KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR THE TEACHING IN HIGHER

EDUCATION QUALITY MODEL (THEQM)

Philippos Pouyioutas
University of Nicosia (CYPRUS)

Abstract
Teaching quality is becoming a strategic direction of the European Higher Education Area reforms. Its
importance is recently gaining more and more recognition by both the policy makers as well as the
various providers of higher education. The vision and mission of Universities, even of those
universities who have been traditionally focused mainly on basic research, address now a more
balanced provision of teaching and research. This paper introduces THEQM, the Teaching in Higher
Education Quality Model and defines a large number of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that can be
used to monitor the adherence of an institution to the model and to the process for achieving teaching
quality. THEQM is a model, which measures the commitment of institutions of Higher Education to
teaching quality. The model is based on the Report of the European Commission (EC) “Improving the
quality of teaching and learning in Europe’s higher education institutions”. Based on the various
recommendations for improving teaching, addressed in the report, we have defined one hundred
quality indicators that build a model based on a numeric system for measuring the adherence to these
recommendations/indicators by a particular institution, thus measuring the institution’s commitment to
teaching quality. We herein further extend the model by defining KPIs to measure the actual
implementation of the model. We refer to teaching in the more general form of teaching and learning
as encompassed in the student centred learning model, thus referring to all learning activities that
involve the educator/teacher as facilitator of the student learning process. We are in the process of
building a web-based tool, namely THEQMTool that will provide an on-line version of THEQM; Version
1 of the tool will allow an institution to carry out a self-assessment of its commitment to teaching
quality, and find out how it compares (ranking wise and anonymously) to a number of other institutions
that have carried out the same self-assessment exercise. Thus version 1, implements the 100 quality
indicators of THEQM. Version 2 of the tool will automate the processing and comparison analysis of
the KPIs throughout the various years, thus will allow an institution to monitor through the KPIs
teaching quality.
Keywords: Teaching Quality, Quality Model, IT Tools, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

1 INTRODUCTION
Higher Education Institutions in Europe, including now many Universities, which have been so far very
much research focused, increasingly acknowledge teaching quality as a main pillar of their vision
mission and strategy. In order to achieve the strategic aims of the Higher Education Modernization
Agenda [1], the commitment of institutions to teaching quality is of paramount importance. With this
strategic aim in mind, the report “Improving the quality of teaching and learning in Europe’s higher
education institutions” [2] has been prepared by a group of prominent academicians, following a
request by the European Commission. This report comprehensively addresses teaching quality and
suggests various ways, in which the European Commission (EC), the member states and institutions
of Higher Education can promote, support and enhance teaching quality. The report provides sixteen
(16) recommendations for improving quality of teaching. It also provides case studies and best
practices from various EU countries to exemplify how these recommendations can be met. Some of
these recommendations (1,13-16) are addressed to the EC and the member states and address the
need for financial support, the promotion of initiatives, methods and methodologies for quality
teaching, the creation of a European Academy for Teaching and Learning, the availability of Structural
Funds for supporting related activities, and in general, the framework, policies and support
mechanisms at the European and national level for achieving the strategic aim of teaching quality.
The rest of the recommendations (2-12) are addressed to the institutions of Higher Education and
concern the strategic directions, policies, processes, supporting mechanisms, monitoring and quality
auditing practices that can be adopted at the institutional level. These recommendations address
amongst other things, issues related to the strategy and supporting funds at an institution, teachers’
professional certifications, training courses in teaching and learning, recognition and award for good

Proceedings of EDULEARN14 Conference ISBN: 978-84-617-0557-3

7th-9th July 2014, Barcelona, Spain 4629
teachers, student involvement in curriculum development and the learning process, multi-disciplinary
approaches in teaching and internalization of teaching.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly presents related work in the area of
teaching quality. Section 3, presents our suggested quality indicators, 9 for each recommendation.
Section 4, presents the proposed THEQM model, which can be used to measure the commitment of
an institution to teaching quality. Section 5 introduces Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) deriving from
the recommendations and the quality indicators; these KPIs can be used to measure the extent to
which teaching quality is achieved (through the KPIs). Finally, Conclusions briefly addresses our future
work with regards to THEQMTool.

2 RELATED WORK
Numerous books and articles have been written to address quality issues in teaching and learning. A
sample of such resources can be found in the published work of the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) [3,4,5]. Herein, we highlight the work of [5], which presents a very
similar self-assessment model of teaching quality, through policies and practices for fostering quality
teaching in Higher Education; the said model utilizes a set of similar quality indicators and revolves
around 3 levels, namely Institution-wide level, Programme level and Individual level. The model further
divides these institutional indicators (pointers for policies and practices) into seven (7) policy levels as
opposed to the eleven (11) recommendations found in the framework of [2] and similarly provides,
examples of various institutions and how they have adopted such practices and policies. It then
provides a self-assessment questionnaire that includes 11 questions (quality indicators) for level 1, 11
questions for level 2, 10 questions for level 3, 11 questions for level 4, 10 questions for level 5, 11
questions in level 6 and 10 questions in level 7; thus in total 74 questions. Each question/indicator can
be assessed in terms of its current situation (i.e. level of adoption) and its importance; the scale used
is 1 to 5.
In a sense our work relates to the ideas presented in [5]. The difference is that we use a different
framework based on the work of [2] to build our model, and we also use a larger number of quality
indicators (and mostly different), which we group into the 11 recommendations (as compared to the 7
levels of [5]). Furthermore, we use a different measurement scale to assess the commitment of
institutions to teaching quality. Thus, as explained in Section 4, we do not use a scale (1-5) as in [5]
but instead we use a binary scale (1 if the indicator is satisfied and 0 if the indicator is not satisfied).
Our model calculates the score (scale is 0-100) and classifies an institution according to its score.
Thus as opposed to [5], a numeric mark is calculated for the institution as well as for each
recommendation. Finally, we also suggest a number of KPIs to support the model and we also
propose the development of a web-based software tool that will automate the use of our model, and
will produce various useful comparisons and statistics. In this respect, and as far as we know, we
believe that our work presented herein is innovative and pioneering in the area.
As pointed out before, we refer herein to teaching in the more general form and “modern”
interpretation of teaching and learning as encompassed in the learner-centred learning model,
according to which, the learning process should be built focusing on the student and not the teacher
and the teaching process (teacher-learning model). Learner-centered learning moves away from
traditional teaching environments through which students are spoon-fed with information provided by
the teachers, and thus utilizes “modern” teaching/learning methods/techniques, through which
students assume an active role and teachers become facilitators and co-coordinators of the student
learning process, rather than information providers. Such methods/techniques include amongst others,
problem-based learning, simulation exercises, group projects, research work, etc.
We would like to point out the learner-centred model and the change of focus on teaching/learning
techniques can be blended very well with the learning pyramid of Figure 1 [6].Thus our proposed
model is based on the learner-centred model and promotes active participation of students in activities
described in the learning pyramid, though we need to point out that both the percentages and the
pyramid itself have been questioned in the literature [7]. THEQM was first presented in [8].

4630
 Figure 1. The Learning Pyramid.

3 QUALITY INDICATORS FOR TEACHING QUALITY

In this Section we list the eleven recommendations (2-12) of the report “Improving the quality of
teaching and learning in Europe’s higher education institutions” [2] and suggest for each
recommendation a number of quality indicators that can be used to measure the adherence of an
institution to the specific recommendation. The suggested indicators refer to the provision of
regulations by the Institution, rather than to practices adopted (irrespectively whether such practices
are the result of the existence or regulations or not) since the proposed model aims at measuring the
extent to which an institution has in place those strategies/polices/rules/regulations through which it
can achieve teaching quality. It is expected than once the proposed model is in place, then each
institution would take appropriate actions to achieve teaching quality. To this extent, we also provide
herein, a sample of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that can be used to measure and compare
over the years, the implementation of the recommendations and the quality indicators. To simplify
things, rather than using a weight for the adherence to a specific quality indicator, we consider that
either the indicator is satisfied or not (this, with regards to the suggested model presented in Section 4
translates to the number one (1) if the indicator is satisfied and to the number zero (0) if the indicator is
not satisfied). The list of the recommendations presented herein, maintains the original numbering in
the report and thus starts with recommendation 2 and ends with recommendation 12.
Recommendation 2 - Every institution should develop and implement a strategy for the support and
on-going improvement of the quality of teaching and learning, devoting the necessary level of human
and financial resources to the task, and integrating this priority in its overall mission, giving teaching
due parity with research. [2]
Quality Indicators:
1. Teaching Quality is an integral part of the institution’s Vision/Mission.
2. The Institution has a Teaching and Learning Strategy.
3. The institution’s strategy considers teaching being of at least equal importance to Research in
all aspects of the institution and the teaching staff activities.
4. There is an owner responsible for executing the Teaching and Learning Strategy of the
Institution.
5. Adequate funds are provided to support the Teaching and Learning Strategy.
6. There is a dedicated Department/Unit in the institution that provides training courses and
support with regards to teaching quality.
7. All teaching staff is aware of the commitment of the institution to teaching quality and is
therefore committed to achieving this.
8. There is a well established policy and process for teaching orientation, monitoring of teaching,
feedback on teaching, quality auditing and evaluation of teaching.
9. The institution participates in University rankings associated with teaching quality (e.g. U-
Multirank).

4631
Recommendation 3 - Higher education institutions should encourage, welcome, and take account of
student feedback which could detect problems in the teaching and learning environment early on and
lead to faster, more effective improvements. [2]
Quality Indicators:
1. There is a well defined institutional policy and process for receiving student feedback at the
institutional/faculty(school)/department/programme/course/teacher level.
2. Institutional regulations require student participation in all academic committees such as the
Senate, Faculty and Department Councils and Study Programme Committees.
3. Institutional regulations require student participation in the institution’s Internal Quality
Assurance Committee.
4. Institutional regulations provide for a process through which students evaluate teaching and the
teachers at the end of each semester.
5. Institutional regulations provide for a process through which students evaluate regularly (at least
once every two years) their programme of study.
6. The institution provides on-line feedback mechanisms allowing students to provide at any time
feedback with regards to their courses and teachers.
7. Institutional regulations provide for regular meetings throughout the semester with teachers and
head of Department and any other relevant officers allowing students and/or their
representatives to provide feedback.
8. There is a process for analyzing student feedback, discussing the feedback and taking relevant
action.
9. There is a process for publicizing non confidential summary data, conclusions and actions taken
based on data and feedback received.
Recommendation 4 - All staff teaching in higher education institutions in 2020 should have received
certified pedagogical training. Continuous professional education as teachers should become a
requirement for teachers in the higher education sector. [2]
Quality Indicators:
1. The Institution’s Teaching and Learning Strategy emphasizes and focuses on the pedagogical
training of teachers.
2. There is an institutional policy requiring all teachers to have a professional certified qualification
in teaching and learning.
3. The institution’s hiring policies clearly specify that a pedagogical qualification is either required
or considered as an advantage.
4. The institution maintains a Department/Unit that provides pedagogical training.
5. The institution’s regulations require all newly hired teachers to complete an in-house
pedagogical training.
6. The Institution allocates adequate funds for the pedagogical training of teachers both with
regards to acquiring external professional qualifications as well as with regards to in-house
training.
7. The institution’s regulations require all teachers at regular intervals to attend training pedagogy
courses.
8. The institution’s regulations provide for a reduced teaching load for newly-hired teaching staff in
order to attend pedagogical training.
9. The evaluation process and the promotion/ranking of teachers clearly specify that pedagogical
qualifications are considered important for their evaluation/promotion.
Recommendation 5 - Academic staff entrance, progression and promotion decisions should take
account of an assessment of teaching performance alongside other factors. [2]
Quality Indicators:
1. The Institutions Teaching and Learning Strategy clearly states that hiring, progressions and
promotion of teaching staff takes into consideration their teaching performance.

4632
 2. The institution’s hiring policy requires that the hiring interview includes a presentation of the
candidate on teaching and learning as well as a simulation of a teaching session.
3. The institution’s hiring policy requires that the candidate submits a teaching portfolio.
4. The institution’s regulations provide for the assignment of a teaching staff as a mentor to any
newly hired and inexperienced teaching staff.
5. The institution’s regulations for peer evaluation clearly specify that teaching quality is one of the
major pillars of evaluation.
6. The institutions regulations provide for “teaching observations/assessment” of a newly hired
teaching staff by more experienced teaching staff.
7. The institution’s regulations clearly specify that teaching quality is a major criterion for promotion
and ranking of teaching staff.
8. The institution’s regulations clearly specify that new teaching methods and use of IT in teaching
and learning is a criterion for promotion.
9. The institution’s regulations clearly specify that student evaluation of teachers is taken into
consideration for the promotion of teachers.
Recommendation 6 - Heads of institutions and institutional leaders should recognise and reward (e.g.
through fellowships or awards) higher education teachers who make a significant contribution to
improving the quality of teaching and learning, whether through their practice, or through their
research into teaching and learning. [2]
Quality Indicators:
1. The Institutions Teaching and Learning Strategy clearly specifies that those contributing to
enhancing quality of teaching should be recognised and rewarded.
2. The institution has a policy for recognition of and awards for teaching quality.
3. The institution has a policy for recognizing and rewarding teachers based on student
evaluations.
4. The institution has a policy for recognizing and rewarding best practices/case studies in
teaching and learning.
5. The institution has a policy for recognizing and rewarding the integration of research into
teaching.
6. The institution has a policy for recognizing and rewarding teachers who engage in innovative IT-
based teaching/learning.
7. The institution has a policy for recognizing and rewarding those contributing to the pedagogy
and promotion of policies, regulations, practices related to quality teaching.
8. The institution’s regulations provide for the conducting of semester/annual “best teacher”
student surveys.
9. The institution’s regulations provide for publishing the names of those awarded prizes and
rewards.
Recommendation 7 - Curricula should be developed and monitored through dialogue and
partnerships among teaching staff, students, graduates and labour market actors, drawing on new
methods of teaching and learning, so that students acquire relevant skills that enhance their
employability. [2]
Quality Indicators:
1. The Institution methodology/process for designing and evaluating the curriculum entails the
active participation of all stakeholders (teaching staff, students, graduates and social/labour
market partners).
2. The institution supports a student-centre learning model, where teachers become facilitators of
the student learning process and provide methods such as Problem-Based Learning, Simulation
Exercises, Case Studies, Flip Classroom learning, etc. and not just passive lectures.
3. The institution’s regulations ensure that all stakeholders, including students and social
partners/employers, participate in study programme curriculum committees.

4633
 4. The institution’s regulations ensure that the academic programmes include a
practicum/employer placement integrated into the curriculum.
5. The institution’s regulations ensure that invited seminars/lectures delivered by social
partners/employers and labour market actors are organised and delivered to students.
6. The institution’s regulations provide for the existence of “Advisory Councils” consisting of social
partners/labour market actors’ representatives.
7. The learning methods employed include case studies and exposure of students to the labour
market.
8. The institution’s regulations provide for regular surveys/questionnaires to students, graduates
and labour market actors and for analysing and discussing the feedback received, and taking
actions and publicizing the results.
9. The institution’s regulations provide for regular meetings with students, graduates and labour
market actors and for analysing and discussing the feedback received, and taking actions and
publicizing the results.
Recommendation 8 - Student performance in learning activities should be assessed against clear
and agreed learning outcomes, developed in partnership by all faculty members involved in their
delivery. [2]
Quality Indicators:
1. The institution regulations provide for a methodology and a process for designing/evaluating the
curriculum using Learning Outcomes.
2. The institution’s regulations ensure that Programme and Course Learning Outcomes are built
with input from all stakeholders (teachers, students, labour market actors).
3. The institution’s regulations ensure that a process/mechanism exists for checking whether
Programme Learning Outcomes can be achieved though the programme’s courses.
4. The institution’s regulations ensure that Learning Outcomes are SMART (Specific, Measurable,
Achievable, Realistic, Time-Specific).
5. The institution’s regulations provide for checking the Learning Outcomes against the student
workload as estimated/provided/calculated by the students.
6. Each Learning Outcome at the Programme and Course level is associated with learning
methods and assessment methods and is allocated a specific workload.
7. Learning Outcomes are associated with knowledge, skills and competences.
8. The assessment of Learning Outcomes focuses on the assessment of competences.
9. The institution’s regulations provide for a feedback process/mechanism for reviewing Learning
Outcomes and their assessment.
Recommendation 9 - Higher education institutions and national policy makers in partnership with
students should establish counselling, guidance, mentoring and tracking systems to support students
into higher education, and on their way to graduation and beyond. [2]
Quality Indicators:
1. The institution’s Strategy clearly focuses on providing counselling, guidance, mentoring and
tracking systems, to support students into higher education, and on their way to graduation.
2. The institution’s regulations provide a student mentoring system, through which all students are
assigned a teaching staff as a personal tutor/mentor.
3. The institution’s regulations provide for an “open door policy” advising system, through which all
students can seek advice from the highest academic/administrative level personnel.
4. The institution’s regulations provides for the existence of a “Student Help Center” where
students can address various requests and complaints.
5. The institution’s regulations provide for a student monitoring system for regularly reviewing
student academic progress and providing advising to students, especially to those “at risk”, as
well as students with learning disabilities.
6. The institution’s regulations provide for the offering of a “new students orientation programme”.

4634
 7. The institution’s regulations provide for a teacher-staffed “Student Tutorial Center” that provides
tutoring and learning support to students, by offering bridging courses, tutorials and help
sessions in various subject areas.
8. The institution’s regulations provide for a student-staffed “Student Tutorial Center” providing
peer learning support.
9. The institution’s regulations provide for an alumni system to track the career and the well being
of the institution’s alumni.
Recommendation 10 - Higher education institutions should introduce and promote cross-,trans- and
interdisciplinary approaches to teaching, learning and assessment, helping students develop their
breadth of understanding and entrepreneurial and innovative mind-sets. [2]
Quality Indicators:
1. The institution’s Strategy focuses on pcross-,trans- and interdisciplinary approaches to teaching
and learning and assessment, as well as on cultivating in students entrepreneurial and
innovative skills.
2. The institution’s regulations ensure that the curriculum of academic programmes consists not
only of major courses but is enriched with courses from other disciplines.
3. The institution’s regulations ensure that through (2) above or through other means, students are
exposed to teaching and learning from teaching staff of various disciplines.
4. The institution’s regulations ensure that student assessment includes case
studies/practicum/thesis work with the collaboration of social partners and
enterprises/employers.
5. The institutions regulations ensure that the academic curriculum, irrespective of its discipline,
contains Learning Outcomes related to presentation skills, writing skills, communication skills
and research skills.
6. The institutions regulations ensure that the cultivating of the skills mentioned in (5) is done both
within the major courses of an academic programme but also through specific supporting
courses from other disciplines.
7. The institution’s regulations provide for the organization of seminars/invited lectures by teaching
staff/labour market actors and/or teaching staff from other institutions/countries.
8. The institution’s regulations provide for study visits of students to enterprises, research centres,
incubators and technology parks.
9. The institution’s regulations provide for the existence of an entrepreneurship and innovation
centre that provides support for start-up business ideas.
Recommendation 11 - Higher education institutions – facilitated by public administrations and the EU
– should support their teachers so they develop the skills for online and other forms of teaching and
learning opened up by the digital era, and should exploit the opportunities presented by technology to
improve the quality of teaching and learning. [2]
Quality Indicators:
1. The institution’s Strategy focuses on the full utilization of IT in teaching and learning and the
development of relevant IT and e-learning skills in teaching staff and students.
2. The institution is fully committed to providing the funds and the required human and
infrastructure resources to promote and support efficiently and effectively a true e-
learning/blended learning environment.
3. A Specialized IT/E-learning Unit/Department exists that provides to teaching staff support and
relevant training on designing/developing/administering/evaluating e-learning courses.
4. A Specialized IT/E-learning Unit/Department exists that provides support and relevant training
to students for registering, attending and being assessed in e-learning/IT-based courses.
5. The institution’s regulations consider the IT/e-learning certificates of the teaching staff as
important for their evaluation/promotion/ranking.
6. The institution’s regulations provide for award schemes and prizes for teaching staff
introducing innovative teaching and learning IT-based methods and practices.

4635
 7. The institution has a policy and funding mechanism for the IT and e-learning training (either in-
house or outsourced) of teaching staff.
8. The institution’s regulations provide for the inclusion of required e-learning courses within
each academic programme.
9. The institution maintains an Intranet that provides teaching staff and students with virtual
communication and electronic services.
Recommendation 12 - Higher education institutions should develop and implement holistic
internationalisation strategies as an integral part of their overall mission and functions. Increased
mobility of student and staff, international dimension of curricula, international experience of faculty,
with a sufficient command of English and a second foreign language and intercultural competences,
transnational delivery of courses and degrees, and international alliances should become
indispensable components of higher education in Europe and beyond. [2]
Quality Indicators:
1. The institution’s internalization Strategy entails the internalization of the curriculum, the teaching
staff and the student body.
2. The institution’s regulation should ensure that the curriculum of each academic programme
reflects an international/European orientation through the inclusion of relevant courses.
3. The institution’s regulation should ensure that the curriculum of each academic programme
includes courses on European languages and cultures.
4. A good percentage of the teaching staff of the institution has international/European experience
and/or come from other countries.
5. The institution is committed to and actively engaged in the European initiatives and
programmes for student and staff exchanges (Erasmus +, etc.).
6. The institution is committed to developing joint/double/multiple degrees and strategic co-
operations with other institutions with regards to exchange of students and staff.
7. The institution’s regulations encourage students to spend part of their studies in other
institutions/campuses of other countries and/or through e-learning modes of learning.
8. The institution’s regulations encourage sabbatical and/or leave of absence for teaching staff to
work at other institutions abroad.
9. The institution’s regulations encourage practices such as the utilization of Marie Skłodowska-
Curie researchers for the teaching at the institution.

4 THE TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION QUALITY MODEL (THEQM)

The Teaching in Higher Education Quality Model (THEQM) is a model based on the recommendations
and their indicators presented in the previous Section, for measuring the commitment of an institution
to teaching quality. As pointed out before, the indicators address the provision of strategies, policies
and in general the regulatory framework, through which teaching quality can be achieved. They do not
measure the actual implementation of this framework and the practices adopted. It is expected
however, than once the model is adopted, then each institution would take appropriate actions to
achieve teaching quality. Thus the model can help institutions to build their teaching quality regulatory
framework. The existence of practices does not guarantee a continuous effort for achieving teaching
quality. On the contrary the existence of a regulatory framework ensures that strict adherence to its
rules and regulations will provide continuous work towards achieving teaching quality. In this respect,
we have identified some KPIs that can be used to measure and compare over the years the
implementation of the recommendations and the quality indicators.
THEQM calculates for each institution an overall score (0 to 100) and a score within each
recommendation (0 to 9). There are eleven (11) recommendations and each recommendation has
nine (9) indicators. Each index is either satisfied (in which case a score of one (1) is given) or not
satisfied (in which case a score of zero (0) is given). Thus ninety-nine (99) indicators are provided
giving a maximum 99 points if all are satisfied. Another point is given by satisfying the following
Overall Quality Indicator.
Overall Quality Indicator: The institution does not consider any other activity more important than
teaching.

4636
Thus a maximum of one hundred (100) points can be achieved. An institution can thus achieve an
overall score as well as eleven (11) other scores, one (1) for each recommendation. The scale used
for the score within each recommendation as well as for the overall performance is given in Table 1.

Table 1. The Assessment Scale – Level of Commitment to Teaching Quality.

9 Extremely High 90 - 100 Extremely High

8 Very High 80 - 89 Very High
7 High 70 - 79 High
6 Adequate 60 - 69 Adequate
4-5 Average 40 - 59 Average
3 Below Average 30 - 39 Below Average
2 Poor 20 - 29 Poor
1 Very Poor 10 - 19 Very Poor
0 Extremely Poor 0-9 Extremely Poor

5 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR THEQM

In this section, we present the KPIs that can be used to monitor the performance of the proposed
model and to provide throughout periods of time, useful statistics. As many of the proposed KPIs
address more than one recommendation, they are not grouped per recommendation but instead per
four thematic areas: (1) Teaching/Learning Department, (2) e-Learning Unit/Department, (3) Student
Participation and Employers/Social Actors Participation and (4) Academic Study Programmes.

5.1 Teaching/Learning Department KPIs

These KPIs refer to the resources available for the said Department and the activities organised for
both teaching staff and students:
1. Yearly budget for Teaching and Learning Department
2. % of Yearly budget for Teaching and Learning Department (over overall budget)
3. Yearly Budget for teacher pedagogical training.
4. % of Yearly Budget for teacher pedagogical training (over overall budget)
5. Number of Courses offered by the Teaching/Learning Department.
6. Number of Teaching Staff attended pedagogical training courses.
7. % of Staff attended training courses (over total number of staff)
8. Number of staff holding professional qualifications in teaching/learning
9. % of staff holding professional qualifications in teaching/learning (over total number of staff)
10.Number of new staff holding professional qualifications in teaching and learning
11.% of new staff holding professional qualifications in teaching and learning (over number of new
staff)
12.Number of support courses for students organised by the Teaching/Learning Department
13.Number of students attended support courses organised by the Teaching/Learning Department
14.% of students attended support courses organised by the Teaching/Learning Department (over
total number of students)
15.Number of Awards given to staff for teaching quality, teaching innovations and best practices in
teaching/learning.

5.2 E-Learning Unit/Department KPIs

These KPIs similarly refer to the resources available for the said Unit/Department and the activities
organised for both teaching staff and students:

4637
 16. Yearly Budget of IT/E-learning Unit.
17. % of Yearly Budget of IT/E-learning Unit.
18. Number of Staff in IT/E-learning Unit.
19. Number of Training Courses offered by IT/E-learning Unit.
20. Number of Staff attended training courses offered by IT/E-learning Unit.
21. % of Number of Staff attended training courses offered by IT/E-learning Unit
22. Number of E-learning courses.
23. % of E-learning courses (over total number of courses)
24. Number students attended E-learning courses.
25. % of Number of E-learning best practices awards.

5.3 Student Participation and Employers/Social Actors Participation KPIs

These KPIs similarly refer to the involvement of both students and employers/social actors in the
design, delivery and quality assurance of academic study programmes:
26. Number of student suggestions for improving teaching quality
27. Average score of student evaluation of teachers questionnaires
28. Number of Items on Meetings Agendas suggested by Students
29. Number of employers/social partners participating in committees.
30. Number of Suggestions by employers/social partners.
31. Number of Invited lectures/seminars.
32. Number of programmes including Practicum in the curriculum
33. % of programmes including Practicum in the curriculum.
34. Number of Final Thesis related to employers/social partners.
35. % of Final Thesis related to employers/social partners
36. Number of Study visits to enterprises.
37. Number of Start-up initiatives.
38. Number of programme review meetings per year.

5.4 Academic Study Programmes KPIS

These KPIs similarly refer to the curriculum of programmes, joint/double programmes, internalization
of programmes and student performance:
39. Attrition rate
40. Graduation rate
41. Average Grade
42. Number of Programmes with inter-disciplinary courses.
43. % of Programmes with inter-disciplinary courses (over total number of programmes)
44. Number of Students taking inter- disciplinary courses
45. % of Students taking inter- disciplinary courses
46. Number of EU courses
47. Number of EU language and culture courses.
48. Number of International staff.
49. % of international staff (over total number of staff)
50. Number of EU exchange visits of staff
51. % of EU exchange visits of staff (over total number of staff)
52. Number of Double/joint degrees.

4638
As pointed out in the Introduction, we are in the process of building a web-based tool, THEQMTool
that will support THEQM. Version 2 of the Tool will also support the automation of the statistics and
relevant charts, emanating from the measurement of the KPIs over periods of time. The specifications
of version 1 of the tool were briefly introduced in [8]. Below we present (Figure 2), a preliminary screen
design as we envisage it, in order to support the recording of the KPIs values over periods of time and
the facilities available for creating charts and calculating averages, maximum and minimum values.

Figure 2. An preliminary design screen interface of THEQMTool KPI results.

6 CONCLUSIONS
This paper has presented the Teaching in Higher Education Quality Model (THEQM), which can be
used to measure the commitment of institutions of Higher Education to teaching quality. The model
addresses 11 recommendations and provides 100 quality indicators that when satisfied give a highest
score of 100. The model classifies the commitment of the institutions based on the score (0 to 100) in
a scale of “Extremely High, Very High, High, Adequate, Average, Below Average, Poor, Very Poor and
Extremely Poor”, and allows an institution to find out how its commitment compares to other
institutions. Finally, we have suggested a large number of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that can
be used to asses the implementation of the recommendations and quality indicators, i.e. the extent to
which activities and measures are taken to achieve teaching quality. We are currently in the process of
developing a web-based tool, namely THEQMTool that will support THEQM. Version 1 of the tool will
implement the support of the quality indicators, whereas Version 2 will add functionality for the KPIs.

REFERENCES
[1] European Commission (2013) , Higher Education Modernization Agenda,
http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/agenda_en.htm
[2] McAleese, M., Bladh, A., Berger, V., Bode, C., Muehlfeit, J., Petrin, T., Schiesaro, A. and
Tsoukalis, L: (2013), Improving the quality of teaching and learning in Europe’s higher education
institutions, EC,http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc/modernisation_en.pdf
[3] Hénard, F. (2010), Learning our lesson: Review of Quality Teaching in Higher Education,
OECD Publications, http://www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/44058352.pdf
[4] Hénard, F. and Leprince-Ringuet, S. (2010),The path to quality teaching in Higher Education,
OECD Publications, http://www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/44150246.pdf
[5] Hénard, F. and Roseveare, D (2012), Fostering Quality Teaching in Higher Education: Policies
and Practices, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/QT%20policies%20and%20practices.pdf
[6] Letrud, K. 2012. A Rebuttal of NTL Institute's Learning Pyramid, Education, Vol. 133, No. 1

4639
[7] Shandley, l. 2013 The Learning Pyramid,
http://www.virtuala.com.au/essays/learningpyramid.html
[8] Pouyioutas, P. 2014 The Teaching in Higher Education Quality Model (THEQM) - Ninenty Nine
Plus One Quality Indicators, 8th International Technology, Education and Development
Conference, Valencia, Spain, March 2014, pp. 4875 – 4885.

4640