Strategies to Enhance Teaching Competence in Higher Education

Teaching in higher education is far more than delivering content – it is a craft that demands continuous refinement. Yet many university faculty members step into classrooms with deep subject-matter expertise but little formal preparation in pedagogy. Research on effective teaching in higher education consistently shows that a major barrier to change is that most faculty are not trained for their teaching role and are largely unfamiliar with the research literature on effective pedagogy. Bridging that gap – through research-informed practice, deliberate self-monitoring, and approaches that push students beyond passive learning – is what separates competent teaching from truly transformative teaching.

Bridging theory and practice: the role of research and policy 🔗

Improving classroom practice does not happen in a vacuum. It is deeply shaped by two forces that work together: what research tells us about how people learn, and what institutional and national policies demand of educators. When teachers actively engage with both, their classroom practice becomes more intentional and evidence-based.

What research tells us about good teaching 🔗

Decades of scholarship have produced clear, actionable insights into effective university teaching. The Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, developed by Chickering and Gamson through a review of 50 years of higher education research, remain a widely used reference point. These principles highlight that frequent student-instructor contact significantly boosts student motivation and involvement, that collaborative learning deepens understanding more than competitive or isolated study, and that students need frequent, timely feedback to improve. The principles also stress that students learn best when they are given varied activities that address different learning styles and backgrounds.

A key insight from this body of research is that the traditional lecture-dominant model is increasingly insufficient. Teaching approaches such as inquiry-based, discussion-based, or problem-based methods open up opportunities for improved student learning that lectures alone cannot offer. When educators align their methods with research evidence, the result is not just better test scores – it is a richer, more meaningful learning experience for students.

The policy dimension: aligning with national and institutional frameworks 🔗

Policy frameworks play an equally important role in guiding teaching improvement. Internationally, both the ILO/UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Teachers (1966) and the UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel (1997) have long emphasized that teaching is a profession requiring continuous learning, and that systematic, collaborative research into teaching preparation and in-service training is essential. These recommendations have pushed countries and institutions to invest in teacher development infrastructure.

At the national level, frameworks like the European Digital Competence Framework for Educators (DigCompEdu) and UNESCO’s ICT Competency Standards for Teachers provide structured benchmarks for what modern educators should be able to do – not just in terms of subject knowledge, but pedagogical skill. In the United States, the federal government and individual states have enacted policies encouraging faculty development for new and early-career instructors, with universities increasingly establishing centers focused on teaching excellence and ongoing professional learning.

For university teachers, understanding these frameworks is not a bureaucratic exercise. It is a practical tool: knowing what standards exist helps educators identify where their current practice stands, what is expected of them, and where targeted improvement is most needed.

Self-monitoring for improvement: tools and techniques 🔗

One of the most direct routes to better classroom practice is developing the habit of looking critically at your own teaching. Self-monitoring is not self-criticism – it is a structured, ongoing process of assessing what is working, what is not, and why. A comprehensive approach to faculty development should include instructional development activities such as peer coaching, consultations, and teaching-improvement workshops, all of which support ongoing self-monitoring. Several practical tools make this process systematic rather than haphazard.

Competency scales 🔗

Competency scales offer teachers a structured way to evaluate their own professional skills against defined standards. These scales typically cover core dimensions of teaching – classroom management, student engagement, communication, subject knowledge, assessment design, and use of technology. By rating themselves honestly across these dimensions, educators can spot both their strengths and the areas where practice is weakest.

The value of a competency scale is not in a single snapshot assessment but in repeated use over time. When an educator returns to the same scale at intervals throughout the year, patterns emerge: skills that have grown, habits that have calcified, and gaps that persist despite effort. This longitudinal view is what makes the tool genuinely useful for professional growth.

Student feedback mechanisms 🔗

Student feedback is among the most direct signals a teacher can receive about the effectiveness of their practice. Students need frequent opportunities to perform and receive suggestions for improvement, and the same logic applies to teachers receiving feedback from students. Regular feedback – both through formal course surveys and informal channels such as brief check-ins or open discussion – gives educators a continuous read on whether their instructional decisions are landing as intended.

The key is to treat feedback as data rather than judgment. When several students flag that a particular concept was unclear, or that a certain teaching approach was difficult to follow, that is actionable information. Acting visibly on feedback – and telling students when their input has led to a change – also builds trust and reinforces a classroom culture of open communication.

Peer evaluation of teaching 🔗

Peer evaluation of teaching is widely used in higher education for both professional development and institutional review purposes. It involves colleagues observing classes, reviewing course materials, and offering structured feedback – creating a form of accountability and collaborative reflection that self-assessment alone cannot provide. As one framework for excellent teaching puts it, the best educators inquire into their own practice, explore alternatives, take risks, and do so in the company of peers who offer critique and support – the same intellectual habits we expect in research.

Sustained peer partnerships, rather than one-off classroom visits, are more effective because they allow observers to monitor the impact of changes in teaching practice over time. When peer review is conducted in a spirit of collegial development rather than institutional surveillance, it tends to generate more honest, productive exchanges. Institutions that establish structured peer review protocols – with clear standards and defined pre- and post-observation discussions – create the conditions for this kind of constructive professional dialogue.

Teaching quality frameworks that combine peer review, self-evaluation, and student evaluation into a single coherent system – drawing on all three voices – give the most balanced and reliable picture of teaching effectiveness. No single source of evidence is sufficient on its own.

Encouraging critical thinking in students: moving beyond rote learning 🔗

Even as teachers work on their own professional development, the ultimate test of improved practice is what happens for students in the classroom. One of the most significant shifts higher education has been pressed to make over the past two decades is moving students away from passive memorization toward genuine analytical thinking.

A national survey found that 93% of college faculty consider analytical and critical thinking among the most essential skills students can develop – yet only a tiny fraction of graduates can actually demonstrate significant gains in critical thinking. The gap between aspiration and outcome signals that good intentions are not enough. Critical thinking must be explicitly taught through deliberate instructional design.

Why rote learning is insufficient 🔗

Rote memorization has its place – it can help students retain isolated facts efficiently. But it does not build the capacity to analyze, evaluate, or apply knowledge in new contexts. Research shows that in more than half of observed university classroom interactions, student learning remains concentrated at the two lowest cognitive levels: simple recall and basic understanding. This matters because employers and society increasingly require graduates who can solve novel problems, not just recall trained responses.

Supporting students to develop critical thinking can be challenging, partly because their prior educational experiences have often emphasized rote learning, and partly because there is no single technique that works universally. What works is a consistent instructional culture – one where questioning is valued, where ambiguity is tolerated, and where students are regularly asked to justify their reasoning rather than simply produce the right answer.

Inquiry-based and analytical learning approaches 🔗

Teaching methods such as inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, and problem-oriented learning encourage students to question, analyze, and synthesize information rather than passively receive it. In inquiry-based learning specifically, students formulate their own driving questions, design explorations to find answers, and interpret evidence to draw conclusions. This shifts the classroom dynamic from the teacher as the source of all knowledge to the teacher as a facilitator of intellectual discovery.

Inquiry-based learning (IBL) encourages students to move beyond superficial understanding and develop a deeper grasp of core concepts. Students are rewarded for their ability to question and engage critically with material – not just for producing the right answer on a final exam. This approach is also increasingly relevant in an age of AI: when students learn to evaluate sources, question assumptions, and construct original arguments, they become less dependent on shortcuts and more capable of independent intellectual work.

Practically, educators can foster this shift through several concrete strategies. Open-ended questioning during class discussions asks students to explain their reasoning, not just their answer. Structured debates on course-relevant topics push students to research multiple perspectives and defend positions under scrutiny. Collaborative problem-solving tasks require students to negotiate meaning together, which deepens comprehension. Case-based learning connects theory to real-world scenarios, helping students see the relevance of what they are learning and building the habit of applying knowledge rather than merely holding it.

Research consistently shows that student-driven inquiry, where students choose their own area of investigation, produces greater critical thinking gains across diverse student groups compared to traditional instructor-led models. The key is adequate guidance: inquiry without structure can be frustrating and unproductive, especially for students new to this mode of learning. Effective teachers scaffold the process – providing more support early and gradually stepping back as students build confidence and skill.

Putting it all together: a commitment to continuous improvement 🔗

Enhancing teaching competence in higher education is not a destination – it is an ongoing process. Research and policy provide the map; self-monitoring tools like competency scales, student feedback, and peer evaluation provide the compass; and approaches that cultivate critical thinking in students provide the measure of whether the journey is making a difference. Comprehensive faculty development – combining professional orientation, instructional coaching, and organizational support – empowers educators to excel and creates academic communities that genuinely value teaching and learning.

The most effective university teachers are not those who know the most about their subject. They are those who think rigorously about how they teach it, actively seek evidence about what is working, and remain genuinely open to changing their approach when the evidence calls for it. That combination of subject expertise, pedagogical humility, and reflective practice is the foundation of teaching competence at the highest level.

What do you think? If most faculty enter higher education without formal pedagogical training, how should universities redesign faculty onboarding to embed teaching competence from day one? And in your experience, which has more impact on student learning – the methods a teacher uses in the classroom, or the culture of inquiry they establish over an entire course?

References

1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5065908/
2. https://crlt.umich.edu/gsis/p4_6
3. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-99-6273-0_5
4. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-99-6273-0_4
5. https://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41239-021-00312-8
6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9580715/
7. https://nmu.edu/ctl/peer-evaluation-teaching
8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0742051X23002901
9. https://www.colorado.edu/teaching-quality-framework/tools-for-teaching-evaluation
10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3970991/
11. https://learningfocused.com/increasing-critical-thinking-in-education-a-pathway-to-preparing-students-for-the-future/
12. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03323315.2023.2258497
13. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-75379-0
14. https://www.turnitin.com/blog/how-inquiry-based-learning-develops-critical-thinking-in-stem-subjects
15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2527977/