New Framework for Teaching and Learning at Uppsala University

At the university´s Teaching and Learning conference held on 13 November, the new Framework for Teaching and Learning was launched, together with a support material for teachers and a student guide (in Swedish).

At the opening of the conference, Esbjörn Larsson, Dean at the Faculty of Educational Sciences and chair of the programme’s working group, and Anna Enerud, one of the student representatives in the working group, formally presented the new framework. As examples of new areas addressed in the document, both highlighted the newly added chapter on third-cycle (doctoral) education. The chapter sheds light on an area that has previously received limited attention, and, together with the other parts of the programme, captures the dual roles of doctoral candidates as both teachers and students. Another innovation mentioned was the support material The Pedagogical Programme in Practice, which provides resources, references, and inspiration for teachers.

The Student Guide (in Swedish) also drew significant attention. Written by Elsa Ewert, President of the Uppsala Student Union 2024–2025, and Sigrid Welin, President of the Pharmaceutical Student Union, the guide offers tips and guidance for studies at Uppsala University “with warmth, humour, and great dedication,” as the Deputy Vice-Chancellor writes in her foreword. The guide was warmly welcomed by many conference participants.

During the panel discussion New Frameworkfor Teaching and Learning at Uppsala University – What Happens Next?, moderator Maja Elmgren continued to explore the framework together with the Deans of Education — Sofia Ahlberg, Lisa Freyhult, and Anja Sandström — along with Felix Ho, Distinguished Teacher and teacher representative in the working group; and Elsa Ewert and Anna Enerud. The discussion began with the question: What is the most important aspect of the new pedagogical programme? Here, there was broad agreement that one of the framework’s strengths lies in its overarching character: rather than adopting rapidly shifting trends, it highlights key principles such as critical thinking, academic integrity, and creativity grounded in scholarship, while also clarifying Uppsala University’s position on central educational issues. Its clear allocation of roles and responsibilities further provides a sense of security for both teachers and students, particularly those transitioning from upper secondary school to higher education who need to know what is expected of them. The inclusion of doctoral education was also considered an important addition.

How does the programme relate to generative AI? was a follow-up question, where several panellists emphasised that technological perspectives should not be the main focus; instead, general academic skills and approaches — such as the ability to search for and critically evaluate information — are central. Creativity also plays an important role: As teachers, we teach with both body and soul, and a creative and playful approach goes hand in hand with learning, as one panellist expressed it.

The question of the framework´s status engaged both the panel and the audience: Does the programme prescribe what we must or should do, or does it rather describe what we aim for? While one audience member argued that the programme should have been more explicit and ambitious in its prescriptive function — with more “musts” and fewer “mays”— another found it refreshing that the programme does not function as a top-down directive. This leaves room for action which may, at times, even surpass the framework’s intentions. The panel noted that a similar discussion had taken place within the working group, particularly regarding the document’s title. One of the panellists emphasised that its subtitle, “aims and visions,” allows for variation. The programme does not define a minimum common denominator for what is done today; it represents something more. It provides support for teachers wishing to pursue a more visionary direction, while also encouraging collegial collaboration in which teachers inspire and support one another. Finally, it was noted that the question of the document´s status and title entail a complexity with inherent contradictions that we must be able to live with.

When asked whether the framework is part of New Public Management (NPM), the panel leaned towards answering no. Someone noted that the programme’s level of ambition may feel stressful, especially for new teachers. At the same time, it was emphasised that the framework is a collegially developed document and can therefore be seen as a joint declaration of what teachers and students stand for together.