Paper short abstract:

Brought down into the larger framework of higher education policy reforms in Europe, the following paper aims to problematise the alleged necessity of formal pedagogical training in order to improve one's teaching skills and competencies.

Paper long abstract:

Starting in the 1980s, the spill-over of managerial ideas from the spheres of industry, business and finance to various public spheres has resulted in discussions of the need for public service providers to be kept accountable. For higher education, this shift has been accompanied by new organisational forms structuring academic activity, as well as new ways of conceptualising academics' professional roles.

Brought down into the framework of higher education policy reforms in Europe, the following paper aims to problematise the requirement of formal pedagogical training in order to be certified as a university teacher - an idea vehemently promoted by university management. Not denying the value of such training, ethnographic accounts show that taking courses in university pedagogy as a 'must' is often experienced as yet another way of evaluating academic performance and subjecting teaching to explicit and externally imposed criteria (as demonstrated by the increasing importance attached to the certification of teaching skills and the careful documentation of course content, objectives, outcomes, etc.,).

In particular, the discussion will focus on the experiences of teachers as students, in the context of pedagogy courses provided at Stockholm University. How do academics involved in those courses conceive of the effects of formal training on their teaching? What happens to discipline-specific values and competencies, when everyone is required (under Bologna) to embrace the same pedagogic philosophy of constructive alignment (Biggs, 2003), adopt the language of learning outcomes, and assign the same standards to diverse academic practices?