Abstract:

Contemporary higher education is increasingly shaped by the interaction of two partly competing logics: centrally defined systems of funding, planning, quality assurance, and accountability, and growing institutional expectations for flexibility, individualisation, and innovation in teaching and learning. This interaction has become particularly pronounced with the expansion of hybrid and remote teaching formats, accelerated by technological development, student mobility, and post-pandemic institutional practices. While these delivery modes are now established components of academic provision, they challenge prevailing approaches to teaching quality and academic workload, which remain largely grounded in models of physical presence and contact-hour allocation.

The aim of this study is to critically examine how quantification-based management and quality assurance frameworks in higher education align with the operational realities of hybrid and remote teaching. Specifically, the analysis addresses the extent to which existing institutional metrics are capable of capturing qualitative dimensions of academic work, including dialogic interaction, continuous supervision, asynchronous engagement, and pedagogical adaptability, which are central to digitally mediated learning environments.

The study adopts a qualitative analytical approach with elements of empirical, case-based inquiry. Its core consists of a case study of one Electrical Engineering programme at Western Norway University of Applied Sciences (HVL), delivered in parallel to on-campus students (with selected hybrid components) and to remote students, predominantly via asynchronous modes. This case study is complemented by comparative institutional insights derived from teaching practice and organisational frameworks at Volda University College, OsloMet, and NTNU. In addition, the analysis incorporates preliminary student survey results from the HVL programme. Although students are not directly aware of formal workload accounting or staff evaluation mechanisms, their responses provide indirect empirical support by highlighting expectations related to teaching quality, accessibility, organisation, and academic support.

The results point to a structural mismatch between prevailing workload and quality models and the actual method of hybrid and remote teaching. Predominantly quantitative indicators, such as contact hours, standardised supervision limits, and student–teacher ratios, offer limited recognition of distributed teaching activities, including virtual consultations, iterative online feedback, and the ongoing maintenance of digital learning environments. As a consequence, substantial components of academic work remain weakly represented in formal reporting and resource allocation systems.

The study concludes that these tensions should not be interpreted solely as systemic deficiencies but as an opportunity to reassess dominant approaches to teaching quality and workload assessment. The development of more adaptable institutional frameworks that combine quantitative accountability with qualitatively informed evaluation criteria may strengthen institutional sustainability while supporting coherent and meaningful learning experiences across on-campus, hybrid, and remote contexts.

Keywords:

Higher Education, Standardization, Quantification, Accountability, Academic Workload, hybrid teaching, remote learning.