Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

5.1 Introduction

Teaching and research are the key tasks of the academic profession. The medieval universities in Europe, widely viewed as the predecessors of the modern universities, used to serve teaching primarily or exclusively. With the birth of the neo-humanistic university and the expansion of higher education, the role of the university changed and increasingly comprised both teaching and research. The close nexus between teaching and research is said to result from Wilhelm von Humboldt’s concept of the University in Berlin formulated in the early nineteenth century whereby the highest quality in teaching shall be nurtured by the symbiosis with the most innovative research. This concept influenced most top higher education institutions up to the present, even though it was never viewed as being easily realised (Schaeper 1997), and the balance of these two core functions of the modern university remained a challenge both for the institutions and the individual scholars.

For various reasons, however, experts claim that the history of the modern university was primarily shaped by the teaching function of higher education. In talking about the expansion of higher education after WWII, we primarily consider the worldwide growth in the number of students from more than 10 million to over 100 million in recent years. The terminology of international organisations shifted from university education to higher education and eventually to tertiary education, thereby taking into consideration that research did not spread as widely in its link to teaching as teaching spread. Moreover, concern was widespread that the quality of teaching would remain deplorable if academics who put stronger emphasis on research were not pushed to take teaching more seriously, if they were not systematically trained for their teaching functions and if curricula and other study provisions were not highly organised. The concepts of teaching were under continuous pressure to strike a balance between a research-influenced reflection of academic concepts and laying the foundation for professional practice. Moreover, higher education institutions in most countries are viewed as having more or less the monopoly for systematic teaching and related degree-granting, while substantial proportions of research are undertaken in other institutions – independent research institutions, state institutions linked to practical functions and research and development in industry. Last but not least, the importance of academic teaching was emphasised as the training ground for young researchers and therefore as the basis of the quality of research (Arimoto 2010; see also various contributions in Locke and Teichler 2007).

Hence, the EUROAC survey had to address the relationship between these core functions of higher education. This chapter, which primarily addresses teaching, discusses the balance between teaching and research in two respects: the academics’ preferences for teaching and research and the work time allotted per week to the various functions. In turning to teaching, special attention will be given to the time spent on teaching during the periods of the year when classes are in session. In addition, we will examine the conditions for teaching with respect to regulatory frame, the organisational conditions and the resources provided. Moreover, the available data allow us to examine the extent to which the academics are involved in various teaching activities and their attitudes to the character of teaching and learning in higher education. Finally, a multivariate analysis will be presented which examines the factors that influence the allocation of work time to teaching.

Like other chapters of this volume, the analysis focuses on the extent to which we note common thrusts across countries or a substantial variety across Europe concerning teaching in higher education. In this framework, attention is also paid to the commonalities or differences in the views and activities of senior and junior academics. Last but not least, any analysis of the teaching function of higher education is interested in the questions of similarity or differences in the role of teaching in other higher education institutions with a prime emphasis on teaching and in universities which emphasise both teaching and research (see also Jacob and Teichler 2011).

5.2 Weekly Work Hours

Academics in most countries are relatively free to arrange the time and location of their work. They could be expected to work as much as other persons, that is, somewhat less than 40 h in many European countries, if they are employed full time. As will be discussed below, most academics must comply to rules, set at national, institutional or departmental level, or even individual contracts, as regards the teaching load and the number of “contact hours” in classrooms. However, it is mostly up to their own discretion whether they spend 1, 2, even 3 or more hours per teaching hour on teaching-related activities such as preparation, assessment and guidance. To have an overview of how much time academics spend for what activities, they were asked to estimate the average number of hours for teaching, research, service, administration and other academic activities both for the periods when classes are in session and when classes are not in session. In the questionnaire, only these major functions were addressed without further specification. Therefore, it is not possible to establish how much of the teaching time is allocated directly to teaching or to teaching-related activities such as curriculum development, preparation of classes, assessment and guidance.

As academics are often very devoted to their work and as time is a flexible resource for enhancing their academic work, one can expect that they work more hours than usually required. Moreover, self-estimates of work time might be inflated when schedules are flexible. According to the international survey of the academic profession undertaken in the 1990s (Altbach 1996), university professors of the four participating European countries reported a weekly work schedule of 51 h (52 h for full-time employment), junior staff at universities 45 h (50 h) and academics at other higher education institutions 40 h (44 h).

The respondents were asked in the questionnaire to state the weekly working hours separately for the period when classes are in session and for the period when classes are not in session. This distinction was made because a single question to academics as regards the work time is likely to elicit responses that only reflect the period when classes are in session. We estimate the annual working time of academics by assuming, first, that the period when classes are in session covers 60% of the annual work time and the period when classes are not in session 40% (see Teichler 2010a). In analysing the overall working time, we refer to full-time employed academics only because they tend to be viewed as the prototypical academics at higher education institutions who are in charge of all the functions, whereas part-timers might have a restricted role (e.g. little responsibility for administration, no balance between teaching and research) (see Enders and de Weert 2004).

According to estimates on the basis of their self-reports, we estimate, as presented in Table 5.1, that full-time university professors of the 12 European countries work 47 h per week, that is, about one-fifth more than the typical work schedule of full-time employed persons. The figures vary substantially by country: 52 h are reported each by university professors in Germany and Switzerland and 50 h in Ireland. In most other countries, university professors report 45 and 49 h, while the lowest number of weekly hours is stated by university professors in Norway (39 h) and Portugal (41 h).

Table 5.1 Annual weekly work hours spent on various academic functions (only full-time academics)
Full size table

Junior staff at universities employed full-time works 42 h on average. The average figures vary less by country than in the case of university professors. Those from Ireland report 47 h. In almost all the other countries, they report between 41 and 45 h. There is a single exception of junior staff in Norway reporting 28 h, but this includes doctoral candidates who are expected to work less, even though it is not officially a part-time job.

Senior academics at other higher education institutions of the countries surveyed who are employed full-time work on average 41 h per week. Only full-time senior academics at Swiss “Fachhochschulen” (universities of applied sciences) report substantially longer work time than usual schedules, that is, 48 h on average. Finally, junior staff at other institutions who are employed full-time spends 38 h on average on their job – the mean not exceeding 42 h in any country.

5.3 Distribution of Time on Various Academic Functions

While Table 5.1 shows the number of hours spent by academics on the academic core functions, Table 5.2 presents the proportion of time spent. University professors employed full time in the 12 European countries spend 14 h per week on their teaching activities during the whole year; this corresponds to 30% of their overall work time. As no detailed information was collected on the teaching load, we can only estimate on the basis of general information about teaching loads in the respective countries that university professors in the various countries spend on average between 2 and 3 h on teaching-related activities per teaching hour.

Table 5.2 Percentage of annual weekly work time spent on various academic functions (only full-time academics)
Full size table

Clearly, more time is devoted to research than to teaching: 18 h and 38% of their work time. University professors on average spend more time on teaching than on research when classes are in session, but the time spent on research when classes are not in session clearly outweighs this. Finally, they spend almost as much time during the year on other activities: 4 h and 7% on service, 8 h and 17% on administration and 4 h and 8% on other – unspecified – tasks.

The amount of time spent on teaching activities ranges from 23% in Austria and Switzerland to 36% in Poland, while the time spent on research varies between 35% in the United Kingdom and 45% in Italy. In all the European countries that were surveyed, university professors spend more time on research than on teaching during the year. The ratio of time spent on research to time spent on teaching ranges from 1.7 in Switzerland and Austria to 1.2 in Portugal, Finland, Norway and the United Kingdom and only 1.1 in Poland. The amount of time spent on services is exceptionally high in Austria and Germany (11% each), while it is around 5% in about half the countries. Time spent on administration ranges from 11% in Italy and Poland to 22% in Ireland and the United Kingdom.

Junior staff spends l2 h a week on teaching activities on average during the year; this corresponds to 28%, that is slightly less than the respective amount in the case of university professors. They spend 20 h on average on research, that is 49% of their work time. This is higher than in the case of university professors. In contrast, juniors at universities spend less time on services, administration and other functions.

Juniors at universities show greater variety in their functions by country, ranging in teaching activities from 12% in Switzerland to 41% in Portugal and in research from about 40% in Ireland and Poland to 69% in Norway. In Ireland, Portugal and the Netherlands, juniors at universities spend much more time on teaching activities than seniors at universities. In Norway and Switzerland, in contrast, they spend only about half the time on teaching activities as the seniors. In Switzerland, Germany and Finland, junior staff also spends more time on research than professors at universities. The amount of time junior academics spend on service, administration and other academic activities is less than university professors.

One could have expected that the number of hours spent on teaching activities by professors at other higher education institutions was substantially higher than the hours spent by university professors. However, the average of 16 h is only 2 h more than in the case of university professors. As the teaching load seems to differ more strongly, we conclude that professors at other institutions spend less time on teaching-related activities (preparation, assessment, guidance, etc.) per teaching hour. The difference by country in the proportion of time spent on teaching is more substantial, that is, 40% versus 30%; this reflect a lower number of working hours on the part of the professors at other higher education institutions. As regards research, we note an average of 12 h and 27%. On the one hand, professors at other higher education institutions in Portugal, the Netherlands and Germany spend more than twice as much time on teaching than on research. On the other, time spent on research is about equal to time spent on teaching in Austria and even higher in Italy.

Juniors at other higher education institutions teach almost as much (15 h) as seniors in their institutions. In Finland, Ireland and the Netherlands juniors at these institutions teach considerably more than seniors; the opposite is true in Germany, Norway and the United Kingdom. In the latter countries, junior staff at other institutions more frequently has other responsibilities, for example, research, services and administration.

5.4 Teaching Time When Classes Are in Session

In the previous section, information was provided on how (full-time) academics distributed their time according to academic functions. It is interesting to know how much time for teaching is actually available in those periods of the year when teaching actually takes place. Therefore, the subsequent information refers to the work time of all academics (including part-timers) when classes are in session.

As Table 5.3 shows, university professors in European countries spend on average 18 h on teaching and related activities when classes are in session. The country means vary only moderately from 16 to 20 h, with the exception of Austria where university professors report only 14 h a week.

Table 5.3 Time spent on teaching activities when classes are in session (weekly hours and percentage of all academic work, all respondents)
Full size table

Junior staff at universities report on average 15 h on teaching when classes are in session. In 7 of the 12 countries, they seem to be as much involved in teaching as seniors, but in five countries, they clearly have more limited teaching activities: notably Norway and Switzerland but also Germany, Austria and Finland.

Senior academics at other higher education institutions spend more time on teaching and teaching-related activities (20 h on average) than senior academics at universities. One could have expected an even more substantial difference; however, the difference is only substantial in the case in Germany, where university professors spend 19 h a week on teaching and professors of other higher education institutions (Fachhochschulen) 27 h when classes are in session.

Junior academics at other higher education institutions spend on average slightly less time on teaching when classes are in session than senior academics: 18 h a week on average of all the European countries surveyed. However, we note more striking differences here than in the other categories: on the one hand, junior staff at Finnish AMK and Irish other third-level institutions spend more time on teaching (26 h each when classes are in session) than their seniors (20 h each). On the other, the teaching function of junior staff at these institutions is limited in Norway (8 h), Germany (12 h) and the United Kingdom (12 h).

Table 5.4 illustrates how involvement in teaching differs when classes are in session. Forty-one percent of the university professors on average of the 12 countries report that they spend between three-tenths and half of their working time on teaching activities. Thirty-one percent spend between one-tenth and three-tenths. Only very few spend a marginal proportion on teaching (6%). In contrast, 22% spend more than half of their time on teaching activities when classes are in session, among them few in Austria (6%), Ireland (10%) and Switzerland (11%).

Table 5.4 Percentage of working hours spent on teaching and teaching-related activities when classes are in session
Full size table

Involvement in teaching, as already mentioned above, is more dispersed among junior staff at universities. On the one hand, three times as many junior staff (19% on average of the 12 European countries) spend only up to one-tenth of their time on teaching activities when classes are in session. These proportions are highest in Switzerland (44%), Finland (43%) and Norway (35%). On the other, fewer juniors at university spend more than half the time on teaching activities (26%) than their seniors. This proportion is highest in Portugal (48%) and the Netherlands (42%). Also, junior academics at universities in Poland and Croatia are more strongly involved in teaching activities than senior academics.

At other higher education institutions, about twice as many senior academics (41%) spend more than half their time on teaching activities when classes are in session as university professors. This is most pronounced at German Fachhochschulen (39%) where the teaching load is especially high. The previous overview on number of working hours by full-time staff has shown a smaller difference between university professors and senior academics from other higher education institutions; we must bear in mind, in this context, that the share of work devoted to teaching is especially high among those employed part-time – which is more often the case among senior staff from other institutions than among senior academics at universities.

As one might anticipate from the previous information about the overall allocation of work time for various functions, the time allotted to teaching activities by junior staff at other higher education institutions varies substantially by country. The share of those spending more than half their time on teaching activities is highest among junior academics at Finnish AMK (74%), Dutch HBO and Irish other third-level institutions (73% each).

Women at universities spend more time on teaching when classes are in session than men. As Table 5.5 shows, the difference by gender is 4% for university professors and also 4% for junior staff at universities, while at other institutions no difference can be observed on average in the countries surveyed. More teaching on the part of women is most pronounced among university professors in Finland, where they spend 11% more time than men on teaching and among university junior staff in the United Kingdom where women spend 10% more time than men when classes are in session. There are exceptions though: among university professors in Austria and Croatia, men spend slightly more time on teaching than women; Switzerland is the exception in the case of junior staff at universities.

Table 5.5 Percentage of working hours spent on teaching and teaching-related activities when classes are in session by gender
Full size table

The overall higher amount of time spent on teaching when classes are in session by women can be explained by disciplinary composition. Across the European ­countries examined, the amount of time devoted to teaching activities when classes are in session does not vary strikingly by discipline; however, academics at ­universities in humanities and social sciences spend on average about 4% more time on teaching activities when classes are in session than academics in science and engineering. In contrast, the amount of time spent on teaching by academics in humanities and social sciences at other higher education institutions hardly differs on average from that of their colleagues in science and engineering.

Altogether, the average time spent on teaching when classes are in session does not vary strongly by country within the individual disciplines. For example, it ranges in the groups of humanities and social sciences in the case of university professors across all European countries between 41 and 45% (except for law where teaching activities represent only 34%) and in science and engineering between 34 and 40%.

5.5 Preferences for Teaching and Research

Since time distribution is greatly determined by the academics themselves, it is interesting to examine the preferences academics harbour regarding teaching and research. It is also worth examining whether these preferences are linked to their allocation of working time.

In the survey of the 12 European countries, the same question regarding preferences was posed as in 1992 in the Carnegie Survey. This earlier survey showed that most academics appreciated a link between teaching and research, but those at universities mostly leaned more strongly towards research, while those at other higher education institutions leaned more strongly towards teaching. Moreover, the previous survey showed that those who preferred research and those who leaned more strongly towards research reported higher weekly working hours, that is, beyond those customary for ordinary employees in other occupational areas, than those who leaned towards teaching or who preferred teaching (Altbach 1996).

Among the university professors of the 12 European countries surveyed recently, almost three-quarters (73%), as Table 5.6 shows, report that they lean towards research or have a preference for research. The respective average quota is almost identical for junior staff at universities (71%). As the teaching function plays a ­considerably stronger role at other higher education institutions, one could have expected that a very small proportion of academics at those institutions had a preference for research. Thus, it is surprising to note that more than 40% of academics at other higher education institutions report that they have a clear preference for or lean towards research.

Table 5.6 Preferences for teaching or research (percentage)
Full size table

There are noteworthy differences by country in this respect:

  • A clear preference for teaching and a leaning towards teaching are only frequent among university professors in Poland (47%), Portugal (39%) and Croatia (35%), while in various other countries only about 20% state a similar attitude.

  • Among junior staff at universities, high proportions hold true for Portugal (47%), Croatia (42%) and Ireland (40%).

  • Also, among academics at other higher education institutions, preferences for teaching differ substantially by country, with the highest proportion among senior academics in Germany (77%) and Ireland (71%) and among junior academic staff in Finland (85%), the Netherlands (83%) and Ireland (81%).

We must be cautious, however, in inferring major consequences of these orientations as regards a broad range of activities. An in-depth analysis of these findings has shown, for example, that 71% of the teaching-oriented university professors in Germany were involved in curriculum development, as compared to 59% of their research-oriented colleagues. The respective figure for university professors in the United Kingdom was 87% as compared to 73% (Teichler 2010b). There is an impact, but not a dramatic one.

In most countries, however, the actual share of working time spent on teaching activities when classes are in session complies with preferences. That means that those with teaching preferences teach considerably more than those with research preferences (r  =  −426**). This holds true notably for Finland: Finnish university professors with a preference for teaching spend 66% of their time on teaching, while those with a preference for research spend only 32% of their time on teaching (for Finnish juniors at universities we note a wider gap: 72% versus 12%). Altogether, juniors at universities are those where preferences and time spent are most closely linked. This could be due to the fact that some of the junior staff at universities are exclusively or almost exclusively in charge of research, while others have a higher teaching load than university professors.

However, this is not the case consistently in all countries. At Italian and Swiss universities, as well as at other higher education institutions in the Netherlands and Norway, no link is visible between time use and preferences. Similar results can be found in other cases.

5.6 Institutional Settings for Teaching

Academics are exceptional in the degree of regulation of their work tasks. They are often only clearly assigned the task of teaching a certain number of classes and are otherwise expected to serve teaching, research and related functions and activities.

In response to a corresponding question, about five-sixth of the academics surveyed stated that their institution set quantitative targets or expected a certain number of teaching hours from the academics. As the question might be misunderstood as referring to specific targets set for the respondents, we can assume that teaching loads are set for an even higher number of academics. But even if there are no general rules, one can assume that more or less all individual academics are informally expected or are formally required to teach a certain number of hours.

Other regulations and institutional expectations are addressed in Table 5.7. The academics were questioned on four issues:

Table 5.7 Perceived institutional regulations and expectations as regards teaching (percentage*)
Full size table

  • Whether funding of departments is based on the number of students and/or graduates

  • Whether the quality of teaching is considered in personnel decisions

  • Whether targets or regulatory expectations are set for the individual academic with regard to classroom hours, number of students in class, number of graduate students to be supervised, percentage of students passing exams and time for student consultation (in Table 5.7, the percentage of respondents is presented naming at least three of the targets as applicable)

  • Whether they are encouraged to improve their instructional skills in response to teaching evaluation

Funds made available to the departments in institutions reflect quantitative targets, that is, the number of students and/or the number of graduates. It should be borne in mind, though, that no question was asked in the questionnaire concerning the extent to which funding varied according to student and graduate figures.

Austria is the only country where only a minority of academics at universities states that funding at departments is influenced by such quantitative targets (this question was not asked in Croatia and in Switzerland). In most countries, the student numbers play a major role in comparison to graduate numbers. Finnish universities are an exception here, where graduate figures seem to play a more important role than student numbers. In the Netherlands, Norway and at Finnish, other higher education institutions graduate numbers are almost as often named by respondents as student numbers.

Less than a quarter of the academics at universities believe that personnel decisions as regards academics (i.e. recruitment and promotion) are strongly based on the presumed teaching quality of the respective persons. Only the academics at universities in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom often state that the teaching quality is taken into consideration, while this is least often reported by academics at Italian universities.

At other higher education institutions, where teaching is clearly the core function, the picture is somewhat different. In most countries, more respondents from these institutions than from universities state that teaching quality is often considered when making personnel decisions. This is stated by more than half the professors at these institutions in Finland, the Netherlands and Germany, as well as by more than half the junior staff in Germany. Conversely, the teaching quality seems to be hardly taken into consideration at other higher education institutions in Portugal.

As already stated, the academics were asked if their institution set regulations or certain targets as regards workload-related targets, that is, the teaching performance of the individual person: in terms of classroom hours (teaching load), number of students in class, number of graduate students to be supervised, percentage of students passing exams and time for student consultation. The academics were asked in the questionnaire to respond affirmatively, if at least three of such targets were in place. Such individualised workload-related targets are by far most widespread in Poland and to a certain extent in the United Kingdom. In contrast, they hardly seem to play any role in Switzerland. There are differences in this respect both according to type of higher education institutions and between senior and junior academics in the individual countries, but altogether we do not observe any clear dividing lines according to institutional types and staff category in this respect.

In Table 5.7, an average score is presented in the bottom lines for the four institutional regulations and expectations. This score of institutional pressures altogether varies to a lesser extent by country than the individual lines above. A similar number of such mechanisms are used in about half a dozen countries, led by the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, while they play a lesser role in Austria and Italy (no information is available on Switzerland and Croatia). At other higher education institutions, such pressures seem to play a stronger role across countries and notably in the Netherlands and Finland.

Evaluation of both of teaching and research has become customary in higher education. In response to a respective question, more than 90% of academics at universities and more than 80% at other higher education institutions stated that teaching was evaluated at their institution or department. Widespread practices are students’ assessment of classes, followed by formalised self-evaluation and by assessments on the part of department heads. The fifth line of Table 5.7 shows the percentage of academics who note that teaching evaluation plays a role at their institution in encouraging academics to improve their instructional skills. This is observed by more than half the university-based academics in Italy, Ireland and the United Kingdom, and the respective figures are not much lower in the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland. In contrast, such a practice is hardly observed at universities in Finland and Poland. At other higher education institutions, it is reported as widespread in the Netherlands and Finland. Previous findings from Finland suggest that the role of regulations, expectations and evaluation varies strongly between the university sectors and other higher education institutions.

5.7 Institutional Support for Teaching

Pressures and incentives for the improvement of teaching may be futile if the infrastructure is not congenial. Therefore, the questionnaire also addressed the quality of various elements of institutional support for teaching: training courses for the enhancement of teaching quality, the attitude of administrative staff towards teaching, support staff for teaching as well as the classroom and library infrastructure.

Training provisions for the enhancement of the teaching quality are available for more than half the academics at universities in Ireland, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. In various other countries, such training provisions are quite frequent, as the first line in Table 5.8 shows. They are only exceptional at universities in Italy and Poland. At other higher education institutions, such training provisions are less frequently cited; this could be due to the fact that the size of these institutions is often smaller. The highest percentages are reported in Ireland and by far the lowest in Poland.

Table 5.8 Perceived institutional support (percentage)
Full size table

It is interesting to note that junior staff in some countries reports the availability of training provisions for the enhancement of teaching less frequently than senior academics. This is most strikingly the case for junior staff at universities in Finland and at other higher education institutions in Germany. One could have expected the opposite because training programmes of that kind often put an emphasis on junior academics.

The academics’ views as regards supportive attitudes of their administrators towards their teaching activities vary to a lesser extent by country than all the other perceptions stated in this context. There is no overwhelming enthusiasm about the teaching support on the part of administrative staff in the surveyed countries. As the second line of Table 5.8 shows, the most frequent positive statements are made in this respect by academics at universities in the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, while they are rare for academics in Italy and notably university professors in Finland.

Supporting teaching through specialised staff not primarily involved in teaching, for example, guidance counsellors or persons in charge of curriculum coordination, is not necessarily a widespread and qualitatively well-established practice. Positive ratings are only made, as the third line of Table 5.8 shows, by half and more of the university professors in Switzerland, academic junior staff at universities both in Switzerland and Croatia and by junior staff at other higher education institutions in Germany. The least frequent positive statements are made by academics at ­universities in Italy as well as – interestingly enough in contrast to the positive statements made above by junior staff – by professors at other higher education institutions in Germany. The latter discrepancy could be explained by the fact that the number of support staff is very small in Germany, but those who have this kind of job might do their job well (some of the respondents might be support staff).

Most of the academics surveyed are convinced that the infrastructure for teaching they experience is relatively good, as the fifth through seventh lines of Table 5.8 show. Classrooms and technology of teaching are highly appreciated by about three-quarters of the academics at universities in Finland and Switzerland; the respective infrastructure at other higher education institutions is slightly less frequently praised. Cautious or negative ratings are only frequent in Italy and Poland. Library facilities and services are viewed positively by 70% or more of each of the university professors in Switzerland, Ireland and Norway, junior academic staff in these countries as well as in Finland, professors at other higher education institutions in Norway, Finland, Ireland and Poland, and finally by junior academic staff at other higher education institutions in Norway and Finland.

In the final line of Table 5.8, an aggregate of the various ratings of the support for teaching is provided. In summarising the ratings across institutional types and staff categories we note the positive ones in Switzerland, slightly ahead of Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Norway. Less than half the ratings are positive in Austria, Croatia, Germany, Portugal, the United Kingdom and even fewer are positive in Poland. Least frequent positive ratings in this respect are found in Italy.

5.8 Attitudes Towards Teaching and Teaching-Related Activities

Despite the various regulations, sanctions and incentives and the external resource conditions, academics have enormous flexibility in handling their teaching activities, as was already demonstrated with respect to the time spent on teaching. It is generally assumed that the goals and values of the academics as regards teaching have a substantial impact in this respect. In the questionnaire, five dimensions of approaches as regards teaching were addressed, which could be formulated as follows:

  • Practice-oriented approach, addressed in the questionnaire with the following formulation: “Practically oriented knowledge and skills are emphasised in your teaching”.

  • International approach: “In your courses you emphasise international perspectives or content”.

  • Value-oriented approach: “You incorporate discussions of values and ethics in your course content”.

  • Honesty approach: “You inform students of the implications of cheating or plagiarism in your courses”.

  • Meritocratic approach: “Grades in your courses strictly reflect levels of student achievement” (cf. Teichler 2010a).

A practice-oriented approach in teaching is by no means only customary at other higher education institutions; rather, as Table 5.9 shows, it is emphasised at universities almost as often as at other higher education institutions. About three-quarters or more of the professors at both types of institution point this out in Croatia, Ireland, Germany and Portugal as well as those at other higher education institutions in Austria. In contrast, practice-oriented teaching is emphasised by less than half the professors at both institutions in Finland, the Netherlands and Poland. It is striking to note that higher proportions of juniors emphasise practice orientation: in addition to those from the countries named above, there are also those in Switzerland, Finland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

Table 5.9 Attitudes towards teaching and teaching-related activities (percentagea)
Full size table

International perspectives are emphasised everywhere quite strongly, but they are slightly more often pointed out by respondents from Ireland and Portugal than by those from most other countries. In contrast, academics from Poland seldom report an international emphasis.

Discussions of values seem to happen frequently but are not on the top of the list. They are emphasised by more than two-thirds of both seniors and juniors in Ireland and the United Kingdom and almost consistently in Portugal. On the other hand, they are seldom addressed in Poland.

An honesty approach in terms of warning students against cheating and plagiarism is most widespread among academics in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Also, academics in Portugal are critical about dishonest behaviour. This is least emphasised by academics in Italy.

A meritocratic approach in terms of grading strictly according to achievement is most strongly underscored by academics in Ireland, Finland, the United Kingdom, Austria and Italy. In contrast, by far the least emphasis is expressed by academics in Poland.

Across all these kinds of values addressed in the questionnaire, the academics in Ireland seem to have the strongest positive emphasis. In contrast, most academics in Poland seem to care the least about these approaches.

5.9 Diversity of Teaching Activities

Classroom lecturing is assumed to be the most frequent teaching method. Thus, it does not come as a surprise to note that about 95% of the respondents apply this method. But other methods are often viewed as highly valuable to motivate the students and enhance their competences. The project teams wanted to know how far teaching methods varied. Therefore, the questionnaire aimed to explore the frequency of other methods and addressed the following seven additional teaching and learning activities:

  • Individualised instruction is cited according to country by an average of 66% of the university professors.

  • Learning in projects by 46%.

  • Practice instruction or laboratory work by 44%.

  • ICT-based learning or computer-assisted learning by 30%.

  • Distance education by 12%.

  • Face-to-face interaction with students outside class by 77%.

  • Electronic communication (e-mail) with students by 77%.

The responses to the seven additional modes of teaching are aggregated in Table 5.10. Senior academics at other higher education institutions use a broader range of teaching modes (4.0) than university professors (3.6). In both types of institutions, professors report on average a higher variety of teaching activities than junior academics (3.7 at other higher education institutions and 3.4 at universities). The greatest frequency of diverse teaching activities is reported by academics in the United Kingdom and Finland, followed by academics in Ireland, Croatia and Italy. In contrast, the variety of teaching modes is smallest in Austria and is also quite limited in Germany.

Table 5.10 Frequency of additional teaching activities (mean of number of responses*)
Full size table

Moreover, academics were asked whether they had been involved in the development of course material and in curriculum/programme development. This is confirmed by 73 and 65% of the university professors on average across countries.

5.10 Interrelationships Between the Academic Functions

Universities in Europe are based on the belief – often attributed to the Humboldtian ideal – that teaching and research should not merely coexist at universities but that the two activities would have a cross-fertilising effect. In the questionnaire, respondents were asked what influence research and service had on teaching and whether they considered teaching and research compatible in academic work.

The fertilising effect of research activities on teaching is attested by about 80% and more of university professors in all countries except Poland where only about half the professors responded affirmatively. As Table 5.11 shows, large proportions of the juniors at universities – again except Poland – and of seniors at other higher education institutes observe such a reinforcing effect. Among juniors at other higher education institutions, however, the proportion of those responding affirmatively is lower on average – notably in Ireland, Poland, Germany and Finland.

Table 5.11 Relationship between service and research activities in teaching (percentage*)
Full size table

The question of whether teaching and research are hardly compatible can be viewed as contradicting the previous one. Thus, it does not come as a surprise to note that only about 30% of the respondents have this notion. In fact, the responses to the two questions correlate negatively (e.g. r  =  −.244** for university professors). We also observe that the notion of non-compatibility of teaching and research correlates with the responses to the item “my job is a source of considerable personal strain”. Again, it does not come as a surprise to note that many respondents from Poland consider teaching and research as hardly compatible; Table 5.11, however, shows that this even more frequently stated by respondents from Croatia.

Service activities are viewed as reinforcing teaching by less than half the academics. Frequent statements of a positive effect of service activities vary by county: they are reported frequently by academics at universities in Ireland and Norway but seldom by academics at other higher education institutions in Croatia and Poland.

5.11 Determinants of the Time Spent on Teaching Activities

As already stated, academics are relatively free to decide how much time they devote to teaching-related activities, for example, preparation, counselling and curriculum development. It may depend on contextual factors, such as regulations and expectations, support and favourable resources, or it may be influenced by their own motives. In a multiple regression analysis, we explore which factors are most powerful in influencing the time spent on teaching activities when classes are in session.

Tables 5.12 and 5.13 show that academics’ preferences – whether they want to put a strong emphasis on teaching or on research – have the strongest impact on the amount of time that is spent on teaching or teaching-related activities. The academics allocate their time according to their preferences. This holds true both at universities and at other higher education institutions. This factor plays the strongest role in universities in Germany, Austria and Finland and at other higher education institutions in Germany, Finland and Switzerland. Only Italian universities and Portuguese other higher education institutions are exceptions.

Table 5.12 Factors influencing the time spent on teaching activities by academics at universities when classes are in session (multiple regression analysis)
Full size table
Table 5.13 Factors influencing the time spent on teaching activities by academics at other higher education institutions when classes are in session (multiple regression analysis)
Full size table

Three other factors play an additional role at universities in some countries. Academics at universities who are involved in a broad range of teaching and learning modes and those who consider service activities as reinforcing their teaching spend substantial time on teaching. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that those who teach more than others state that teaching and research are hardly compatible.

In the case of academics at other higher education institutions, one additional variable shows a link with time spent on teaching. We observe in a number of countries (notably Poland and Portugal) that academics who note funding linked to graduate numbers at their institution spend more time on teaching activities. Otherwise, the respective links are similar for academics at both types of higher education institutions.

Altogether, the explanatory power of all the variables included in the model is below 20%, that is, somewhat limited. There are two exceptions: at Finnish universities and at other higher education institutions in Switzerland, the time spent on teaching can be explained at over 35% by the factors examined. As already noted above, these are also the cases where preference for teaching versus research plays the strongest role.

5.12 Conclusion

Teaching and research are viewed as the core functions of universities in Europe. While research is left by and large to the discretion of the individual academics, teaching takes place with minimum rules as regards teaching loads, teaching periods during the year, physical presence, etc. However, academics are extremely free as regards reserving time and energy for all teaching-related activities, for example, preparation, assessment, counselling and curriculum development. The EUROAC survey shows that university professors in Europe spend only about 30% of their overall working time on teaching and teaching-related activities, that is, somewhat less than for research. Even during the periods of the year when classes are in session the time spent on teaching and related activities remains below 40%, even though it exceeds the time spent on research. Less than 30% of university professors have a stronger preference for teaching. It is interesting to note that junior academics at universities differ in those respects only marginally on average across Europe.

Apart from regulations regarding teaching load, there are few aspects of regulations and few favourable aspects of the work setting that most academics at ­university underscore: many underscore that funding is based on the number of students. Slightly more than half reports that evaluation acts as a stimulus for the improvement of educational activities, and more than half states that appropriate courses exist at their university to enhance the quality of teaching. However, as a multivariate analysis shows, the extent to which such rules exist and favourable conditions are in place has hardly any impact on the time allotted to teaching; rather, preferences for teaching and the variety of teaching modes are important for the time reserved for teaching activities.

In various respects, the academics at other higher education institutions – information is available for eight European countries – report more similar conditions and attitudes towards teaching than one could have expected on the basis of the different institutional “missions”. For example, university professors state almost as often as senior academics at other higher education institutions that they favour practice-oriented teaching. It is surprising to note that professors at other higher education institutions spend only about 10% more time on teaching than university professors on average across Europe. As they often have a heavier teaching load, the results of the EUROAC survey suggest that professors from other institutions spend less time on teaching-related activities per teaching hour than academics at universities. It is also surprising to note that over 40% of academics at other higher education institutions lean more strongly towards research than towards teaching.

As regards the teaching activities, the EUROAC survey explored the variety of modes. In addition to the customary lectures, more than three-quarters of the teachers do not only communicate with students face-to-face outside classes but also electronically. Two-thirds cite individualised instruction of students, and almost half the academics are involved in activities which stimulate students’ learning in projects as well as practical instruction and laboratory work. Altogether, professors at other higher education institutions are involved in a slightly broader variety of teaching and learning modes than university professors and the latter in a broader variety than junior staff at both institutions.

Asked about various principles and values that guide their teaching activities, most academics respond affirmatively in every respect: they grade according to achievements and they warn against cheating, their teaching is practice-oriented and internationally oriented and they address values as well. These responses, however, are not merely indications of compliance to generally shared values. It is interesting to note that the responses to those respects vary substantially by country.

In looking at the working time, the amount of time spent on teaching, the preferences for teaching and research, as well as respective values and activities, we note the following. Academics at universities in Austria and Switzerland spend almost twice as much time on research as on teaching. Few have a preference for teaching, but this does not substantially differ from some additional countries. University professors in Switzerland work many hours. Austrian academics are least involved in a variety of teaching activities. With regard to teaching-related attitudes, academics from these two countries hardly differ from the European average: It worth mentioning that academics in Austria strongly emphasise a meritocratic approach and that junior staff in Switzerland is strongly practice-oriented.

Academics from universities in a relatively large number of European countries are similar in spending more time on research than on teaching, even though not as much as those in Austria and Switzerland. They also mostly have a preference for research. University professors in Germany and Ireland work many hours. They lean towards research and spend slightly more than average time on research. While German academics at universities report a limited variety of teaching activities, we note an average variety among university professors and a clearly above variety among junior staff at universities in Ireland. German academics at universities are very practice-oriented; Irish academics underscore an international orientation as well as honesty in teaching and learning. Academics at universities in Finland and the Netherlands hardly differ from the country means in all four respects; as regards teaching-related values, university professors from both countries – in contrast to junior staff – are not strongly practice-oriented, and the academics at universities in Finland underscore meritocratic values. Similarly, responses by academics in Italy hardly differ from the European average. Academics at universities in Croatia and the United Kingdom are close to country means in various respects, but they excel in the variety of teaching methods. As regards values, academics at universities in Croatia are strongly practice-oriented. Academics at universities in the United Kingdom strongly underscore various teaching-related values: They put emphasis on addressing value in teaching and learning, and they emphasise honesty and meritocratic values. Finally, within this group of countries, academics at universities in Norway report the lowest number of working hours. Otherwise, they are close to the country means in most respects.

Academics at universities in Poland and Portugal clearly differ from those in other countries as regards teaching: they spend a relatively large amount of their time on teaching and express relatively often preference for teaching. Their working time on average is low, and professors in these two countries are not involved in a great variety of teaching activities. In addition, they share least the teaching-related values addressed in the questionnaire: notably they do not say that they emphasise international dimensions, an explicit discourse on values in teaching, and a meritocratic approach.

As already pointed out, at the European level, academics from other higher education institutions differ from those at universities to a lesser degree than one might have expected. However, senior academics at the former institutions more often prefer teaching in Germany and Ireland and spend a substantially higher amount of their work time on teaching in the Netherlands. Among junior staff at higher education institutions, those in Poland, Germany and Switzerland spend much time on teaching activities, while the strongest preferences for teaching are expressed by those in Finland and the Netherlands. As regards attitudes towards teaching, senior academics at Fachhochschulen in Austria clearly differ from senior academics in their country by being strongly practice-oriented.

As regards the context of teaching, we note that various regulations and incentives as regards teaching play a role at both universities and other institutions in the Netherlands, at universities in the United Kingdom and at other higher education institutions but also in some respects at universities in Finland. In Poland, ­regulations play a major role as regards the workload of academics. In contrast, regulations and incentives as regards teaching play a limited role in Austria and Italy. Institutional support for teaching is often reported in Switzerland, but not much less in Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Norway. It seems to be least available in Italy and in Poland.

There cannot be an undisputable conclusion as regards the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the academic profession in Europe. However, the variety across countries is certainly striking in various respects: country means of the amount of time spent on teaching activities range from 28 to 52% in the case of senior staff at other higher education institutions, and the range is even wider in the case of junior staff at both institutions. With respect to preference for teaching, we note a country range among university professors from 18 to 45%. And to take a final example: less than one-fifth of university professors in six European countries state that teaching and research are hardly compatible. This is the case for almost half in Poland and three-quarters in Croatia. European variety in the teaching functions at higher education institutions is by no means negligible.