by Recent decades have seen growing calls to reform the criteria underpinning academic career progression, with concerns raised about the undervaluation of university teaching in appointment and promotion processes. A global shift is now underway, as pioneering research-intensive universities rethink how they reward teaching in academic careers and introduce initiatives that could redefine how teaching is supported and recognised across the sector.
The Global Mapping report explores the evolving landscape of how university teaching is supported, evaluated and rewarded within academic careers across the higher education sector. It is structured in two sections: Section A maps the global movement for change and identifies the front-runner universities; and Section B explores how these leading universities are addressing key barriers to change.
The report draws on interviews with over 130 leaders and change-makers from 26 countries who are actively engaged in reshaping reward systems in their university/region. The study was undertaken between October 2023 and November 2024, and the findings made available as an open-source report in January 2025.
Advancing Teaching Network, dr. Ruth Graham.
Review by programme manager Kim Huijpen
This is an amazing report by Ruth Graham. I think it is a must-read for everyone working on Recognition & Rewards, academic careers, or career assessment in academia. Ruth Graham interviewed 131 leaders and change-makers from around the world, all engaged in improving the systems of evaluation, support, and reward for university teaching. The report includes some very interesting examples of institutions with extensive experience in assessing the teaching competencies of academics.
From this report, I’ve learned that some universities have adopted institution-wide standards for university teaching to underpin processes such as performance reviews, professional development, and promotions. These consistent standards align expectations in education and enable academics to better plan and track their career progression. Particularly noteworthy examples can be found on pages 20 and 21.
The report also highlights the crucial role of external peer review in providing independent, evidence-based assessments of a candidate’s impact on university teaching, based on an agreed set of standards. These assessments may include candidate interviews or in-class observations. However, most examples cited by interviewees focus on the evaluation of candidates’ written submissions and/or their ‘teaching portfolios,’ mirroring the peer review process for academic research.
Notably, several universities embed external peer review of university teaching into their assessment of candidates for appointment or promotion. For example, the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden require at least one external ‘pedagogical expert’ to review candidates’ teaching portfolios during all academic appointments and promotions. Another compelling Swedish example is Lund University, which has introduced an institution-wide framework to support and reward continuous development in university teaching throughout academic careers. This is definitely a model we should closely look at in the Netherlands.
Even further afield, there are very inspiring examples from Australia. I’d like to learn more about the Australian University Teaching Criteria and Standards and the Educational Leadership Mapping (ELM) tool developed by the The University of British Columbia. This is a resource designed to help academics plot their educational leadership activities.
Of course, I am also very proud of the many Dutch universities that shine in this report. However, what I find especially important for the Netherlands is recognizing how the frameworks and practices developed elsewhere in the world can serve as a great source of inspiration.
Congratulations to Ruth Graham for compiling this outstanding resource!
Leave a Reply