Reviewing teaching behaviour through classroom observations
Updated Mar 15, 2026
What separates a competent lecture from one that genuinely improves student learning? Noben and colleagues argue that the answer lies in a set of observable teaching behaviours, and their study gives institutions a practical way to identify where lecturers need support rather than relying on assumptions alone. They focus on classroom interaction and group those teaching behaviours into six prominent categories:
- Safe and stimulating learning climate
- Efficient organisation (classroom management)
- Clarity of instruction
- Intensive and activating teaching
- Teaching learning strategies
- Differentiation
The first three behaviours are foundational, while the last three are advanced. In practice, lecturers need those foundations in place before they can consistently use more demanding behaviours such as active teaching, learning-strategy coaching, and differentiation. Drawing on Akerlind (2003) and Fuller (1969), the authors frame teaching development as a progression from concern with self, to task, to student outcomes. They therefore expected to observe stronger performance in foundational behaviours than advanced ones, and to find that larger class sizes made advanced practice harder.
The study is useful because it rests on direct observation rather than anecdote. The researchers analysed 203 classroom observations across soft and hard science disciplines, covering bachelor's and master's teaching and lecturers with 0 to 44 years of experience. Twenty-five trained observers used a slightly adapted version of the ICALT (International Comparative Analysis of Learning and Teaching) instrument, which scores 35 items from 1 to 4. One example item asked whether "the lecturer presents societal or research developments of the topic". Those item scores were then combined into an overall teaching score.
The clearest strength was the learning climate. All observed teachers scored either sufficient (2.5 to 3.5) or excellent (>3.5) in the safe and stimulating learning climate domain, and none were rated insufficient. The other foundational domains were more mixed: 66.5% of lecturers were sufficient in efficient organisation, and 65% were sufficient in clear and structured instruction. That matters because solid foundations make advanced practice more realistic, but they do not guarantee it.
The sharpest drop appears in intensive and activating teaching. Only 4.9% of lecturers scored excellent, 42.4% were sufficient, and 52.7% were insufficient. For institutions, this is the critical takeaway: many lecturers can run a class competently without yet creating the kind of active, two-way teaching that improves engagement and learning, particularly in STEM settings, as Freeman et al. (2014) note. Intensive and activating teaching requires more than presenting content. It asks lecturers to question students, prompt discussion, check understanding in real time, and build sessions around participation rather than one-way delivery, including approaches used in large active-learning classrooms with student response systems.
That gap points to a professional development problem, not just a performance problem. If lecturers know these practices matter but struggle to apply them consistently, institutions should move beyond generic teaching advice and offer targeted support. Small changes can help: asking students direct questions, building in group discussion, using flipped classroom elements in small-group teaching, and setting aside time for in-class problem solving. These actions make active teaching more visible to students and easier for lecturers to sustain.
Results were also weak in teaching and learning strategies. Only 3.4% of lecturers scored excellent, 38.5% were sufficient, and 58.1% were insufficient. This matters because learning strategies shape whether students can encode, retain, and retrieve new knowledge, a point developed by Fryer and Vermunt (2018). In higher education, where students are expected to become independent critical thinkers, lecturers need to make those strategies explicit rather than assume students will develop them on their own.
The final advanced domain, differentiation, was almost entirely absent. Observers rated 95% of lecturers insufficient, suggesting that very few adapted instruction for different needs, backgrounds, or levels of prior understanding. The authors suggest this may reflect how new the concept still was in practice, combined with the short seven-week course length, which limited how well lecturers could get to know their students. For providers, the implication is clear: inclusive teaching cannot depend on individual goodwill alone; it needs time, support, and course designs that make adaptation possible.
Class size also mattered. In almost every domain, lecturers teaching larger classes scored lower than those teaching smaller groups. That does not excuse weaker practice, but it does show why teaching quality cannot be treated as an individual lecturer issue alone. If institutions want more active, differentiated teaching, they need to create conditions in which lecturers can actually use those behaviours.
This case study suggests that higher education providers should focus less on whether lecturers cover content and more on whether they help students participate, think, and adapt. Supporting intensive and activating teaching, teaching-learning strategies, and differentiation will require clearer expectations, smaller teaching groups where possible, and development tied to real classroom practice. If you want to see where students describe unclear teaching, passive delivery, or inconsistent support, explore Student Voice Analytics to identify those patterns at scale.
FAQ
Q: How do students perceive the importance and effectiveness of these teaching behaviours?
A: Students usually notice these behaviours through how easy it is to engage, ask questions, and understand what good performance looks like. A safe climate, clear instruction, and efficient organisation reduce friction, while advanced behaviours such as active teaching and differentiation make learning feel more relevant and responsive. Priorities still vary by cohort and subject, which is why direct student feedback matters. Without that feedback, institutions risk overvaluing what looks strong in an observation and undervaluing what feels useful to students.
Q: What role does Student Voice play in the development and assessment of teaching behaviours?
A: Student voice in higher education gives institutions a second lens on teaching behaviour. Classroom observations show what an observer sees; student comments reveal whether teaching felt clear, engaging, supportive, and inclusive over time. Used together, they help providers identify where professional development is needed and whether changes are improving the learning experience.
Q: Are there any text analysis methods employed to assess the quality of classroom interactions or teaching materials?
A: The paper itself does not use text analysis, but text analysis can strengthen this kind of review. Analysing module feedback, NSS comments with a clear analysis methodology, and learning-platform discussions can highlight recurring issues in clarity, engagement, pace, or inclusion that observations may miss. That gives course teams a scalable way to spot patterns, prioritise support, and track whether teaching changes improve the student experience.
References
[Source Paper] Ine Noben, Jan Folkert Deinum & W. H. Adriaan Hofman (2020) Quality of teaching in higher education: reviewing teaching behaviour through classroom observations, International Journal for Academic Development,
DOI: 10.1080/1360144X.2020.1830776
[1] Akerlind, G. S. (2003). Growing and developing as a university teacher: Variation in meaning. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 375–390.
DOI: 10.1080/0307507032000122242
[2] Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineer- ing, and mathematics. PNAS, 111(23), 8410–8415.
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111
[3] Fryer, L. K., & Vermunt, J. D. (2018). Regulating approaches to learning: Testing learning strategy convergences across a year at university. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 21–41.
DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12169
Request a walkthrough
Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
- All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
- Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
- Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround
Related Entries
- Active Learning Strategies
- Trust and Active Learning
- Student Response Systems in Large Active-Learning Classrooms