The Institutional Strategy and Undergraduate Teaching in World-Class Universities – Case Study in China, United Kingdom and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until recently, research universities did not treat teaching as a priority. Scholars have identified two reasons for this: first, universities’ responsibility to serve the public interest and to deliver social benefits in their role as public goods, and second, the growing competition for students in higher education marketplaces. However, there may be additional reasons which apply to varying degrees in different countries. In addition, higher education institutions have become more managerial and strategic to face the challenges of resource allocation for various missions and stakeholders. However, there is little empirical evidence proving the value of these approaches when applied in practice. \n \nThis research investigates how undergraduate teaching quality is strategically addressed in so-called world-class universities, and how it is conceptualised in regard to both the managerial logic embedded in strategy development and the academic logic underpinning approaches to undergraduate teaching. It draws upon Lave and Wenger’s (1991) concept of ‘community of practice’ as an overarching framework to explore how world-class universities address undergraduate teaching and to interpret how faculty members perceive and respond to institutional decisions. \n \nThe research design is founded on a comparative case study between leading Chinese, British, and Canadian universities, reflecting on continental, national, institutional, and disciplinary similarities and differences. Data was collected through strategic documents and interviews with academics (n = 56), leadership staff (n = 21), and administrative staff (n = 15) involved with undergraduate teaching in engineering faculties. \n \nThree main themes are identified: the use of communities of practice as a strategic device, the contested idea of student-centred learning, and the evolution of academic career structures, including implications for the teaching and research nexus. The Canadian case represents a more recognisable model of strategised undergraduate teaching quality through standardised approaches, the British example is identified as a traditional academic model involving managerial pressure, while the Chinese case exemplifies a model where teaching is emphasised at a strategic level, whereas research is emphasised more heavily in practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".