Introduction
While universities have always been concerned
with systems of quality improvement of their
teaching and learning, their efforts have not
always been as systematic as they could be nor
as visible and accountable as they could be (van
Vught and Westerheijden, 1994). The issues of
quality assessment, quality assurance and
quality enhancement have received greater
attention within Australia and worldwide
during the late 1980s and 1990s. There is a
growing number of academic journals address-
ing issues of quality, a growing number of
academic and management-oriented confer-
ences, and, within Australia, a growing number
of government-sponsored reports. The most
influential so far has been the report, Achieving
Quality (Higher Education Council, 1992),
which led to the establishment of the Commit-
tee for Quality Assurance in Higher Education
between 1994 and 1996. Since then, Australian
universities have been developing and imple-
menting a range of different systems for quality
assurance of teaching and learning, with quali-
tatively different underlying assumptions of
what constitutes good teaching and learning,
and different approaches to the assurance and
enhancement of quality (Harman, 1996).
Most, if not all, such schemes incorporate
the use of student evaluation of teaching as a
prime source of information (van Vught and
Westerheijden, 1994). But little thought is
given to the relationship between the assump-
tions underlying what constitutes high quality
teaching and learning, the assumptions on
which the quality assurance procedures are
based, and the assumptions underlying the
development of the student evaluation proce-
dures which are a constituent part of the
quality assurance process.
In this paper, we will describe and examine
an example of a scheme for quality assurance
of teaching and learning which, in its design,
attempted to incorporate a particular view on
what is meant by high quality teaching and
learning and a particular perspective on
quality assurance. In the first part of the
paper, we describe what we mean by high
quality teaching and learning, we then
28
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 6 · Number 1 · 1998 · pp. 28–36
© MCB University Press · ISSN 0968-4883
What constitutes high
quality teaching and
learning and how to
assure it
Erika Martens and
Michael Prosser
The authors
Erika Martens is a Lecturer in the Academic Development
Unit, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia.
Michael Prosser is Professor and Director of the
Academic Development Unit, La Trobe University,
Bundoora, Australia.
Abstract
The evaluation and continuous improvement of the quality
of teaching and learning in higher education is an issue of
sustained concern. While most universities are implement-
ing systems of quality assurance there is substantial
variation in the principles underlying these systems. La
Trobe University has developed and implemented a
university-wide system of quality assurance that ensures
that each subject is systematically reviewed and enhanced
by those teaching in the subject. While it incorporates
compulsory student evaluation of teaching of each subject
the result of this student evaluation is not the focus of the
quality assurance system. The focus is on ensuring that
those teaching the subject reflect on and make recommen-
dations for further improvement of the subject. This paper
outlines the quality assurance system, the principles on
which it is based and describes and analyses the processes
engaged in during its development.
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the
1996 Conference of the Higher Education
Research and Development Society of Australasia
under the title: “A developmental focus on quality
assurance of teaching and learning”.

examine two fundamentally different perspec-
tives on quality assurance and relate our view
of teaching and learning to those perspectives.
In the second part, we describe and analyse an
example of a scheme for quality assurance of
teaching and learning developed on the basis
of this analysis. In the final part, we identify
and discuss a number of issues which have
emerged from the initial pilot and implemen-
tation of the scheme.
Constitution of high quality teaching and
learning
The issue of what constitutes high quality
teaching and learning is one which is of prime
importance in the development of quality
assurance systems, and one which is often not
explicitly addressed. There is a growing con-
sensus that high quality teaching is not just
about high quality presentation of content,
nor just about the implementation of high
quality teaching skills. High quality teaching
is fundamentally about affording high quality
student learning (Ramsden, 1992). Assuring
quality of teaching based on this concept of
quality teaching is about keeping a focus on
how and what students are learning, and how
this can be improved (Trigwell and Prosser,
1991; Prosser, 1993). It is fundamentally
about affording a context in which high quali-
ty learning is possible and is encouraged.
What is meant by high quality learning in
this context? For us, high quality learning is
learning which focuses fundamentally on the
development of meaning and not on repro-
duction. A substantial amount of research on
student learning in higher education has
shown that students develop qualitatively
different understandings of the material they
are studying, and that this variation in under-
standing relates to the variation in the way
they approach their studies. The variation in
the way they approach their studies has been
described in terms of surface and deep
approaches. A surface approach is one in
which the students intend to reproduce mate-
rial they are studying in order to meet
externally imposed demands. In the process,
they adopt strategies focused on, for example,
rote memorisation. A deep approach, on the
other hand, is one in which the students’
intention is to understand the material they
are studying. They adopt strategies aimed at
seeking meaning in that material. Research in
student learning in several fields of study has
shown that the former approach results in low
quality learning outcomes, while the latter
results in higher quality outcomes (Trigwell
and Prosser, 1991). In this context, a low
quality learning outcome is characterised,
for example, as one in which the students’
knowledge is unrelated to their past experi-
ences, is poorly structured or unstructured, is
composed of isolated bits of information, and
is of a short-term duration. Subjects in which
students report adopting deeper approaches
to study are ones in which they report that the
teachers are good and that the goals and
standards are clear. Subjects in which they
report adopting more surface approaches are
ones in which they report overly high work-
loads and assessment strategies aimed at
reproducing learnt materials (Entwistle and
Ramsden, 1983). What is clear from this
research is that it is the subject as a whole –
how it is designed, taught and assessed –
which relates to the quality of student learn-
ing. High quality teaching in higher education
takes account of each of these aspects.
As noted by Ramsden (1992), fundamental
to this view of teaching and learning is that
high quality teaching is context-related,
uncertain and continuously improvable. To
assure the quality of teaching based on this
concept of teaching, universities need to
ensure that the system is open enough to
allow for variation between, for example,
disciplines, years of study, compulsory and
elective subjects. They need to take into
consideration that the ways taken to improve
teaching and learning are likely to be uncer-
tain in the outcomes and consequently
require a continuing focus on improvement.
Any system of quality assurance of teaching
that takes as its point of departure that good
teaching is about affording high quality
student learning will need to explicitly take
account of these three issues. This is certainly
the case for systems based on student evalua-
tion of teaching.
Approaches to quality assurance of
teaching and learning
The literature on quality assurance in higher
education argues that schemes for quality
assurance are often based on one of two
fundamentally opposed approaches. Any
successful scheme needs to expertly combine
the two approaches or to carefully negotiate
between the two (Elton, 1988; Pollit, 1987; van
Vught and Westerheijden, 1994; Vroeijensteijn
and Ackerman, 1990; Vroeijensteijn,1994).
29
What constitutes high quality teaching and learning and how to assure it
Erika Martens and Michael Prosser
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 6 · Number 1 · 1998 · 28–36