Who defines what good teaching and learning looks like? The question is important because universities are full of individuals and teams that all have legitimate interests in the quality of teaching. Course teams, students, learning developers, educational technologists, senior leaders, external examiners, professional bodies and policymakers all contribute to the way teaching is understood, described and evaluated. The difficulty does not lie in the existence of multiple perspectives – it lies in the risk that any one perspective begins to behave as if it holds the complete answer.
This is not a veiled dig at faddism. It is not an argument against educational development or a rejection of expertise. It is a commentary on the delicate balance between egocentricity, trend and learning development.
I once described teaching as an egocentric endeavour. The comment was not welcomed! However, I maintain that egocentricity is difficult to avoid because educators carry their own educational histories into their teaching. We remember what worked for us, we develop preferences and we form views about what students should do, how they should participate and what engagement should look like. These views are often rooted in experience and care but they can also become partial, defensive, or overly attached to individual assumptions about learning.
- Campus Talks: What constitutes good teaching in higher education?
- Writing workshops v algorithms: what we should be teaching in the age of AI
- Learner heterogeneity is now the norm in higher education
Trends also matter because higher education is not immune to fashion. Concepts can travel quickly through the sector. A phrase can move from provocation to policy, a model can become an expectation and a method can become a marker of quality – all before they have been properly interrogated. This does not mean that new approaches should be resisted but it does suggest that we need to be careful about the speed with which educational ideas become institutional certainties.
Our understanding of learner diversity has shifted. Neurodiversity has rightly challenged narrow assumptions about attention, communication, participation, processing and engagement. Learning does not always look the way we (once) expect(ed) it to look: silence is not always absence, movement is not always distraction, hesitation is not always lack of understanding, confidence is not always competence and participation is not always visible.
AI complicates this picture further. Large language models are changing how students find information, organise ideas, draft work and approach assessment, raising questions about authorship, originality, academic confidence and the purpose of learning itself. If a student can use AI to produce a competent response, what are we assessing? If AI becomes part of the learning environment, how do we teach students to use it critically and ethically?
These questions challenge the idea that good teaching and learning can be defined from above, delivered through guidance and measured through a narrow set of indicators. This does not mean that expertise no longer matters – it matters deeply. Academics bring disciplinary knowledge, judgement and experience. Learning developers bring insight into academic practice, transition and student confidence. Inclusion specialists help us understand access, participation and reasonable adjustment. Students bring lived experience of the curriculum as it is encountered. Each perspective matters, but none is sufficient on its own.
All this means that good teaching cannot be owned by any one group. The important question might not be: “What does good teaching look like?” Instead, it could be: “Who is allowed into the conversation about what good teaching looks like?”
That question moves us away from prescription and towards collaboration. It asks us to think about teaching and learning as something negotiated between people, contexts and purposes. It prompts us to consider what is being taught, who is learning, what barriers exist, what assumptions are being made and what forms of participation are being recognised.
For subject and course teams, it isn’t necessary for conversations about the nature of teaching and learning to become a large-scale institutional project. It can begin with more questions in the spaces where teaching is already discussed. When a module is being reviewed, when assessment is being redesigned or when AI guidance is being developed, teams might ask:
- Whose assumptions about good teaching and learning are shaping this decision?
- Which forms of participation are being recognised and which may be overlooked?
- How are neurodivergent students able to access, process and demonstrate learning?
- Where does AI change the nature of the task, the support, or the assessment?
These questions should invite teams to examine whether their decisions are being shaped by evidence, habit, preference, policy or convenience. They help to move discussion away from whether a method is good in general and towards whether it is appropriate for a particular group of learners, in a particular context, for a particular educational purpose.
Students should be part of the conversation about teaching and learning if they are not to be positioned as consumers. Their experience is crucial because they encounter the curriculum in ways that those who have designed it cannot fully appreciate. This does not mean student preference should automatically determine teaching design but it does mean that student experience should be treated as a source of insight.
Good teaching should not and cannot be owned; it should be explored. It should be informed by evidence, shaped by context and tested through dialogue. It should be flexible enough to recognise difference but disciplined enough to avoid becoming vague. If universities are serious about teaching and learning, they need to create conditions for shared and equitable enquiry. They need to accept that good teaching is something we keep working on and working out together.
David Mather is senior lecturer in educational leadership and management and associate head of school (students) at the University of Portsmouth.
If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.
comment