Tensions Between Institutional Management and Teacher Autonomy in Learning Assessment for Quality Assurance in Higher Education
Keywords:
management, autonomy, evaluation, educational qualityAbstract
This article explores the tensions between institutional management and teacher autonomy in learning assessment within the framework of quality assurance in higher education. The study is based on a qualitative approach using a focus group with 17 professors from a public higher education institution in Colombia, complemented by an interview with the dean of the engineering faculty. The research aims to identify the factors that generate tensions between institutional directives and teacher’s autonomy, particularly during the implementation of the new quality assurance regulations that emphasize learning outcomes as a key indicator. Findings reveal divergent perceptions: while institutional management focuses on standardization to ensure quality, teachers emphasize the need for autonomy to adapt assessment practices to specific student contexts. These tensions highlight the importance of a more inclusive and participatory approach that balances standardization with the autonomy required for meaningful learning experiences.
Metrics
References
Aderet-German, Segal, A., & Vedder-Weiss, D. (2021). Leading teacher professional identity construction and school reform development: a reciprocal relationship. Research Papers in Education, 36(2), 129–151, https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1633562
Avidov-Ungar, O., & Arviv-Elyashiv, R. (2018). Teacher perceptions of empowerment and promotion during reforms. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(1), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-01-2017-0002
Aziz, C. (2018). Gestión del cambio, creencias y teoría de acción para la mejora escolar. Nota técnica Nº 3. Líderes Educativos, Centro de Liderazgo para la Mejora Escolar.
Ball, S. (2008). The education debate: Policy and politics in the twenty-first century. Policy Press. https://academic.oup.com/policy-press-scholarship-online/book/23129
Bamber, V., & Anderson, S. (2012). Evaluating learning and teaching: Institutional needs and individual practices. International Journal for Academic Development, 17(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2011.586459
Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9064-9
Borch, I. (2020). Lost in translation: From the university’s quality assurance system to student evaluation practice. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(3), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1818447
Borch, I., Sandvoll, R., & Risør, T. (2022). Student course evaluation documents: Constituting evaluation practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(2), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1899130
Casanova, M. (2021). Gestionar la autonomía pedagógica: un Factor de calidad reconocido. Revista Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 19(2), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.15366/reice2021.19.2.001
Coburn, C., Hill, H., & Spillane, J. (2016). Alignment and Accountability in Policy Design and Implementation: The Common Core State Standards and Implementation Research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16651080
Day, C. (2019). Policy, teacher education and the quality of teachers and teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 25(5), 501–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2019.1651100
Escobar, J. y Bonilla-Jimenez, F. (2017). Grupos focales: una guía conceptual y metodológica. Cuadernos hispanoamericanos de psicología, 9(1), 51–67. http://www.tutoria.unam.mx/sitetutoria/ayuda/gfocal-03122015.pdf
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform (Vol. 204). Centre for Strategic Education Melbourne. http://theeta.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/eta-articles-110711.pdf
Fullan, M. (2015). The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press.
Ganon-Shilon, S., & Schechter, C. (2017). Making sense while steering through the fog: Principals’ metaphors within a national reform implementation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25, 105. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2942
Hamui-Sutton, A. y Varela-Ruiz, M. (2013). La técnica de grupos focales. Investigación en educación médica, 2(5), 55–60.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Restructuring restructuring: Postmodernity and the prospects for educational change. Journal of Education Policy, 9(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093940090104
Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ, 311(7000), 299–302. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299
Lockton, M., Weddle, H., & Datnow, A. (2020). When data don’t drive: Teacher agency in data use efforts in low-performing schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31(2), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2019.1647442
Luttenberg, J., Veen, K., & Imants, J. (2013). Looking for cohesion: The role of search for meaning in the interaction between teacher and reform. Research Papers in Education, 28(3), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2011.630746
Mausethagen, S., & Mølstad, C. (2015). Shifts in curriculum control: Contesting ideas of teacher autonomy. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(2). https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.28520
Mella, O. (2000). Grupos focales (“Focus groups”): Técnica de investigación cualitativa (Documento de Trabajo N° 3). Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo de la Educación (CIDE). https://apuntescomunicacionuagrm.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/orlando-mella-grupos-focales.pdf
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Moya, B., Turra, H., & Chalmers, D. (2019). Developing and implementing a robust and flexible framework for the evaluation and impact of educational development in higher education in Chile. International Journal for Academic Development, 24(2), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2018.1555757
Nussbaum, M. (2010). Sin fines de lucro. Por qué la democracia necesita de las humanidades. Katz Editores.
Parker, G. (2015). Postmodernist perceptions of teacher professionalism: A critique. The Curriculum Journal, 26(3), 452–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2014.992920
Peck, C., Gallucci, C., & Sloan, T. (2010). Negotiating Implementation of High-Stakes Performance Assessment Policies in Teacher Education: From Compliance to Inquiry. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 451–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109354520
Salokangas, M., Wermke, W., & Harvey, G. (2020). Teachers’ autonomy deconstructed: Irish and Finnish teachers’ perceptions of decision-making and control. European Educational Research Journal, 19(4), 329–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904119868378
Sanabria, C. y Ramos, I. (Eds.). (2021). Una mirada a los resultados de aprendizaje. Bogotá: Ministerio de Educación (MEN)-Consejo Nacional de Acreditación (CNA)-Comisión Nacional Intersectorial de Aseguramiento de la Calidad de la Educación Superior (CONACES).
Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.
Scott, W. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Sage publications.
Siegel, H. (2004). High stakes testing, educational aims and ideals, and responsible assessment. Theory and Research in Education, 2(3), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878504046515
Stake, R. (1998). Investigación con estudio de casos. Ediciones Morata.
Stollman, S., Meirink, J., Westenberg, M., & Van Driel, J. (2022). Teachers’ learning and sense-making processes in the context of an innovation: a two year follow-up study. Professional Development in Education, 48(5), 718–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1744683
Vähäsantanen, K. (2015). Professional agency in the stream of change: Understanding educational change and teachers' professional identities. Teaching and teacher education, 47, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.11.006
Weenink, K., Aarts, N., & Jacobs, S. (2024). Purposes and tensions in organising knowledge: trajectories of student evaluations in two research universities. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2314168
Yin, R. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE.
Published
Versions
- 2025-01-27 (2)
- 2025-01-24 (1)
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Los autores/as conservan los derechos de autor y ceden a la revista el derecho de la primera publicación.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Unless otherwise indicated, all articles in this journal are published under a
Licencia Internacional Creative Commons 4.0 Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual .
The authors retain the copyright and assign the right to the first publication to the magazine.
