Comparison of Hiring and Promotion Criteria Linked to Teaching, Educational Development and Professional Engineering Skills

Asdis Hlokk Theodorsdottir, Ingunn Saemundsdottir, Johan Malmqvist, Sylvain Turenne and Siegfried Rouvrais ()
Additional contact information
Asdis Hlokk Theodorsdottir: Reykjavík University - Reykjavík University
Ingunn Saemundsdottir: Reykjavík University - Reykjavík University
Johan Malmqvist: Chalmers University of Technology [Göteborg]
Siegfried Rouvrais: PASS - Process for Adaptative Software Systems - Télécom Bretagne - IRISA-D4 - LANGAGE ET GÉNIE LOGICIEL - IRISA - Institut de Recherche en Informatique et Systèmes Aléatoires - UR - Université de Rennes - INSA Rennes - Institut National des Sciences Appliquées - Rennes - INSA - Institut National des Sciences Appliquées - UBS - Université de Bretagne Sud - ENS Rennes - École normale supérieure - Rennes - Inria - Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique - Télécom Bretagne - CentraleSupélec - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, INFO - Département informatique - UEB - Université européenne de Bretagne - European University of Brittany - Télécom Bretagne - IMT - Institut Mines-Télécom [Paris]

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: Within the higher education system, criteria for promotion based on research quality and contribution are well established and widely accepted. For teaching, on the other hand, such criteria have generally not been developed and implemented to the same degree. This poses a challenge for the implementation of the Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate (CDIO) standards 9 and 10, which deal with the enhancement of faculty CDIO skills and faculty teaching skills. To be able to implement these standards successfully, universities need to have in place effective ways of evaluating teaching contribution and professional engineering experience. To support the implementation of CDIO standards 9 and 10, excellence in teaching and progressive educational development based on engineering experience must be acknowledged and rewarded. This paper compares hiring and promotion policies and criteria for the evaluation of teaching contribution and educational development in four selected universities in Europe and North America. Conclusions are drawn with regard to the CDIO standards 9 and 10 and perspectives for future development of such criteria discussed.

Keywords: Promotion; Academic; Criteria; Hiring policies; Education; Educational development; Skills; Engineering; Experience and search good; SOTL; Formation des maîtres; Carriere; Enseignant; Reconnaissance des formateurs; Pédagogie; Pedagogical model; Pedagogical method (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2013-06-09
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-edu
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-00846190v1
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in CDIO 2013 : 9th International Conference: Engineering Leadership in Innovation and Design MIT & Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cambridge, MA, USA., Jun 2013, Cambridge, Ma, United States

Downloads: (external link)
https://hal.science/hal-00846190v1/document (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00846190

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().