Labour market perspectives and evaluation more strongly integrated into higher education curricula

The Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) has published the report Developing Curriculum Work in Higher Education Institutions [Opetussuunnitelmatyön kehittäminen korkeakouluissa], which compiles universities’ and universities of applied sciences’ views on the current state and development needs of curriculum work.

The publication Developing Curriculum Work in Higher Education Institutions examines the current state of curriculum work and its development needs in Finnish higher education institutions. A curriculum defines the competencies that higher education should produce and how education should respond to the changing needs of society, labour market, and students. The evaluation is based on a key finding from the evaluation Status and Renewal of Higher Education Pedagogy, that curriculum processes, participation practices, and evaluation procedures require further development. The publication draws on extensive survey data from this evaluation, with responses from 36 higher education institutions and more than 3,000 teachers.

Curriculum work engages staff

Higher education curricula are typically renewed every one to five years, while smaller content and implementation changes are made annually. The process is guided by institutional strategies and policies. Faculties or units are responsible for implementing curriculum work in cooperation with teachers, students, and external stakeholders. According to the results, curriculum work is a strategy-driven and participatory process that combines long-term planning with continuous development.

Most teachers felt they were able to influence the curriculum, but less than half (48%) considered that their expertise was utilised in a diverse manner. Collaboration with labour market was seen as a more integral part of curriculum work in universities of applied sciences than in research universities, where it remained limited. Participation of labour market representatives was low: under one fifth (18%) of university teachers and slightly more than one third (35%) of teachers in universities of applied sciences reported their involvement.

Students can participate somewhat more actively in curriculum work than labour market representatives. Just under half (46%) of university teachers and a little over one third (35%) of teachers in universities of applied sciences felt that student perspectives were considered in a diverse way.

Curriculum renewal must allow time for evaluation

In both higher education sectors, feedback was perceived to influence the curriculum, but systematic evaluation of curricula was rare. Key development needs highlighted were clarifying and harmonising the curriculum process, ensuring sufficient resources and technical support, and systematising the evaluation of curriculum work. Higher education institutions also wished for curriculum work to be more flexible, continuous, and more strongly grounded in educational strategies and pedagogical research.

– The development of curricula, like all activities in higher education institutions, should be based on up-to-date research, evaluation, and foresight information. Curriculum work should make broader use of the pedagogical, research-related, and administrative expertise within institutions, says Counsellor of Evaluation Mira Huusko from FINEEC.

FINEEC recommends clarifying the leadership and division of responsibilities in curriculum work, strengthening cooperation with labour market, and utilise more evaluation, research, and foresight data. Higher education institutions are encouraged to establish systems that support the evaluation and monitoring of curricula.

The evaluation report

Curriculum Work in Higher Education Institutions [Opetussuunnitelmatyön kehittäminen korkeakouluissa, Tiivistelmät 10:2025)