treat vulnerable populations (girls, students with disabilities, ethnic minorities, or displaced students) fairly and equitably. Training helps teachers to understand exclusion and discrimination and to adapt inclusive teaching methods to suit students with different learning needs (Education Commission, 2019; UNESCO, 2019). Especially in crisis and refugee settings, teachers are often not prepared to offer specialized psychosocial support; do not have pedagogical skills for multigrade classrooms; and are unable to deal with potentially dangerous classroom situations, special needs learners, and/or learners who have missed a significant amount of school (Richardson, MacEwen, and Naylor, 2018). Research is focusing more on the importance of training teachers to enhance their own social-emotional learning, manage stress, build resilience, and better support learners (Schonert-Reichl, 2017).

Entry standards for teacher education programmes do not always address equity across gender, ethnic backgrounds, or candidates with disabilities, which may affect learning outcomes (Education Commission, 2019; UNESCO, 2014, 2019). Teachers who closely identify with their students through culture, language, or ethnicity can impact learning positively (UNESCO, 2014).

Policy and planning

• Establish recruitment and selection strategies that attract quality and diverse candidates. Targeting selected groups (based on gender, ethnicity, or geographical location) and offering merit scholarships can make teaching more attractive (Education Commission, 2019; UNESCO, 2019). Selection practices should consider basic academic achievement level, overall capabilities, motivation, and attitude (Education Commission, 2019; UNESCO, 2019).
• Improve access and quality of pre-service teacher education and prepare teacher educators. Policy design often overlooks appropriate qualifications for teacher educators and their access to professional development (UNESCO, 2019). They should understand active learning methods and pedagogy; support training; apply various active teaching methods, techniques and processes; have practical classroom experience; and be involved or at least informed of research in their area of expertise (UNESCO, 2019: 48–49).
• Obtain teacher input when designing training programmes. To ensure that in-service training meets the needs of teachers, input from the teachers themselves should be sought (Cosentino and Sridharan, 2017; Tournier et al., 2019; VVOB, 2019). This also provides teachers with a sense of empowerment and can help improve their motivation (Tournier et al., 2019; Consentino and Sridharan, 2017), especially in crisis and displacement settings, where teachers are rarely trained to face complex situations and have few opportunities to learn from others (Chase et al., 2019).
• Balance theoretical and practical aspects of teacher training. Training should provide practical guidance and avoid overly theoretical content (OECD, 2018; UNESCO, 2019). School-led training conducted by principals or senior teachers can be effective and save costs (Martin, 2018). Partnership guidelines between teacher training institutions and schools can validate training and give candidates practical experience (Education Commission, 2019 UNESCO, 2019; World Bank, 2018).
• Include the development of social-emotional competencies during pre- and in-service teacher training. These influence teaching effectiveness, mental and emotional well-being, and willingness to continue teaching (Jennings, Frank, and Montgomery, 2020; Zakrzewski, 2013), and improve students’ academic learning and mental health (Bayley et al., 2021, Duraiappah and Sethi, 2020). Understanding how behaviour and emotion affect teaching and learning helps teachers confidently create a positive learning environment (Schonert-Reichl, 2017 as cited in Jennings, Frank, and Montgomery, 2020). CPD that deepens knowledge of social-emotional theories, concepts, and activities for teachers to improve their own social-emotional competencies can provide a model for students and create a positive learning environment (Jennings, Frank, and Montgomery, 2020).
• Integrate information and communications technology (ICT) and digital literacy skills. Most creative solutions during COVID-19 closures relied on technology-based education (Vincent-Lancrin, Cobo Romaní, and Reimers, 2022), underscoring the importance of ICT skills and digital literacy in classrooms. Teachers need to understand digital technologies to support their pedagogy and content knowledge, student learning, and assessment and collaboration with peers (Unwin et al., 2020). Pre-service training and CPD in ICT skills should include competency assessment, hardware and software familiarization, ongoing training, hands-on instruction, and examples of pedagogical ICT use (UNESCO, 2018). Providing teachers with support and training to use different technologies improve teachers’ pedagogy whether schools are open or closed (UNICEF, 2021).
• Continuously build additional teacher skills and expertise. Probationary periods and mentorship can support new teachers and provide additional training while settling in the classroom (OECD, 2018; UNESCO, 2019; World Bank, 2012). Individual CPD plans can address specific career needs and help teachers take responsibility for their CPD (UNESCO, 2019).
• Provide ongoing support and post-training monitoring to sustain school-based training. Effective, practical follow-up and actionable feedback help translate the knowledge teachers gain into practice. A supportive environment, peer-to-peer exchanges, communities of practice, and interschool collaboration also help build sustainable training. ‘In-person, on-site coaching is an effective way to deliver advice on classroom practice, and coaching should be the core of any good professional development programme’ (UNESCO, 2019: 52). Peer mentoring, observation, and lesson preparation meetings can also be used to support school-based CPD (UNESCO, 2019).
• Integrate inclusive education into all CPD programmes. Specific courses and inclusive pedagogy can be mainstreamed into all professional pre- and in-service courses (Lewis and Bagree, 2013). Teacher development should take place primarily in classrooms; connect to and build on in-school expertise; create cooperative spaces; and engage teachers in developing a common language of practice (UNESCO, 2017).
• Plan financial resources for CPD in advance. Include training expenses in education budgets: ‘An annual CPD allocation per teacher, adjusted for purchasing power parity, including the cost of paying to supply teachers where necessary, may be a strategy to finance CPD’ (UNESCO, 2019: 53).

Plans and policies

• Uganda:  The National Teacher Policy
• United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA):  Teacher Policy
• UNESCO. 2019. Teacher Policy Development Guide

ADEA (Association for the Development of Education in Africa). 2016. Policy Brief: In-service Teacher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Abidjan: AfDB.

Bayley, S.; Wole, D.; Ramchandani, P.; Rose, P.; Woldehanna, T.; Yorke, L. 2021. Socio- emotional and Academic Learning Before and After COVID-19 School Closures: Evidence from Ethiopia. RISE Working Paper Series, no. 21/082.

Bengtsson, S.; Kamanda, M.; Ailwood, J.; Barakat, B. 2020. ‘Teachers are more than “supply”: Toward meaningful measurement of pedagogy and teachers in SDG 4’. In: A. Wulff (ed.), Grading Goal Four (pp. 214–237). Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.

Bernard, J.M.; Tiyab, B.K.; Vianou, K. 2004. Profils enseignants et qualité de l’éducation primaire en Afrique subsaharienne francophone : Bilan et perspectives de dix années de recherche du PASEC. Dakar: CONFEMEN.

Best, A.; Tournier, B.; Chimier, C. 2018. Topical Questions on Teacher Management. Paris: IIEP-UNESCO.

Bold, T.; Filmer, D.; Martin, G.; Molina, E.; Rockmore, C.; Stacy, B.; Svensson, J.; Wane, W. 2017. What do Teachers Know and Do? Does it Matter? Evidence from Primary Schools in Africa. Policy Research Working Paper, no. 7956. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Chase, E.; Kennedy, E.; Laurillard, D.; Abu Moghli, M.; Pherali, T.; Shuayb, M. 2019. A Co-designed Blended Approach for Teacher Professional Development in Contexts of Mass Displacement. New York, NY: INEE.

Cosentino, C.; Sridharan, S. 2017. Improving Teacher Quality: Lessons Learned from Grantees of the Partnership to Strengthen Innovation and Practice in Secondary Education. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.

Duraiappah, A.K.; Sethi, S. 2020. ‘Social and emotional learning: The costs of inaction’. In: N. Chatterjee Singh and A.K. Duraiappah (eds.), Rethinking Learning: A Review of Social and Emotional Learning for Education Systems (pp. 187–218). New Delhi: Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development.

Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the Implementation for Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education and Promote Lifelong Learning. 2016.

Education Commission. 2019. Transforming the Education Workforce: Learning Teams for a Learning Generation. New York, NY: Education Commission.

Education International; Oxfam Novib. 2011. Quality Educators: An International Study of Teacher Competences and Standards. Brussels: Education International.

Jennings, P.; Frank, J;. Montgomery, M. 2020. ‘Social and emotional learning for educators’. In: N. Chatterjee Singh and A.K. Duraiappah (eds.), Rethinking Learning: A Review of Social and Emotional Learning for Education Systems (pp. 123–154). New Delhi: Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development.

Jensen, B.; Sonnemann, J.; Roberts-Hull, K.; Hunter, A. 2016. Beyond PD: Teacher Professional Learning in High-Performing Systems. Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the Economy.

Lewis, I.; Bagree, S. 2013. Teachers for All: Inclusive Teaching for Children with Disabilities. Brussels: International Disability and Development Consortium.

Martin, J. 2018. UNICEF Think Piece Series: Teacher Performance. Nairobi: UNICEF Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office. 

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2018. Effective Teacher Policies: Insights from PISA. Washington, DC: OECD Publishing.

––––. 2019. A Flying Start: Improving Initial Teacher Preparation Systems. Washington, DC: OECD Publishing.

Popova, A.; Evans, D.K.; Breeding, M.E.; Arancibia, V. 2019. Teacher Professional Development Around the World: The Gap Between Evidence and Practice. CGD Working Paper 517. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.

Richardson, E.; MacEwen, L.; Naylor, R. 2018. Teachers of Refugees: A Review of the Literature. Berkshire: Education Development Trust and IIEP-UNESCO.

Schonert-Reichl, K.A. 2017. ‘Social and emotional learning and teachers’. In: Future of Children, 27(1), 137–155.

Taylor, N.; Deacon, R.; Robinson, N. 2019. Secondary Level Teacher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Teacher Preparation and Support: Overview Report. Mastercard Foundation.

Taylor, N.; Robinson, N. 2019. Secondary Education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Teacher Preparation and Support Literature Review. Mastercard Foundation.

Tournier, B.; Chimier, C.; Childress, D.; Raudonyte, I. 2019. Teacher Career Reforms: Learning from Experience. Paris: IIEP-UNESCO.

UIS (UNESCO Institute of Statistics). 2017. Improving the Global Measurement of Teacher Training.  Background paper prepared for the 2017/8 Global Education Monitoring Report, Accountability in Education: Meeting our Commitments.

UIS (UNESCO Institute for Statistics); TTF (International Task Force on Teachers for Education 2030); GEMR (Global Education Monitoring Report) Team. 2019. World Teachers’ Day 2019: Fact Sheet.

UNESCO. 2014. Advocacy Toolkit for Teachers to Provide a Quality Education. Paris: UNESCO.

––––. 2017. A Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education. Paris: UNESCO.

––––. 2018. UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers. Paris: UNESCO.

––––. 2019. Teacher Policy Development Guide. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO IICBA (International Institute for Capacity-Building in Africa); Education International; International Labour Organization; Association for the Development of Education in Africa; African Union; Dept. of Human Resources, Science and Technology; Forum for African Women Educationalists. 2017. Teacher Support and Motivation Framework for Africa: Emerging Patterns. Addis Ababa: IICBA.

UNICEF. 2021. Reopening with Resilience: Lessons from Remote Learning during COVID-19. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Office of Research - Innocenti.

Unwin, T.; Naseem, A.; Pawluczuk, A.; Shareef, M.; Spiesberger, P.; West, P.; Yoo, C. 2020. Guidance Note 10 Prioritising Effective and Appropriate Teacher Training from the Report: Education for the Most Marginalised Post-COVID-19: Guidance for Governments on the Use of Digital Technologies in Education.

Vincent-Lancrin, S.; Cobo Romaní, C.; Reimers, F. (eds.). 2022. How Learning Continued During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Global Lessons from Initiatives to Support Learners and Teachers. Paris: OECD Publishing.

VVOB. 2019. Annual Report 2018: Unlocking the Potential of Teachers and School Leaders for SDG4. Brussels: VVOB.

Westbrook, J.; Durrani, N.; Brown, R.; Orr, D.; Pryor, J.; Boddy, J.; Salvi, F. 2013. Pedagogy, Curriculum, Teaching Practices and Teacher Education in Developing Countries. Final Report. Education Rigorous Literature Review. Department for International Development.

World Bank. 2012. What Matters Most in Teacher Policies? A Framework for Building a More Effective Teaching Profession. Washington, DC: World Bank.

––––. 2018. World Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Education’s Promise. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Zakrzewski, V. 2013. 'Why Teachers Need Social-emotional Skills'.  Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development

Related information

• International Task Force on Teachers for Education 2030
• In-service teacher training
• Pre-service teacher training

• Open access
• Published: 18 June 2024

Team-, case-, lecture- and evidence-based learning in medical postgraduates training

• Tianlong Huang 1 ,
• Shun Zhou 1 ,
• Qiaoyan Wei 1 &
• Chun Ding 1  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  675 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of team-, case-, lecture-, and evidence-based learning (TCLEBL) methods in cultivating students’ clinical and research abilities, as compared to traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) approaches.

Forty-one medical postgraduates were divided into two groups, a TCLEBL group and an LBL group. Teaching effectiveness was evaluated through student- and teacher-feedback questionnaires, scores from theoretical examinations and written literature reviews, and student learning burdens.

Compared to the LBL approach, both teachers and students were more satisfied with the TCLEBL model ( p  < 0.001 for both teachers and students). The TCLEBL group performed significantly higher on the theory test compared to the LBL group ( p  = 0.009). There were significant differences between the LBL and TCLEBL groups, respectively, in terms of literature review and citations (12.683 ± 2.207 vs. 16.302 ± 1.095, p  < 0.001), argument and perspective (12.55 ± 1.572 vs. 16.333 ± 1.354, p  < 0.001), comprehensiveness of content (13.3 ± 2.268 vs. 16.683 ± 1.344, p  < 0.001), and scientific rigor and accuracy (10.317 ± 1.167 vs. 12.746 ± 0.706, p  < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the total extracurricular time expended between the two groups (323.75 ± 30.987 min vs. 322.619 ± 24.679 min, respectively for LBL vs. TCLEBL groups, p  = 0.898).

Conclusions

TCLEBL is an effective teaching method that cultivates students’ clinical and research abilities.

Peer Review reports

The quality of medical postgraduate training plays a defining role in shaping the future of healthcare [ 1 ]. Traditional, lecture-focused models emphasize the theoretical aspects of knowledge acquisition but fail to cultivate self-directed learning in trainees [ 2 ]. Meanwhile, clinical instruction stresses skill mastery but rarely explores complex cases, potentially limiting development of trainees’ critical thinking and problem-solving abilities [ 3 ].

As the next generation of healthcare professionals, postgraduates should possess certain research competencies. It is crucial to prioritize the cultivation of an inquisitive mindset. This can be achieved through engaging activities such as formulating research questions, creating study protocols, and staying updated with the latest evidence by critically evaluating high-quality clinical trials. Trainees must also acquire essential research methodologies and skills, including literature searching and critical appraisal. These abilities will enable them to promptly address any challenges they may encounter in their future practice [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Educational systems that are adaptable and diverse have the potential to unlock the full capabilities of postgraduates in advancing healthcare innovation and delivery. Merely relying on didactic lectures is inadequate for fostering self-directed learning and cultivating well-rounded, expert clinicians and scientists in the future. It is important to incorporate interactive and experiential learning approaches that encourage critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity. By embracing a variety of teaching methods and providing opportunities for hands-on experiences, postgraduates can truly thrive and contribute to the advancement of healthcare.

Team-based learning (TBL) is gaining popularity in medical postgraduate education. TBL emphasizes collaborative learning within groups rather than individual study. By promoting team spirit and problem-solving skills through coordinated thinking, TBL can effectively enhance the quality and efficiency of learning compared to traditional didactic approaches. TBL places greater emphasis on the learning process itself rather than solely focusing on outcomes. This approach allows for active engagement, critical thinking, and effective communication among team members, leading to a deeper understanding of the subject matter. Ultimately, TBL has the potential to contribute to the overall improvement of learning outcomes in medical postgraduate education [ 10 , 11 ].

Case-based learning (CBL) is an effective approach that enhances clinical analytics and problem-solving skills by using authentic or hypothetical cases to stimulate self-driven learning. This method encourages active engagement and critical thinking rather than passive study, aiding in the internalization of skills. Educators play a crucial role in this process by pre-selecting representative clinical vignettes that guide trainees in understanding key diagnoses and making informed judgments. Small groups of students then delve deeper into the cases through multi-perspective and self-reflective thinking, facilitated by the teacher. This approach allows for a comprehensive exploration of the cases and ensures a well-rounded learning experience for the trainees [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ].

Evidence-based learning is a major focus in current medical education reform. This approach emphasizes using reliable evidence as the foundation for study, which is crucial for enhancing the research capabilities of postgraduates. In the past, certain content in medical education may have been influenced more by subjective opinions. However, evidence-based learning models aim to ensure that judgments and decisions are grounded in sound evidence, aligning closely with clinical practice and research pursuits. By incorporating evidence-based learning into postgraduate education, trainees are encouraged to critically evaluate research findings, stay updated on the latest evidence, and apply evidence-based approaches in their future practice. This helps to cultivate a strong research caliber and ensures that postgraduates are well-equipped to contribute to the advancement of medical knowledge and patient care [ 17 , 18 , 19 ].

While traditional didactic instruction may have certain limitations, completely abolishing didactics would be misguided. Didactic instruction plays a vital role in providing a structured and systematic delivery of medical knowledge frameworks. Through lectures, instructors can analyze prototypical cases and present principles that help trainees quickly grasp important concepts and their practical applications. This form of instruction serves as an effective conduit for disseminating foundational knowledge and providing a solid framework for further learning and clinical practice. It should be regarded as a complementary approach alongside other interactive and experiential learning methods, rather than being disregarded entirely [ 20 ].

The team-, case-, lecture-, and evidence-based learning (TCLEBL) instructional method, by integrating the strengths of various approaches, aims to provide a comprehensive, well-rounded teaching experience in medical postgraduate education [ 21 ]. However, there is currently a lack of research and reports on the application of this amalgamated methodology specifically in medical postgraduate education. It is important to unify different pedagogies to optimize use of their respective merits and maximize learning outcomes. However, the implementation and impact of this approach need to be documented and analyzed. Therefore, the objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the TCLEBL method in cultivating students’ clinical and research abilities, in comparison to traditional lecture-centered teaching approaches.

Research subjects

This research adhered to the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Second Xiangya Hospital. A total of 41 postgraduate students in ophthalmology were enrolled and divided into the TCLEBL group ( n  = 21) and the traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) group ( n  = 20). Postgraduate entrance examination scores were used to assess students’ fundamental learning abilities ( p  = 0.497).

Study design

Ocular toxocariasis (OT) was chosen as the case study for this research. OT is an infectious parasitic disease that primarily affects children and has a certain incidence rate. Although OT is not included in the content covered in standard five-year ophthalmology textbooks, it is a disease in which ophthalmology graduate students must be proficient. OT presents with distinct clinical manifestations and poses diagnostic and treatment challenges. Therefore, it serves as an ideal case to evaluate the effectiveness of the TCLEBL method in conveying knowledge about this particular condition to medical students.

In the LBL group, we adopted a traditional didactic teaching approach. Relevant materials were distributed to students before the class. During the class, the instructor explained the topic by integrating clinical cases, providing a systematic explanation of various aspects of OT, including its definition, clinical manifestations, auxiliary examinations, diagnosis, and treatment. Then, the students were guided to retrieve relevant literature from academic databases, medical journals, and specialty organization guidelines. After the class, the students were required to complete a review article on OT.

For the TCLEBL group, students were divided into two teams. Before class, teachers provided complete case records and assigned individual roles within teams to summarize and organize history, manifestations, auxiliary tests, diagnosis, and treatment; while conducting extensive literature reviews to search for the latest scientific research, clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic evaluations to acquire up-to-date evidence and results. During class, both teams presented diagnostic and treatment plans for the case, applying theoretical and evidentiary resources and engaging in discussions for comprehensive exchange of perspectives with teacher guidance. The teacher wrapped-up the case while fully introducing the relevant theoretical knowledge framework, then directed students to retrieve associated literature from academic databases, medical journals, and specialty organization guidelines. Collected evidence underwent systematic analysis and synthesis to determine current best clinical practice guidelines, treatments, or preventive strategies. After the class, the students were also required to complete a review article on OT. Details were shown in the Fig.  1 .

Flowcharts of TCLEBL and LBL teaching models. TCLEBL: team-, case-, lecture-, evidence-based learning; LBL: lecture-based learning

The same teacher instructed both groups with consistent teaching content.

Teaching satisfaction assessment: Anonymous questionnaires were distributed to teachers and all students after course completion to self-evaluate teaching quality using a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS), with 0 indicating “no effect” and 10 indicating “completely perfect.” For students, items included: classroom interactivity, learning efficiency, level of knowledge mastery, self-directed learning ability, teamwork skills, preferences for this teaching mode, extracurricular time commitment, improved clinical reasoning abilities, and improved research abilities. For teachers, items included: “The lecture greatly enhances students’ understanding about this topic,” “The class met my expectations,” “It is an enjoyable way of teaching,” “Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of this class,” and “The climate of this class is conducive to learning for students.”

Theory examination: To precisely reflect long-term learning outcomes and in-depth understanding of OT, a theoretical examination was administered after trainees had undergone six weeks of a clinical practicum. A theoretical exam assessing concepts, clinical manifestations, auxiliary examinations, diagnosis, and treatment of OT was designed, incorporating multiple choice, judgment, and open-response questions, scored out of a total 100 points.

Literature-review writing was assessed in six areas: structure and organization, literature review and citations, argument and perspective, comprehensiveness of content, scientific rigor and accuracy, and clarity of expression and language fluency, for a total score of 100 points. Blind evaluation was conducted by three instructors, and the average score was taken as the final score.

The two groups of graduate students needed to report their pre-class preparation time, post-class review time, and time spent writing literature reviews.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 26.0 software. The measurement data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. Demographic data of the residents were analyzed using an independent t -test or χ 2 test. Students’ questionnaire data were analyzed using an independent t -test. Teachers’ questionnaire data were analyzed using an paired t -test. The theoretical exam scores, the hours spent on class preparation, review, and writing the literature review were compared between the two groups by an independent t -test. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

A total of 41 postgraduate students (males = 15, females = 26) were recruited for this study. The LBL group consisted of 20 students (males = 8, females = 12); the TCLEBL group included 21 students (males = 7, females = 14). As shown in Table  1 , the two groups of medical postgraduates did not exhibit any statistically significant differences in terms of age (23.2 ± 0.894 vs. 23.238 ± 0.768, p  = 0.884), gender distribution ( p  = 0.658), or scores on the postgraduate entrance examination (394.5 ± 7.287 vs. 392.381 ± 11.843, p  = 0.497).

The results of the student survey are summarized in Table  2 . Statistical analysis showed that students in the TCLEBL group rated significantly higher than the LBL group in terms of classroom interactivity (7.714 ± 0.902 vs. 5.75 ± 0.91, p  < 0.001), learning efficiency (6.857 ± 1.062 vs. 4.1 ± 0.912, p  < 0.001), knowledge mastery (7.571 ± 0.746 vs. 4.5 ± 0.889, p  < 0.001), self-directed learning ability (7.476 ± 0.928 vs. 5.3 ± 0.923, p  < 0.001), teamwork skills (7.667 ± 0.856 vs. 5.45 ± 0.999, p  < 0.001), students’ preference for this teaching model (7.762 ± 0.889 vs. 4.75 ± 0.851, p  < 0.001), improved clinical reasoning abilities (6.238 ± 0.625 vs. 4.1 ± 0.968, p  < 0.001), and improved research capacities (8.048 ± 0.669 vs. 5.45 ± 0.826, p  < 0.001).

Table  3 summarizes the teachers’ feedback. Compared to the LBL group, teachers felt that the TCLEBL model was more effective in enhancing students’ understanding of the topic (7.6 ± 0.699 vs. 6.1 ± 0.568, p  < 0.001) and that the class met their expectations (8.2 ± 0.789 vs. 5.3 ± 0.483, p  < 0.001). Furthermore, the teachers preferred the class climate in the TCLEBL class (7.8 ± 0.632 vs. 4.5 ± 0.527, p  < 0.001) and were satisfied with the quality of this class (7.3 ± 0.675 vs. 5.4 ± 0.516, p  < 0.001). Additionally, the teachers enjoyed the TCLEBL teaching method (7.9 ± 0.738 vs. 5.3 ± 0.675, p  < 0.001).

Results of the theoretical examination in Fig.  2 A demonstrated that the average score of the TCLEBL group was 78.095 ± 8.148 points, while the average score of the LBL group was 71.951 ± 5.844 points. The TCLEBL group performed significantly higher on the theory test compared to the LBL group ( p  = 0.009).

Comparison of medical postgraduates’ feedback between the TCLEBL group and the LBL group. ( A ) The TCLEBL group performed significantly higher on the theory test compared to the LBL group. ( B ) There was no significant difference in the total extracurricular time expended between the two groups. ( C ) The literature review was compared based on each scoring criterion. * p  < 0.05, ** p  < 0.01, *** p  < 0.001 compared with LBL. TCLEBL: team-, case-, lecture-, evidence-based learning; LBL: lecture-based learning

As shown in Fig.  2 C, the literature review was compared between the groups based on each scoring criterion. There were significant differences between the LBL and TCLEBL groups, respectively, in terms of literature review and citations (12.683 ± 2.207 vs. 16.302 ± 1.095, p  < 0.001), argument and perspective (12.55 ± 1.572 vs. 16.333 ± 1.354, p  < 0.001), comprehensiveness of content (13.3 ± 2.268 vs. 16.683 ± 1.344, p  < 0.001), and scientific rigor and accuracy (10.317 ± 1.167 vs. 12.746 ± 0.706, p  < 0.001). However, there were no statistically significant differences in the scores for structure and organization (10.667 ± 0.717 vs. 11.175 ± 1.047, p  = 0.079) and clarity of expression and language fluency (6.567 ± 0.81 vs. 7.016 ± 0.806, p  = 0.083).

Figure  2 B illustrates that the TCLEBL group had a significant increase in pre-class preparation time compared to the LBL group (55.75 ± 10.166 vs. 106.667 ± 12.383, p  < 0.001). However, the TCLEBL group spent significantly less time on post-class review (60.5 ± 11.459 vs. 40.238 ± 10.305, p  < 0.001) and writing the literature review (207.5 ± 22.682 vs. 175.714 ± 22.265, p  < 0.001) compared to the LBL group. As a result, there was no significant difference in the total extracurricular time expended between the two groups (323.75 ± 30.987 vs. 322.619 ± 24.679, p  = 0.898).

This study pioneered applying the TCLEBL model to ophthalmology postgraduate education. Teaching effectiveness was evaluated through questionnaires administered to teachers and students, post-course theory examinations, and assessments of literature review papers.

According to a post-course survey of students, The TCLEBL teaching method scored significantly higher than traditional teaching in terms of classroom interactivity, learning efficiency, knowledge acquisition, independent learning ability, teamwork skills, student preference for the model, and development of clinical thinking and research capacities. Firstly, TCLEBL enhances classroom interactivity, promoting active communication and collaboration among students. This interaction contributes to improving learning efficiency as students become more engaged and gain a deeper understanding of the learning content. Secondly, TCLEBL helps students better grasp knowledge. Through pre-class independent assignments and group discussions, students strengthen their understanding and application of knowledge through collaboration. This learning approach cultivates student independent learning abilities, enabling them to actively explore and expand their knowledge domains. Additionally, TCLEBL significantly improves student teamwork and collaboration skills. Group collaboration is at the core of TCLEBL, where students learn coordination, expression of viewpoints, and respect for others by jointly solving problems and discussing cases with their peers. This is a key advantage of the TBL teaching model [ 10 , 22 , 23 ]. Students’ preference for TCLEBL is also strengthened. In comparison to passive traditional learning, TCLEBL emphasizes student participation and active learning, making the learning process more interesting and motivating. Students are more inclined to actively participate in this interactive learning method. TCLEBL also effectively enhances the students’ clinical thinking and research abilities. By using typical cases as learning materials and requiring extensive literature reviews, TCLEBL cultivates students’ clinical thinking and problem-solving skills, and improves their evidence-based learning methods and clinical/research abilities. This is a combination of the advantages of CBL [ 24 , 25 ] and EBL [ 26 ]. Lastly, TCLEBL combines traditional teacher-led instruction, in which teachers provide guidance to help students grasp key knowledge points, and research methods, consolidating learning outcomes [ 27 ].

Additionally, according to the post-course feedback questionnaires, teachers were generally satisfied with TCLEBL. There were several reasons for teacher satisfaction with the TCLEBL teaching method. Firstly, teachers observed that students were actively engaged in learning under TCLEBL and demonstrated high levels of participation and positivity. Secondly, students were able to understand and apply relevant knowledge in case studies, propose reasonable solutions, and demonstrate learning outcomes. Students were able to effectively collaborate, communicate and coordinate within groups to jointly solve case problems. Thirdly, students provided positive evaluations of TCLEBL and offered constructive suggestions and feedback, which teachers found satisfactory and useful to make further improvements.

Furthermore, to more accurately assess the long-term learning outcomes of the postgraduate students, we conducted a theoretical exam two months after the completion of the course and required the submission of a review paper on the disease. In the theoretical exam, students from the TCLEBL group achieved higher scores. This may be attributed to the emphasis of the TCLEBL teaching method on active student learning and participation, enabling them to develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter through group discussions and case analyses in the classroom. This profound understanding helped students better apply and express their acquired knowledge in the theoretical exam, resulting in better grades.

Regarding the review paper on the disease, students from the TCLEBL group achieved higher scores in terms of literature review and citations, arguments and viewpoints, content completeness, scientific rigor, and accuracy. This indicates that the TCLEBL teaching method has significantly contributed to the development of the students’ literature review skills. Through extensive pre-course literature reading and research, students in the TCLEBL group gained a comprehensive understanding of the relevant knowledge related to the disease, enabling them to provide more substantial references and support in their review papers. Furthermore, the TCLEBL teaching method emphasizes the cultivation of students’ arguments and viewpoints. Through group collaboration and discussions, students are encouraged to think deeply and analyze problems, enabling them to express clearer and more compelling arguments and viewpoints in their review papers. Their papers demonstrate greater completeness, covering various aspects of knowledge, and exhibit scientific rigor and accuracy. Review writing plays a crucial role in clinical research. It is an academic writing form that involves comprehensive review, summary, and evaluation of relevant literature on specific topics or areas. In clinical research, reviews are used to systematically integrate and analyze existing research findings, reveal the current state and progress of knowledge, and propose directions and recommendations for future research. The lack of clinical research training for medical graduate students has been a pain point in medical education in China [ 9 , 28 , 29 ]. The TCLEBL teaching method effectively cultivated the students’ skills in literature review through practices that emphasized literature reading, independent research, group collaboration, and academic writing.

Finally, our study found a significant increase in pre-course preparation time for the TCLEBL group. This increase was primarily due to extensive literature reading and evidence searching required by students before the course. This is consistent with the phenomenon of increased extracurricular workload observed in some other new teaching models [ 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 ]. However, we also observed a significant decrease in post-course review time and review paper writing time for the TCLEBL group. It is noteworthy that despite these changes, the total time spent by students in both groups did not show a significant difference.

However, we must acknowledge some limitations in our study that need to be considered when interpreting the results. Firstly, there may be selection bias as our samples were from a specific school and discipline. Secondly, research results may be impacted by subjective factors in participants. Students’ academic performance and paper quality could be influenced by individual differences, learning motivations, styles, even though controlling for these factors was attempted in the study design. Additionally, our evaluation employed specific assessment methods of theory exams and literature reviews. These may not fully reflect learning outcomes in other areas such as clinical practical skills.

In summary, TCLEBL is an effective teaching method that has achieved significant improvements over traditional teaching models in multiple areas. By conducting learning and collaboration in small groups, TCLEBL promotes classroom interactivity and improves learning efficiency, knowledge acquisition, independent learning ability, and teamwork skills. In addition, TCLEBL focuses on cultivating students’ clinical thinking and research abilities. Using typical cases and extensive literature reviews, students can better understand and apply medical theoretical knowledge to improve clinical practice ability and research competency.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Sierocinski E, Mathias L, Freyer Martins Pereira J, Chenot JF. Postgraduate medical training in Germany: a narrative review. GMS J Med Educ. 2022;39(5):Doc49.

Google Scholar  

Cho HJ, Zhao K, Lee CR, Runshe D, Krousgrill C. Active learning through flipped classroom in mechanical engineering: improving students’ perception of learning and performance. Int J STEM Educ. 2021;8(1):46.

Article   Google Scholar  

Khan AA, Rakinic J, Kim RH, Mellinger JD, Ganai S. National trends in General surgery Resident exposure to Complex Oncology-relevant cases. J Surg Educ. 2019 Mar-Apr;76(2):378–86.

Alam M, Dirr MA, Anvery N, Christensen RE, Arndt KA, Brodell RT, Carr DR, Cartee TV, Dover JS, Eisen DB, Goldberg LH, Lawrence N, Lee M, Maher IA, Nehal KS, Sobanko JF, Walocko F, Xu YG. Performing research and publishing in the peer-reviewed medical literature should be a requirement for completion of post-graduate residency and fellowship training. Arch Dermatol Res. 2023;315(5):1405–8.

Li Y, Li J, Li B, Cao Y, Liu M, Zhang L, Zeng Z. Factors associated with the research efficiency of clinical specialties in a research-oriented hospital in China. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(4):e0250577.

Ratte A, Drees S, Schmidt-Ott T. The importance of scientific competencies in German medical curricula - the student perspective. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):146.

Xu Z, Qiu J, Yang B, Huang P, Cai L, Chen L, Hou M, Ji M, Wu G. Evaluation of factors influencing the guide to read biomedical English literature course for Chinese new medical postgraduates-a multiple regression analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):295.

Cruser dA, Brown SK, Ingram JR, Podawiltz AL, Dubin BD, Colston JS, Bulik RJ. Learning outcomes from a biomedical research course for second year osteopathic medical students. Osteopath Med Prim Care. 2010;4:4.

Du Y, Luo W. A strong culture of clinical research is essential for the training of medical postgraduates in China. Postgrad Med J. 2023;99(1168):77–8.

Joshi T, Budhathoki P, Adhikari A, Poudel A, Raut S, Shrestha DB. Team-based learning among Health Care professionals: a systematic review. Cureus. 2022;14(1):e21252.

Anselmann V, Brouwer J, Mulder RH. The relationships between perceived individual and team characteristics, individual and team learning activities with effectiveness in nursing teams. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1163494.

Dai A, Wu LQ, Jacobs RC, Raghuram A, Dhar SU. Implementation of a Medical School Elective Course Incorporating Case-based learning: a pilot study. Med Sci Educ. 2020;30(1):339–44.

Dong H, Guo C, Zhou L, Zhao J, Wu X, Zhang X, Zhang X. Effectiveness of case-based learning in Chinese dental education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2022;12(2):e048497.

Berkoben M, Roberts JK. The treatment of metabolic acidosis: an interactive case-based learning activity. MedEdPORTAL. 2019;15:10835.

Novack JP. Designing cases for case-based Immunology Tea Ching in large medical school classes. Front Immunol. 2020;11:995.

Wu F, Wang T, Yin D, Xu X, Jin C, Mu N, Tan Q. Application of case-based learning in psychology teaching: a meta-analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):609.

Wilson A, Howitt S, Holloway A, Williams AM, Higgins D. Factors affecting paramedicine students’ learning about evidence-based practice: a phenomenographic study. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):45.

Kumah EA, McSherry R, Bettany-Saltikov J, van Schaik P, Hamilton S, Hogg J, Whittaker V. Evidence-informed practice versus evidence-based practice educational interventions for improving knowledge, attitudes, understanding, and behavior toward the application of evidence into practice: a comprehensive systematic review of UG student. Campbell Syst Rev. 2022;18(2):e1233.

Chiu YL, Lee YC, Tsai CC. Internet-specific epistemic beliefs in Medicine and Intention to use evidence-based Online Medical databases among Health Care Professionals: cross-sectional survey. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(3):e20030.

Instructional methods used by US and Canadian medical schools. Association of American Medical Colleges. 2018. https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/curriculum-reports/interactive-data/instructional-methods-used-us-and-canadian-medical-schools . Accessed 21 Nov 2019.

Jiang W, Tian Y, Chen J, Chen B. Team-, case-, lecture- and evidence-based learning. Med Educ. 2017;51(11):1172.

Burgess A, van Diggele C, Roberts C, Mellis C. Team-based learning: design, facilitation and participation. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(Suppl 2):461.

Alberti S, Motta P, Ferri P, Bonetti L. The effectiveness of team-based learning in nursing education: a systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2021;97:104721.

Chytas D, Mitrousias V, Raoulis V, Banios K, Fyllos A, Zibis AH. A review of the outcomes of the implementation of case-based anatomy learning. Cureus. 2021;13(11):e19179.

Winkler MF, Tappenden KA, Spangenburg M, Iyer K. Learn intestinal failure Tele-ECHO Project: an innovative online telementoring and case-based learning clinic. Nutr Clin Pract. 2021;36(4):785–92.

Shorey S, Chua JYX. Nursing students’ insights of learning evidence-based practice skills using interactive online technology: scoping review. Nurs Health Sci. 2022;24(1):83–92.

Zeng HL, Chen DX, Li Q, Wang XY. Effects of seminar teaching method versus lecture-based learning in medical education: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Med Teach. 2020;42(12):1343–9.

Zhang J, Huang H, Shen X. Cultivating and investing in clinical research in China. Lancet. 2015;386(10002):1506–8.

Hu Y, Huang Y, Ding J, Liu Y, Fan D, Li T, Shou C, Fan J, Wang W, Dong Z, Qin X, Fang W, Ke Y. Status of clinical research in China. Lancet. 2011;377(9760):124–5.

Betihavas V, Bridgman H, Kornhaber R, Cross M. The evidence for ‘flipping out’: a systematic review of the flipped classroom in nursing education. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;38:15–21.

Evans L, Vanden Bosch ML, Harrington S, Schoofs N, Coviak C. Flipping the Classroom in Health Care Higher Education: A Systematic Review. Nurse Educ. 2019 Mar/Apr;44(2):74–78.

Hew KF, Lo CK. Flipped classroom improves student learning in health professions education: a meta-analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):38.

Tang F, Chen C, Zhu Y, Zuo C, Zhong Y, Wang N, Zhou L, Zou Y, Liang D. Comparison between flipped classroom and lecture-based classroom in ophthalmology clerkship. Med Educ Online. 2017;22(1):1395679.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This work was supported by Exploration and Application of Double Helix Teaching Mode in Clinical Medicine Education under the background of New Medical Construction HNJG-2022-0023 Key Research Project of Teaching Reform in Colleges and Universities of Hunan Province.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Ophthalmology, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, 139 Renmin Middle Road, Changsha, 410011, China

Tianlong Huang, Shun Zhou, Qiaoyan Wei & Chun Ding

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

CD designed the study. SZ and QW acquired the data. TH and CD analysed and interpreted the data. TH drafted the manuscript. CD revised the final version of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chun Ding .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study was performed in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by the Second Xiangya Hospital Ethics Committee. The informed consent obtained from study participants was written.

Consent for publication

Conflicts of interest.

None of the authors has financial or other conflicts of interest concerning this study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Huang, T., Zhou, S., Wei, Q. et al. Team-, case-, lecture- and evidence-based learning in medical postgraduates training. BMC Med Educ 24 , 675 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05650-5

Download citation

Received : 10 January 2024

Accepted : 11 June 2024

Published : 18 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05650-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Team-, case-, lecture-, evidence-based learning
• Lecture-based learning
• Medical postgraduates
• Literature review writing
• Theoretical examination

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Characteristics of an Effective Health Education Curriculum

Today’s state-of-the-art health education curricula reflect the growing body of research that emphasizes:

• Teaching functional health information (essential knowledge).
• Shaping personal values and beliefs that support healthy behaviors.
• Shaping group norms that value a healthy lifestyle.
• Developing the essential health skills necessary to adopt, practice, and maintain health-enhancing behaviors.

Less effective curricula often overemphasize teaching scientific facts and increasing student knowledge. An effective health education curriculum has the following characteristics, according to reviews of effective programs and curricula and experts in the field of health education  1-14 :

An effective curriculum has clear health-related goals and behavioral outcomes that are directly related to these goals. Instructional strategies and learning experiences are directly related to the behavioral outcomes.

An effective curriculum has instructional strategies and learning experiences built on theoretical approaches (for example, social cognitive theory and social inoculation theory) that have effectively influenced health-related behaviors among youth. The most promising curriculum goes beyond the cognitive level and addresses health determinants, social factors, attitudes, values, norms, and skills that influence specific health-related behaviors.

An effective curriculum fosters attitudes, values, and beliefs that support positive health behaviors. It provides instructional strategies and learning experiences that motivate students to critically examine personal perspectives, thoughtfully consider new arguments that support health-promoting attitudes and values, and generate positive perceptions about protective behaviors and negative perceptions about risk behaviors.

An effective curriculum provides instructional strategies and learning experiences to help students accurately assess the level of risk-taking behavior among their peers (for example, how many of their peers use illegal drugs), correct misperceptions of peer and social norms, emphasizes the value of good health, and reinforces health-enhancing attitudes and beliefs.

An effective curriculum provides opportunities for students to validate positive health-promoting beliefs, intentions, and behaviors. It provides opportunities for students to assess their vulnerability to health problems, actual risk of engaging in harmful health behaviors, and exposure to unhealthy situations.

An effective curriculum provides opportunities for students to analyze personal and social pressures to engage in risky behaviors, such as media influence, peer pressure, and social barriers.

An effective curriculum builds essential skills — including communication, refusal, assessing accuracy of information, decision-making, planning and goal-setting, self-control, and self-management — that enable students to build their personal confidence, deal with social pressures, and avoid or reduce risk behaviors.

For each skill, students are guided through a series of developmental steps:

• Discussing the importance of the skill, its relevance, and relationship to other learned skills.
• Presenting steps for developing the skill.
• Modeling the skill.
• Practicing and rehearsing the skill using real–life scenarios.
• Providing feedback and reinforcement.

An effective curriculum provides accurate, reliable, and credible information for usable purposes so students can assess risk, clarify attitudes and beliefs, correct misperceptions about social norms, identify ways to avoid or minimize risky situations, examine internal and external influences, make behaviorally relevant decisions, and build personal and social competence. A curriculum that provides information for the sole purpose of improving knowledge of factual information will not change behavior.

An effective curriculum includes instructional strategies and learning experiences that are student-centered, interactive, and experiential (for example, group discussions, cooperative learning, problem solving, role playing, and peer-led activities). Learning experiences correspond with students’ cognitive and emotional development, help them personalize information, and maintain their interest and motivation while accommodating diverse capabilities and learning styles. Instructional strategies and learning experiences include methods for

• Addressing key health-related concepts.
• Encouraging creative expression.
• Sharing personal thoughts, feelings, and opinions.
• Thoughtfully considering new arguments.
• Developing critical thinking skills.

An effective curriculum addresses students’ needs, interests, concerns, developmental and emotional maturity levels, experiences, and current knowledge and skill levels. Learning is relevant and applicable to students’ daily lives. Concepts and skills are covered in a logical sequence.

An effective curriculum has materials that are free of culturally biased information but includes information, activities, and examples that are inclusive of diverse cultures and lifestyles (such as gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age, physical/mental ability, appearance, and sexual orientation). Strategies promote values, attitudes, and behaviors that acknowledge the cultural diversity of students; optimize relevance to students from multiple cultures in the school community; strengthen students’ skills necessary to engage in intercultural interactions; and build on the cultural resources of families and communities.

An effective curriculum provides enough time to promote understanding of key health concepts and practice skills. Behavior change requires an intensive and sustained effort. A short-term or “one shot” curriculum, delivered for a few hours at one grade level, is generally insufficient to support the adoption and maintenance of healthy behaviors.

An effective curriculum builds on previously learned concepts and skills and provides opportunities to reinforce health-promoting skills across health topics and grade levels. This can include incorporating more than one practice application of a skill, adding “skill booster” sessions at subsequent grade levels, or integrating skill application opportunities in other academic areas. A curriculum that addresses age-appropriate determinants of behavior across grade levels and reinforces and builds on learning is more likely to achieve longer-lasting results.

An effective curriculum links students to other influential persons who affirm and reinforce health–promoting norms, attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors. Instructional strategies build on protective factors that promote healthy behaviors and enable students to avoid or reduce health risk behaviors by engaging peers, parents, families, and other positive adult role models in student learning.

An effective curriculum is implemented by teachers who have a personal interest in promoting positive health behaviors, believe in what they are teaching, are knowledgeable about the curriculum content, and are comfortable and skilled in implementing expected instructional strategies. Ongoing professional development and training is critical for helping teachers implement a new curriculum or implement strategies that require new skills in teaching or assessment.

• Botvin GJ, Botvin EM, Ruchlin H. School-Based Approaches to Drug Abuse Prevention: Evidence for Effectiveness and Suggestions for Determining Cost-Effectiveness [pdf 85K] -->. In: Bukoski WJ, editor. Cost-Benefit/Cost-Effectiveness Research of Drug Abuse Prevention: Implications for Programming and Policy . NIDA Research Monograph, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1998;176:59–82.
• Contento I, Balch GI, Bronner YL. Nutrition education for school-aged children. Journal of Nutrition Education 1995;27(6):298–311.
• Eisen M, Pallitto C, Bradner C, Bolshun N. Teen Risk-Taking: Promising Prevention Programs and Approaches --> . Washington, DC: Urban Institute; 2000.
• Gottfredson DC. School-Based Crime Prevention. In: Sherman LW, Gottfredson D, MacKenzie D, Eck J, Reuter P, Bushway S, editors. Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising [pdf 100K] -->. National Institute of Justice; 1998.
• Kirby D. Emerging Answers: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy . Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy; 2001.
• Kirby D, Coyle K, Alton F, Rolleri L, Robin L. Reducing Adolescent Sexual Risk: A Theoretical Guide for Developing and Adapting Curriculum-Based Programs . Scotts Valley, CA: ETR Associates; 2011.
• Lohrmann DK, Wooley SF. Comprehensive School Health Education. In: Marx E, Wooley S, Northrop D, editors. Health Is Academic: A Guide to Coordinated School Health Programs . New York: Teachers College Press; 1998:43–45.
• Lytle L, Achterberg C. Changing the diet of America’s children: what works and why? Journal of Nutrition Education 1995;27(5):250–60.
• Nation M, Crusto C, Wandersman A, Kumpfer KL, Seybolt D, Morrissey-Kane, E, Davino K. What works: principles of effective prevention programs. American Psychologist 2003;58(6/7):449–456.
• Stone EJ, McKenzie TL, Welk GJ, Booth ML. Effects of physical activity interventions in youth. Review and synthesis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 1998;15(4):298–315.
• Sussman, S. Risk factors for and prevention of tobacco use. Review. Pediatric Blood and Cancer 2005;44:614–619.
• Tobler NS, Stratton HH. Effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs: a meta-analysis of the research. Journal of Primary Prevention 1997;18(1):71–128.
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People–An Update: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2011: 6-22–6-45.
• Weed SE, Ericksen I. A Model for Influencing Adolescent Sexual Behavior . Salt Lake City, UT: Institute for Research and Evaluation; 2005. Unpublished manuscript.

Healthy Youth

To receive email updates about this page, enter your email address:

Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
• You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
• CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.

New Research Shows Learning Is More Effective When Active

By Aaron Aupperlee aaupperlee(through)cmu.edu

• School of Computer Science
• aaupperlee(through)cmu.edu

— Related Content —

New intelligent science stations change maker spaces, new ai enables teachers to rapidly develop intelligent tutoring systems, revolutionizing education.

How technology is shaping learning in higher education

About the authors.

This article is a collaborative effort by Claudio Brasca, Charag Krishnan , Varun Marya , Katie Owen, Joshua Sirois, and Shyla Ziade, representing views from McKinsey’s Education Practice.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced a shift to remote learning overnight for most higher-education students, starting in the spring of 2020. To complement video lectures and engage students in the virtual classroom, educators adopted technologies that enabled more interactivity and hybrid models of online and in-person activities. These tools changed learning, teaching, and assessment in ways that may persist after the pandemic. Investors have taken note. Edtech start-ups raised record amounts of venture capital in 2020 and 2021, and market valuations for bigger players soared.

A study conducted by McKinsey in 2021 found that to engage most effectively with students, higher-education institutions can focus on eight dimensions  of the learning experience. In this article, we describe the findings of a study of the learning technologies that can enable aspects of several of those eight dimensions (see sidebar “Eight dimensions of the online learning experience”).

Eight dimensions of the online learning experience

Leading online higher-education institutions focus on eight key dimensions of the learning experience across three overarching principles.

Seamless journey

Clear education road map: “My online program provides a road map to achieve my life goals and helps me structure my day to day to achieve steady progress.”

Seamless connections: “I have one-click access to classes and learning resources in the virtual learning platform through my laptop or my phone.”

Engaging teaching approach

Range of learning formats: “My program offers a menu of engaging courses with both self-guided and real-time classes, and lots of interaction with instructors and peers.”

Captivating experiences: “I learn from the best professors and experts. My classes are high quality, with up-to-date content.”

Adaptive learning: “I access a personalized platform that helps me practice exercises and exams and gives immediate feedback without having to wait for the course teacher.”

Real-world skills application: “My online program helps me get hands-on practice using exciting virtual tools to solve real-world problems.”

Caring network

Timely support: “I am not alone in my learning journey and have adequate 24/7 support for academic and nonacademic issues.”

Strong community: “I feel part of an academic community and I’m able to make friends online.”

In November 2021, McKinsey surveyed 600 faculty members and 800 students from public and private nonprofit colleges and universities in the United States, including minority-serving institutions, about the use and impact of eight different classroom learning technologies (Exhibit 1). (For more on the learning technologies analyzed in this research, see sidebar “Descriptions of the eight learning technologies.”) To supplement the survey, we interviewed industry experts and higher-education professionals who make decisions about classroom technology use. We discovered which learning tools and approaches have seen the highest uptake, how students and educators view them, the barriers to higher adoption, how institutions have successfully adopted innovative technologies, and the notable impacts on learning (for details about our methodology, see sidebar “About the research”).

Double-digit growth in adoption and positive perceptions

Descriptions of the eight learning technologies.

• Classroom interactions: These are software platforms that allow students to ask questions, make comments, respond to polls, and attend breakout discussions in real time, among other features. They are downloadable and accessible from phones, computers, and tablets, relevant to all subject areas, and useful for remote and in-person learning.
• Classroom exercises: These platforms gamify learning with fun, low-stakes competitions, pose problems to solve during online classes, allow students to challenge peers to quizzes, and promote engagement with badges and awards. They are relevant to all subject areas.
• Connectivity and community building: A broad range of informal, opt-in tools, these allow students to engage with one another and instructors and participate in the learning community. They also include apps that give students 24/7 asynchronous access to lectures, expanded course materials, and notes with enhanced search and retrieval functionality.
• Group work: These tools let students collaborate in and out of class via breakout/study rooms, group preparation for exams and quizzes, and streamlined file sharing.
• Augmented reality/virtual reality (AR/VR): Interactive simulations immerse learners in course content, such as advanced lab simulations for hard sciences, medical simulations for nursing, and virtual exhibit tours for the liberal arts. AR can be offered with proprietary software on most mobile or laptop devices. VR requires special headsets, proprietary software, and adequate classroom space for simultaneous use.
• AI adaptive course delivery: Cloud-based, AI-powered software adapts course content to a student’s knowledge level and abilities. These are fully customizable by instructors and available in many subject areas, including business, humanities, and sciences.
• Machine learning–powered teaching assistants: Also known as chatbot programs, machine learning–powered teaching assistants answer student questions and explain course content outside of class. These can auto-create, deliver, and grade assignments and exams, saving instructors’ time; they are downloadable from mobile app stores and can be accessed on personal devices.
• Student progress monitoring: These tools let instructors monitor academic progress, content mastery, and engagement. Custom alerts and reports identify at-risk learners and help instructors tailor the content or their teaching style for greater effectiveness. This capability is often included with subscriptions to adaptive learning platforms.

Survey respondents reported a 19 percent average increase in overall use of these learning technologies since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Technologies that enable connectivity and community building, such as social media–inspired discussion platforms and virtual study groups, saw the biggest uptick in use—49 percent—followed by group work tools, which grew by 29 percent (Exhibit 2). These technologies likely fill the void left by the lack of in-person experiences more effectively than individual-focused learning tools such as augmented reality and virtual reality (AR/VR). Classroom interaction technologies such as real-time chatting, polling, and breakout room discussions were the most widely used tools before the pandemic and remain so; 67 percent of survey respondents said they currently use these tools in the classroom.

About the research

In November 2021, McKinsey surveyed 634 faculty members and 818 students from public, private, and minority-serving colleges and universities over a ten-day period. The survey included only students and faculty who had some remote- or online-learning experience with any of the eight featured technologies. Respondents were 63 percent female, 35 percent male, and 2 percent other gender identities; 69 percent White, 18 percent Black or African American, 8 percent Asian, and 4 percent other ethnicities; and represented every US region. The survey asked respondents about their:

• experiences with technology in the classroom pre-COVID-19;
• experiences with technology in the classroom since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic; and
• desire for future learning experiences in relation to technology.

The shift to more interactive and diverse learning models will likely continue. One industry expert told us, “The pandemic pushed the need for a new learning experience online. It recentered institutions to think about how they’ll teach moving forward and has brought synchronous and hybrid learning into focus.” Consequently, many US colleges and universities are actively investing to scale up their online and hybrid program offerings .

Differences in adoption by type of institution observed in the research

• Historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and tribal colleges and universities made the most use of classroom interactions and group work tools (55 percent) and the least use of tools for monitoring student progress (15 percent).
• Private institutions used classroom interaction technologies (84 percent) more than public institutions (63 percent).
• Public institutions, often associated with larger student populations and course sizes, employed group work and connectivity and community-building tools more often than private institutions.
• The use of AI teaching-assistant technologies increased significantly more at public institutions (30 percent) than at private institutions (9 percent), though overall usage remained comparatively higher at private institutions.
• The use of tools for monitoring student progress increased by 14 percent at private institutions, versus no growth at public institutions.

Some technologies lag behind in adoption. Tools enabling student progress monitoring, AR/VR, machine learning–powered teaching assistants (TAs), AI adaptive course delivery, and classroom exercises are currently used by less than half of survey respondents. Anecdotal evidence suggests that technologies such as AR/VR require a substantial investment in equipment and may be difficult to use at scale in classes with high enrollment. Our survey also revealed utilization disparities based on size. Small public institutions use machine learning–powered TAs, AR/VR, and technologies for monitoring student progress at double or more the rates of medium and large public institutions, perhaps because smaller, specialized schools can make more targeted and cost-effective investments. We also found that medium and large public institutions made greater use of connectivity and community-building tools than small public institutions (57 to 59 percent compared with 45 percent, respectively). Although the uptake of AI-powered tools was slower, higher-education experts we interviewed predict their use will increase; they allow faculty to tailor courses to each student’s progress, reduce their workload, and improve student engagement at scale (see sidebar “Differences in adoption by type of institution observed in the research”).

While many colleges and universities are interested in using more technologies to support student learning, the top three barriers indicated are lack of awareness, inadequate deployment capabilities, and cost (Exhibit 3).

Students want entertaining and efficient tools

More than 60 percent of students said that all the classroom learning technologies they’ve used since COVID-19 began had improved their learning and grades (Exhibit 4). However, two technologies earned higher marks than the rest for boosting academic performance: 80 percent of students cited classroom exercises, and 71 percent cited machine learning–powered teaching assistants.

Although AR/VR is not yet widely used, 37 percent of students said they are “most excited” about its potential in the classroom. While 88 percent of students believe AR/VR will make learning more entertaining, just 5 percent said they think it will improve their ability to learn or master content (Exhibit 5). Industry experts confirmed that while there is significant enthusiasm for AR/VR, its ability to improve learning outcomes is uncertain. Some data look promising. For example, in a recent pilot study, 1 “Immersive biology in the Alien Zoo: A Dreamscape Learn software product,” Dreamscape Learn, accessed October 2021. students who used a VR tool to complete coursework for an introductory biology class improved their subject mastery by an average of two letter grades.

Faculty embrace new tools but would benefit from more technical support and training

Faculty gave learning tools even higher marks than students did, for ease of use, engagement, access to course resources, and instructor connectivity. They also expressed greater excitement than students did for the future use of technologies. For example, while more than 30 percent of students expressed excitement for AR/VR and classroom interactions, more than 60 percent of faculty were excited about those, as well as machine learning–powered teaching assistants and AI adaptive technology.

Eighty-one percent or more of faculty said they feel the eight learning technology tools are a good investment of time and effort relative to the value they provide (Exhibit 6). Expert interviews suggest that employing learning technologies can be a strain on faculty members, but those we surveyed said this strain is worthwhile.

While faculty surveyed were enthusiastic about new technologies, experts we interviewed stressed some underlying challenges. For example, digital-literacy gaps have been more pronounced since the pandemic because it forced the near-universal adoption of some technology solutions, deepening a divide that was unnoticed when adoption was sporadic. More tech-savvy instructors are comfortable with interaction-engagement-focused solutions, while staff who are less familiar with these tools prefer content display and delivery-focused technologies.

According to experts we interviewed, learning new tools and features can bring on general fatigue. An associate vice president of e-learning at one university told us that faculty there found designing and executing a pilot study of VR for a computer science class difficult. “It’s a completely new way of instruction. . . . I imagine that the faculty using it now will not use it again in the spring.” Technical support and training help. A chief academic officer of e-learning who oversaw the introduction of virtual simulations for nursing and radiography students said that faculty holdouts were permitted to opt out but not to delay the program. “We structured it in a ‘we’re doing this together’ way. People who didn’t want to do it left, but we got a lot of support from vendors and training, which made it easy to implement simulations.”

Reimagining higher education in the United States

Takeaways from our research.

Despite the growing pains of digitizing the classroom learning experience, faculty and students believe there is a lot more they can gain. Faculty members are optimistic about the benefits, and students expect learning to stay entertaining and efficient. While adoption levels saw double-digit growth during the pandemic, many classrooms have yet to experience all the technologies. For institutions considering the investment, or those that have already started, there are several takeaways to keep in mind.

• It’s important for administration leaders, IT, and faculty to agree on what they want to accomplish by using a particular learning technology. Case studies and expert interviews suggest institutions that seek alignment from all their stakeholders before implementing new technologies are more successful. Is the primary objective student engagement and motivation? Better academic performance? Faculty satisfaction and retention? Once objectives are set, IT staff and faculty can collaborate more effectively in choosing the best technology and initiating programs.
• Factor in student access to technology before deployment. As education technology use grows, the digital divide for students puts access to education at risk. While all the institution types we surveyed use learning technologies in the classroom, they do so to varying degrees. For example, 55 percent of respondents from historically Black colleges and universities and tribal colleges and universities use classroom interaction tools. This is lower than public institutions’ overall utilization rate of 64 percent and private institutions’ utilization rate of 84 percent. Similarly, 15 percent of respondents from historically Black colleges and universities and tribal colleges and universities use tools for monitoring student progress, while the overall utilization rate for both public and private institutions is 25 percent.
• High-quality support eases adoption for students and faculty. Institutions that have successfully deployed new learning technologies provided technical support and training for students and guidance for faculty on how to adapt their course content and delivery. For example, institutions could include self-service resources, standardize tools for adoption, or provide stipend opportunities for faculty who attend technical training courses. One chief academic officer told us, “The adoption of platforms at the individual faculty level can be very difficult. Ease of use is still very dependent upon your IT support representative and how they will go to bat to support you.”
• Agree on impact metrics and start measuring in advance of deployment. Higher-education institutions often don’t have the means to measure the impact of their investment in learning technologies, yet it’s essential for maximizing returns. Attributing student outcomes to a specific technology can be complex due to the number of variables involved in academic performance. However, prior to investing in learning technologies, the institution and its faculty members can align on a core set of metrics to quantify and measure their impact. One approach is to measure a broad set of success indicators, such as tool usage, user satisfaction, letter grades, and DFW rates (the percentage of students who receive a D, F, or Withdraw) each term. The success indicators can then be correlated by modality—online versus hybrid versus in-class—to determine the impact of specific tools. Some universities have offered faculty grants of up to $20,000 for running pilot programs that assess whether tools are achieving high-priority objectives. “If implemented properly, at the right place, and with the right buy-in, education technology solutions are absolutely valuable and have a clear ROI,” a senior vice president of academic affairs and chief technology officer told us.

In an earlier article , we looked at the broader changes in higher education that have been prompted by the pandemic. But perhaps none has advanced as quickly as the adoption of digital learning tools. Faculty and students see substantial benefits, and adoption rates are a long way from saturation, so we can expect uptake to continue. Institutions that want to know how they stand in learning tech adoption can measure their rates and benchmark them against the averages in this article and use those comparisons to help them decide where they want to catch up or get ahead.

Claudio Brasca is a partner in McKinsey’s Bay Area office, where Varun Marya is a senior partner; Charag Krishnan is a partner in the New Jersey office; Katie Owen is an associate partner in the St. Louis office, where Joshua Sirois is a consultant; and Shyla Ziade is a consultant in the Denver office.

The authors wish to thank Paul Kim, chief technology officer and associate dean at Stanford School of Education, and Ryan Golden for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Setting a new bar for online higher education

How to transform higher-education institutions for the long term

Scaling online education: Five lessons for colleges

More From Forbes

What kind of emergency hires do well at teaching.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

New studies that assess the impact of teachers hired on emergency permits during the COVID-19 ... [+] pandemic offer important insights about what matters for both effectiveness and retention. (Photo by Jon Cherry/Getty Images)

In the face of chronic and escalating teacher shortages, policymakers, parents, and educators are worried about how to improve the supply of effective teachers. New studies that assess the impact of teachers hired on emergency permits in Massachusetts and New Jersey during the COVID-19 pandemic offer important insights about what matters for both effectiveness and retention—the latter of which is especially important, because turnover is the main cause of shortages. Some have interpreted the studies’ findings as suggesting that teachers don’t need traditional preparation to be effective, but a close look shows that the studies largely confirm the value of preparation while also raising important questions about how to remove unnecessary obstacles to entry.

The studies compare the performance of emergency hires with the performance of those who entered classrooms at the same time but had been prepared through traditional pathways or through the two states’ alternative pathways, which allow teachers to complete their preparation while teaching. However, these special hires during the pandemic were not typical emergency hires. Instead, most were candidates who already had some classroom experience or preparation for teaching. In many states, candidates could not take licensing tests or complete student teaching when test sites and school buildings were closed in March 2020—conditions that often continued through the following school year. Many only needed to make up missed coursework or tests before they could receive a standard credential.

In New Jersey, the Temporary Certificate of Eligibility allowed candidates enrolled in preparation programs to enter the workforce and defer tests of basic skills, subject matter, and performance to the following year. In Massachusetts, more than two thirds of the emergency hires included in the study were already in the teacher preparation pipeline and/or had been previously employed in the schools.

Even with some preparation experience, teacher evaluation ratings were significantly lower on average for New Jersey’s temporary licensed hires and for other teachers who took alternative routes than they were for fully prepared beginners. This difference was true for practice scores, gains on student growth objectives, and summative ratings.

In Massachusetts, fully prepared beginners were also the most highly rated group of novices in the state, with more than 90% rated proficient or exemplary. Entrants with some preparation—either through the state’s alternate (provisional) route or emergency hires with some experience or prior preparation—were not rated as well; nonetheless, 84% to 85% of these teachers were rated at least proficient. However, significantly lower ratings were associated with the least prepared entrants (those who had no prior teacher education or experience). Among these teachers, about 1 in 4 received a rating of “unsatisfactory” or “needs improvement,” more than 2.5 times the share of fully prepared novice teachers who received such ratings.

IMF Issues Serious U.S. Dollar Collapse Warning As The Fed Primes Bitcoin, Ethereum And XRP For A Crypto Price Boom

Biden vs. trump 2024 election polls: independents less likely to support trump post-conviction, house of the dragon season 2 episode 1 recap and review blood and cheese.

Principals noted that the untrained and inexperienced emergency hires were more likely to be poorly rated on the “curriculum, planning, and assessment” standard—the core work of teaching. These teachers were also most likely to be hired in schools that had larger proportions of students from low-income families and students of color, where, due to longstanding resource inequities, such teaching challenges are more difficult for students to overcome.

Data drawn from Chi, O. L., Bacher-Hicks, A., Tichnor-Wagner, A., & Baloch, S. (2024, March). ... [+] Teacher licensure and workforce quality: Insights from Covid-era emergency licenses in Massachusetts [Working Paper 2024-1], p.16. Wheelock Educational Policy Center. https://wheelockpolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/MA-Emergency-License-Teacher-Quality-WP.pdf

Test score gains in math and English language arts (ELA) were lower for emergency hires relative to fully prepared teachers in Massachusetts, but these gains were not generally statistically significant after teacher assignments were controlled (i.e., when teachers were compared only to those within their same schools teaching similar types of students). However, in every comparison, the students taught by emergency hires in Massachusetts who had neither experience nor preparation had significantly lower gains in ELA scores than those taught by fully prepared new teachers.

In New Jersey, test score gains were hard to study because many of the temporary hires had left by the time the state resumed standardized testing and only certain grade levels could be observed, so samples were extremely small (only 58 temporarily licensed teachers). Furthermore, the analyses could not separate out the alternate-route candidates from the traditional-route candidates. Students’ score gains could be measured only for 6th-, 7th-, and 8th-graders in 2022, compared with their scores three years earlier (in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades). As a result, the scores associated with the teachers in question had to be combined with those from the students’ other teachers in the prior 2 years, leaving unclear the contributions of each. The authors of the New Jersey study note that, for these reasons, their results—which found little difference between the students of temporarily licensed teachers and the students of other undifferentiated novices—are “imprecise.”

Also important for future achievement gains is the degree to which new teachers stay in the profession, since teacher attrition impacts student learning in at least two ways. First, teacher effectiveness improves with experience , so policies that produce a large number of inexperienced teachers who do not stay long enough to become effective undermine student learning overall. Second, high rates of teacher turnover negatively impact student learning , particularly for those in the highest-need schools. In addition, turnover is the primary driver of teacher shortages (about 9 of 10 vacancies are caused by teachers who left the year before), which can create a vicious cycle in these schools.

In both Massachusetts and New Jersey, emergency and temporary hires remained in the classroom at lower rates than other novice teachers. According to Massachusetts surveys, this was partly because of the challenges of completing the coursework and testing requirements for a license and partly because principals were less likely to hire some of the candidates. As one Massachusetts principal put it, “Some worked extremely well, and some struggled. It was the hardest year ever.”

In Massachusetts, only about half of teachers who received emergency licenses in 2020 were hired, and of those employed in spring 2021, only about 59% returned as teachers the following fall—about the same percentage as other alternate-route teachers but a lower rate than fully prepared teachers. By June 2023, only one third of the first cohort had transitioned to a provisional or initial license. In New Jersey, only about 73% of temporarily licensed novices were still teaching in the state after their first year, compared with 88% of fully prepared novices.

These outcomes are consistent with other research that has found that teachers who enter with less training are more likely to leave in their first year than those who enter fully prepared and that underprepared teachers who leave at high rates are most common in schools with larger proportions of students of color and students from low-income families .

Both of the studies note that, in part because test score barriers had been removed, the temporary or emergency hires were more racially and ethnically diverse than the new teacher workforce as a whole. This is an important outcome to consider given the growing research base that shows that students of color often experience boosts in achievement and attainment and all students benefit in a variety of ways when they have comparably prepared teachers of color.

And some of these temporary and emergency teachers were working out reasonably well— often about as well as teachers entering through alternative routes, who were also partially prepared before entry and trying to complete their preparation while teaching. In Massachusetts, it was clear that those who had more preparation and experience in schools did noticeably better on average than those who had none. As the authors of the Massachusetts study note, a broader policy on emergency entrants that did not tap those already in the workforce or preparation pipeline—as this one did—would raise even greater concerns.

In both studies, wherever fully prepared new teachers were examined separately, they were found to have performed better and stayed longer in the classroom than emergency or temporary hires and recruits from the two states’ alternative routes. Prior research finds that comprehensive preparation—which includes courses in teaching, learning, curriculum, and assessment, as well as student teaching with an expert mentor teacher who models teaching strategies and provides feedback—is associated with a much greater likelihood of staying in teaching.

The need for well-prepared teachers, especially in classrooms where historically underserved students generally get the least prepared teachers, is long-standing and is made more acute by the needs for extensive learning recovery associated with the pandemic. It is ironic that in the United States, unlike in high-achieving countries such as Singapore and Finland, the conversation about teacher recruitment often revolves around how little preparation we can provide teachers, rather than how we can make it possible for all teachers to be well prepared and for all students to have the benefits of fully prepared teachers.

Two things stand most prominently in the way of producing an adequate supply of well-prepared teachers for all students. One barrier noted in these studies is the proliferation of testing hurdles that many states have placed before potential teachers. It is not uncommon for teachers to face three or four tests before licensure rather than the single exam most professionals encounter en route to a license in their field. A few teacher assessments have been found to be related to teachers’ later effectiveness (e.g., performance assessments such as the National Board Certification , the Performance Assessment for California Teachers [PACT] , and edTPA ), while many have not . Tests that are unrelated to the tasks of teaching and that produce a large number of “false negatives” pose significant trade-offs to the profession. The New Jersey and Massachusetts experiments demonstrate that reduced reliance on standardized tests can expand supply. To do so while also maintaining teacher quality, a growing number of states have begun to allow teachers to demonstrate basic skills and subject matter competence through coursework performance rather than tests .

The second barrier to improving the teacher supply is the growing cost of preparation, which—unlike other countries—is largely unsubsidized by the government in the United States. Teachers must take on more debt than those in other occupations to enter a profession that pays about 25% less than other fields that require a college education. Teachers of color carry much more debt than White teachers, which propels a large number of teachers of color into alternative routes or emergency pathways where they can earn a salary while they prepare to teach. Unfortunately, those routes are also typically associated with lower effectiveness and significantly higher attrition rates.

What is most needed to smooth pathways into teaching in ways that support success for teachers and students is to rightsize the requirements for teaching to those that are most meaningful while also fully subsidizing preparation for teaching as other countries do. In addition, we can invest in high-quality, high-retention pathways, such as teacher residencies , that recruit, support, and—importantly— retain a diverse, well-prepared teaching force for the highest-need districts that most often experience a revolving door of underprepared beginners. At least 10 states have launched residency models—university and district partnerships that couple financial support for candidates with a full year of clinical training in the classroom of an expert mentor teacher while candidates are completing credentialing coursework. These models have been found to produce a much more diverse cadre of effective teachers who are well prepared to succeed in high-need schools and who stay in teaching at much higher rates than other entrants.

To solve shortages in the long run, we must focus purposefully on strategies for recruiting and preparing teachers who are effective and will stay in the profession. As our students struggle to recover lost learning time, it is critical that we support both them and their teachers with strong learning opportunities that enable success for everyone.

Learning Policy Institute researcher Wesley Wei contributed to this piece.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Welcome to the Purdue Online Writing Lab

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Online Writing Lab (the Purdue OWL) at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service at Purdue. Students, members of the community, and users worldwide will find information to assist with many writing projects. Teachers and trainers may use this material for in-class and out-of-class instruction.

The On-Campus and Online versions of Purdue OWL assist clients in their development as writers—no matter what their skill level—with on-campus consultations, online participation, and community engagement. The Purdue OWL serves the Purdue West Lafayette and Indianapolis campuses and coordinates with local literacy initiatives. The Purdue OWL offers global support through online reference materials and services.

Social Media

Facebook twitter.