Here we present the results of our research conducted between 2015 and 2017 on the effectiveness of teaching and learning at Moholy-Nagy University of Art and Design (MOME), with an emphasis on student views. The aim of our study was not only to describe the present situation, but also to reflect on the teaching and learning processes with the participation of those involved. This process helps the community to realize the need for change and also sets directions for it, which might serve as the basis for development programs.

Indicators of quality higher education are versatile. Earlier studies, such as Grubb and Lazerson (2007) examined the effectiveness of teaching and learning by data taken from the outer environments e.g. socio-economic fulfillment. Presently, inner perspectives are increasingly used in research.

The key factor in our inner perspective research was pedagogical awareness and reflection (Biggs-Tang, 2007; Hénard, 2010; 2012; Hoidn – Kärkkäinen 2014; Tuning, 2005). Several dimensions of the teaching and learning process are not explored or reflected upon in this art university, similarly to other higher education institutions. The pedagogical background of most teachers is relatively shallow, and they teach instinctively, without a deeper knowledge of learning processes.

However, in our fast changing information society students of art universities are also required to gain competence-based knowledge, which can hardly be achieved in the traditional master–pupil teaching set up. The role of conscious teaching and learning planning is becoming more and more important. Our graduates, the future autonomous and applied artists will be required to accommodate to the needs and possibilities of every character in their work process (artists, clients, partners etc.) and to the fast changing technological environment, in local and global context as well. Since the introduction of the Bologna system, MOME has increasingly applied the principles of outcomes and competence-based education, which changes pedagogical culture and the relationship between the participants.

The background of this research was a synthesis of theories on pedagogical processes and learning climate (Creemers, Kyriakides & Sammons, 2010), based on previous international and Hungarian research on learning effectiveness. The main question is where the university community of MOME is in the above process? How do people see teaching and learning properties of the university and of themselves?

Our empirical study searched answers for the following research questions: (i) How reflective are the parties? (ii) How do they define the essence of teaching and learning for themselves? (iii) How do student–student, teacher–student and teacher–teacher interactions enhance effectiveness and help students? (iv) How do they see each other’s priorities? (v) What is valid knowledge? (vi) What attitudes are needed for effectiveness?  and  (wii) What requirements are needed and how much are these present?

Biggs, J. B. & Tang, C. (2007) Teaching for quality learning at university. Open University Press/Mc Graw-Hill Education. Creemers, B. P. M. & Kyriakides, L. (2008): The dynamics of educational effectiveness: a contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. Routledge, London. Creemers, B.P.M – Kyriakides, L. – Sammons, P. (eds.) (2010): Methodological. Advances in Educational Effectiveness Research. London and New York. Grubb, W. N. & Lazerson, M. (2007) Education gospel. The Economic Power of Schooling. Harvard University Press. Hénard, F. (2010): Learning Our Lesson: Review of Quality Teaching in Higher Education. OECD Publishing, doi: 10.1787/9789264079281-en Hoidn, S. & Kärkkäinen, K. (2014): Promoting Skills for Innovation in Higher Education: A Literature Review on the Effectiveness of Problem-based Learning and of Teaching Behaviours. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 100, OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/5k3tsj67l226-en Tuning (2005) Tuning Educational Structures in Europe II. (Gonzalez, J. – Wagenaar, R. eds.), University of Deusto and University of Groningen Further references to the research: Åkerlind, G. S. (2003): Growing and Developing as a University Teacher – Variation on meaning, Studies in Higher Education, 28., 4. sz. 375-390. Biggs, J. (1993): What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63. 1. sz. 3–19. Kember, D. (1998) Teaching beliefs and their impact on students’ approach to learning. In Dart B. & Boulton-Lewis, G. (Eds.) Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Victoria, ACER Press Postareff, L. & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2008) Variation in teachers’ descriptions of teaching: Broadening the understanding of teaching in higher education. In: Learning an Instruction. Vol. 18, No. 2., April 2008 Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students’ perceptions of academic quality and approaches to studying in distance education. In British Educational Research Journal, 31, 7–27. Sadlo, G., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2003). Approaches to studying and perceptions of the academic environment in students following problem-based and subject-based curricula. In Higher Education Research and Development, 22, 253–274.