In Norway, there is a regulatory requirement for a mandatory 200-hour course in basic university pedagogical competence for educators. However, the regulatory text stated by the Ministry, always made an exemption for staff with a significant teaching experience or teacher training in former careers. The interpretation of what counts as significant, or sufficient experience, has varied with institutions and their pragmatic needs.

We decided to offer, in addition to the mandatory university pedagogical course,  a separate track for staff with the said significant and experienced background, inspired by Swedish practices and specifically Karlstad University. It is the experiences from this practice during the period 2021-2024 that we wish to discuss in this paper, including aspects of the scheme that have worked well and those that have not. Finally, we will present some recommendations for potential future use of validation of basic university pedagogical.

The research questions in this study are:

1. How have the requirements for pedagogical competence held by university teachers changed over time, and what consequences has this had for staff at HINN/INN?

2. How has the validation process for pedagogical competence functioned for staff who have not undergone formal training?

Our university is a result of efforts to merge two university colleges, to become the University of Inland Norway in 2024. The increase in pedagogical competence requirements in the sector has resulted in a significant need for competence enhancement among staff, partly due to efforts to achieve university status. A regulatory change in 2019 required documentation of university pedagogical competence for promotion to associate professor. HINN established the “Department for University Teaching and Learning” in 2018 to meet this need. The capacity for pedagogical training was significantly expanded from 2020.

One important result was that approximately 60 colleagues enlisted to do the alternative track to have former pedagogical experience validated – as being equivalent to the regular 200 hrs course.

The challenge has been to assure that those following the alternative track are facing some of the same challenges as their colleagues doing the “normal course” (Eriksen, Nordkvelle & Strøm, 2024). This course entails a number of processes that are difficult to emulate. Building on established practices in other universities (Lycke & Handal, 2018), the normal course is composed as a programme that acknowledges participant's existing experiences and via dialogues and discussions elicits their ideas and philosophies of teaching and learning. Reflecting and discussing standpoints and exposing them to peers is a vital element in our practice, leaning on theoretical contributions from Handal & Lauvås (1987) and Klemp (2013). The regular course challenges participants systematically to open their practices. The syllabus contains issues like planning, teaching, observing, supervising, and assessing fellow participants. Topics like philosophy and ethics of higher education (Barnett, 2022), teaching and supervising skills, developing digital learning material, and doing a Research & Development project in groups of 2-5 members are covered.

The validation track therefore needed to include some of these vital traits. The validation seminar was designed to cater for that. The reflective element was challenged by demanding the participants to write a rather extensive pedagogical portfolio (Seldin, 1991, Allern, 2011, Winka & Ryegård, 2019) and circulate among fellow participants. The validation seminar gave the participants an opportunity to demonstrate their teaching skills when they presented their portfolio for colleagues and a tribunal of examiners. They were also obliged to comment and assess fellow participants’ performance and discuss the overall session with the tribunal. The reflection process was prolonged by challenging the participants to revise their portfolios after the actual seminar and re-send for final approval or rejection by the examining tribunal.

The study is divided into three parts: a historical review (Lycke & Handal, 2018) of the pedagogical training of academic staff, a text analysis of pedagogical portfolios submitted by staff for validation of pedagogical competence, and a group interview. Regarding the analysis of the pedagogical portfolios, a selection of eight was made (Asdal & Reinertsen, 2020). The evaluation of the applications followed HINN's recommendations for pedagogical portfolios and focused on six main areas: 1. Description of pedagogical beliefs or philosophy. 2. CV showing the applicant's experience and education. 3. List of teaching, supervision, and assessment methods used. 4. Reflections on personal plans and thoughts on self-development. 5. Experience in developing teaching and study quality. 6. Completed peer guidance. The group interview (Brinkmann & Tanggaard, 2020) was conducted with seven academic staff members who had previously used the validation scheme. The selection represented a broad distribution of gender and seniority (from 6 to 26 years). The interview was conducted via Teams and focused on how participants received information about the validation scheme, their motivation for applying, and their experience of the application process and the validation seminar.

Overall, the study has contributed to uncovering important insights into how employees at INN relate to the requirements for basic pedagogical competence and how the validation process can be improved. The analysis of the pedagogical portfolios showed significant variations in scope, position type, and years of service. The analysis also revealed substantial differences in the number of pages, number of attachments, and the total length of the applications. Participants in the validation process have expressed that writing their portfolio was educational, but they also pointed out deficiencies in information and support from the faculty. The validation seminars have contributed to peer review and reflection, but not all found these equally useful. The processes have been time-consuming but also rewarding for most, who now have a pedagogical portfolio they can use later. The validation process itself has further functioned as a valuable mechanism to recognize and document basic pedagogical competence. It has promoted discussions about pedagogical competence and highlighted the collegial dimension. For the future, it is recommended that the faculties develop their own routines based on the experiences from the validation seminars. However, if the faculties are to determine whether the pedagogical competence from other contexts is equivalent to a 200-hour course, we recommend that the methodology from the validation seminar be followed, preferably in collaboration with the Section for University and College Pedagogy and Quality. This will ensure that our employees are assessed on whether they already have the necessary university pedagogical competence, and that the institution INN better ensures the requirements for pedagogical quality in higher education.

Allern, M. (2011). Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) i Norge: Pedagogiske mapper som bidrag til pedagogisk diskurs. Uniped, 34( 20–29. Asdal, K., & Reinertsen, Hilde. (2020). Hvordan gjøre dokumentanalyse : en praksisorientert metode (1. utgave.). Cappelen Damm akademisk. Barnett, R. (2022). The philosophy of higher education : a critical introduction. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Brinkmann, S., & Tanggaard, L. (Eds.). (2020). Kvalitative metoder : en grundbog (3. udg.). Hans Reitzel. Eriksen, S., Nordkvelle, Y. T., & Strøm, B. w. (2024). Hvordan kan vi dokumentere økt didaktisk forståelse og pedagogisk utvikling blant undervisere i høyere utdanning? Högre Utbildning, 14(2), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.23865/hu.v14.3730 Handal, G., & Lauvås, P.(1987). Promoting reflective teaching : supervision in practice (p. XII, 116). Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Klemp, T. (2013). Refleksjon – hva er det, og hvilken betydning har den i utdanning til profesjonell lærerpraksis? Uniped, 36, 42–58. https://doi.org/10.3402/uniped.v36i1.20957 Lycke, K. H., & Handal, G. (2018). Kurs i universitetspedagogikk: Et 50-årsperspektiv. Uniped, 41(3), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1893-8981-2018-03-02 Seldin, P. (1991). The teaching portfolio: A practical guide to improved performance and promotion/tenure decisions. Anker. Winka, K., & Ryegård, Åsa. (2019). Pedagogisk portfölj : för karriär och utveckling (Andra upplagan.). Studentlitteratur.