An Inquiry into the Nature of Teaching and Learning practices at the Royal University of Bhutan

Abstract

Teaching and learning practices in higher education have been the focus of educational research for more than a decade in many countries contributing to the international debate. In Bhutan however, relatively few studies have explored teaching practices in the tertiary sector and this study breaks new ground. This study examines the nature of teaching and learning practices in a representative sample of the colleges of the Royal University of Bhutan (RUB). The establishment of the Royal University of Bhutan saw the introduction of the 'Wheel of Academic Law', which introduced new policy guidelines for tertiary teaching. Its introduction was one of several factors that prompted this study. This policy obliges RUB staff to make a conceptual shift in their teaching, from earlier reliance on the input model (transmission/teacher-centred) to a learning-outcomes model with students becoming responsible for their own learning (facilitation/learner-centred). The motive was to improve teaching and learning practices at the RUB, a motive that led to the establishment of the Centre for University Learning and Teaching in 2008. Even more recently the RUB (July 2011) gained recognition as an autonomous organisation, separate from the Royal Civil Service Commission (RCSC) in Bhutan. This move has again generated interest in and commitment to enhancing the quality of its teaching and learning. It was critical and timely to examine the nature of the teaching and learning practices at the RUB with a view to the enhancement of practices. The purpose of this study was to identify the nature and the extent of the gap between what is intended by the RUB as set out in the 'Wheel of Academic Law' and what is actually practiced. This study employed qualitative research based on interpretivist principles using the case study design. A mixed-methods approach was used, that included lesson observations, questionnaires, interviews, and field notes. An analytical framework consisting of seven categories based on existing literature that covered planning, implementation, and evaluation classroom practices was developed to analyse the data. Participants included 36 academic staff, 805 students, and 15 academic support staff at five of the ten Colleges of RUB.